Chennai Court May 1927 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Trichinopoly Tennore Hindu Permanen ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-05-1927
Reported in: (1927)53MLJ881
1. In this reference three questions have been referred to this Court by the Commissioner of Income-tax. Of these, questions Nos. 2 and 3 have not been pressed. Then question No. 1 remains, that is:Should this Fund be assessed as a Mutual Benefit Society or as a Company?2. The Commissioner of Income-tax has decided that the Fund is not a Mutual Benefit Society and is therefore not entitled to the benefit of the ruling of this Court reported in Board of Revenue v. Mylapore Fund ILR (1923) 1(SB).3. In the main this question is a question of fact and this Court will not differ from the finding unless that finding is vitiated by some error of law. The chief contention of the learned vakil who appears for the Fund is that the Commissioner has radically misunderstood the constitution of the Fund as set out in its Memorandum of Association and its Articles.4. The point at issue is whether the Fund is a society constituted essentially for the mutual benefit of its members or whether it is an o...
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sheikh Abdul Kadir Marakayar and Co ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-05-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad257; 108Ind.Cas.73; (1928)54MLJ298
Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.1. By order of this Court, dated the 9th day of November, 1925, the Commissioner of Income-tax has referred for the decision of this Court the following questions:(a) Whether a Commissioner is empowered by way of review or revision to impose the assessment and penalty levied by him by his order, dated 8th September, 1925, against the firm of Sheikh Abdul Khader Marakayar and Company;(b) Whether in the circumstances of this case the powers of review under Section 33 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, could be exercised by the Commissioner with a view to re-open and enhance an assessment made under the old Income-tax Act of 1918;(c) Whether Sections 33 and 28 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, are not controlled by the provisions of Section 34 of the same Act;(d) Whether the Commissioner in exercise of the powers under Section 33 can re-open and enhance an assessment more than one year old and levy penalty under Section 28 in respect of such an assessment.2. All the facts neces...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Trichinopoly Tennore Hindu Permanent Fu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-05-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad1078
1. In this reference three questions have been referred to this Court by the Commissioner of Income-tax. Of these, questions 2 and 3 have not been pressed. Then question 1 remains, that is:Should this Fund be assessed as a Mutual Benefit Society or as a company?2. The Commissioner of Income-tax has decided that the fund is not a mutual benefit society and is therefore, not entitled to the benefit of the ruling of this Court reported in Board of Revenue v. Mylapore Hindu Permanent Fund A. I. R. 1923 Mad. 684.3. In the main this question is a question of fact and this Court will not differ from the finding unless that finding is vitiated by some error of law. The chief contention of the learned vakil who appears for the fund is that the Commissioner has radically misunderstood the constitution of the fund as set out in its memorandum of Association and its Articles.4. The point at issue is whether the fund is a society constituted essentially for the mutual benefit of its members, or whe...
Ry. Pratap Sinha Raja Sahib Vs. R. Srinivasagopalachariar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-05-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad15
ORDERCurgenven, J.1. This is an application to transfer a suit upon a promissory note which was instituted by the endorsee of the note in, the Court of Small Causes, Madras, on 3rd November 1926. The suit was first decreed ex parte on the 30th November 1926 and subsequently restored on the 2nd February 1927. A preliminary point has been taken that under Section 22, Civil P.C., it is incumbent upon the defendant who seeks a transfer of the suit to make his application at the ' earliest possible opportunity ' and that this condition was not complied with here. It appears that after the setting aside of the decree on the 2nd February an application was made on the 5th for a revocation of the leave granted to file the suit in Madras and that this application was eventually dismissed on the 25th February. The defendant came here with this petition on the 3rd March 1927. I do not think it would be reasonable to have expected him to have moved before the 5th February when the suit was formall...
(Vaddiraju) Venkata Jagga Rao Vs. Pitta Ranganayakulu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-05-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad48
Phillips, J.1. The petitioner seeks to revise an order passed by the Agent to the Governor at Vizagapatam setting aside the dismissal of a suit for default and ordering its restoration to file. It is here contended that the power under Agency E. 55, given to the Agent to the Governor, can only be exercised if he is satisfied that the order of the lower Court is not according to law. It is significant that the Agency rules do not provide for any appeal against an order refusing to set aside a dismissal. Therefore the exercise of discretion by the first Court becomes final and is not subject to alteration by the appellate Court. If the Agent to the Governor was satisfied that this discretion had not been properly exercised by the first Court he would be justified in acting under Rule 55. In the present case, on the merits, his order is certainly rights for I am of opinion that the Special Assistant Agent omitted to take into consideration many circumstances which might probably have indu...
V.V. Rajabhadar Mudaliar Vs. Thiruvengada Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-05-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad20
1. The only point in the second appeal is whether defendant 1 is entitled to a charge in respect of the amount of consideration for Ex. 4 which was found to have passed. Ex. 4 was executed for a nominal consideration of Rs. 2,660 and the consideration found to have passed was only Rs. 1,044-15-0. More than Rs. 1,000 was not paid by defendant 1 towards the discharge of certain debts due from his mortgagor. The District Judge has definitely found that Ex. 4 was executed without consideration in part and presumably with intent to defeat or delay the creditors of defendants 2 and 3, viz., the plaintiffs. But he allows a charge in favour of defendant 1 in respect of the consideration which he finds to have been paid. When the finding clearly is that the document was executed with intent to defeat or delay the creditors, it cannot be said that the District Judge found the in tent only on the part of the alienors and not on the part of the alienee. Mr. Viswanatha Iyer strongly urges that, so ...
(Parambath Parkum Mattole) Kunhammad Hajee and ors. Vs. Chathoth Parku ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-05-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad38
1. The mortgagee decree-holder is the appellant. This C.M.S.A. arises out of an application filed by him to execute the decree which he obtained in a suit for sale of the mortgaged properties. The decree sought to be executed is a compromise decree. It provides for the sale of the properties if the decree amount is not paid within a certain time. It also provides that if the proceeds of the sale are insufficient, the judgment-debtor is to be personally liable to pay the balance to the decree-holder. After obtaining this decree, thinking that a final decree was necessary in this case, the appellant applied on three occasions for obtaining a final decree. On each of these occasions his application was dismissed. Then he made an application under Order 21, Rule 11, Civil P.C., for execution of the original decree.2. The respondent contended that the decree being only a preliminary decree there could be no execution till a final decree has been obtained and that the application 'was barred...
Karuppanna Konar and ors. Vs. Rangaswami Konar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-05-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad105a
Jackson, J.1. Plaintiffs sued for a declaration that a room belonged to the family of defendants and themselves in common. The lower appellate Court decreed the suit and defendants appeal. In the trial Court the District Munsif thought the oral evidence adduced by plaintiffs to be worthless. Witnesses said that they worshipped in the room with no clear idea how or what they worshipped. The lower appellate Court does not traverse the reasoning of the District Munsif but merely holds that the plaintiff's evidence is better than that of defendants' which may not necessarily mean that plaintiffs have made out their case. Evidently what chiefly impressed the learned Subordinate Judge was the entry in certain old documents that a boundary was the 'God's house enjoyed in common.' Ex. E, a partition deed of 1874, Ex. H, a mortgage of 1879, and Exs. A and B, sale deeds of 1881 all contain this recital. Their admissibility as evidence was challenged in the lower appellate Court and the Subordina...
Ganapathy Ayyar and anr. Vs. Rangaswamy Ayyangar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-05-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad168
1. The only point in this second appeal is whether the defendants 1 and 2 should be allowed to retain a portion of the property purchased by them, or whether they should be allowed to have only a charge for the amounts found binding upon the plaintiffs. The District Munsif decreed possession of the plaint property and gave a charge to the defendants 1 and 2 for the amounts binding on the plaintiffs. The Subordinate Judge has modified the decree by allowing defendants 1 and 2 to retain a portion of the property purchased by them. It is found by the Subordinate Judge that out of the consideration of Rs. 1,500/- for Ex. 2 only Rs. 912/- was binding upon the plaintiffs, and out of the consideration of Rs. 1,800 for Ex. I only Rs. 407 was found binding upon the plaintiffs. In these circumstances, the question is whether the Court would be justified in giving the defendants 1 and 2 any portion of the property purchased by them. When the consideration which is found binding upon the plaintiff...
Ammakutti Achi Vs. Doraiswami Aiyar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-05-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad140
1. This is an appeal by defendant 4 against the appellate order passed by the District Judge by which he confirmed the District Munsif's order refusing to set aside a sale in the following circumstances. A mortgage decree directed that items 1 to 3 of the mortgaged properties should be sold last and that item 4 should be sold first. Items 1 to 3 belonged to the present appellant. As regards item 4 an order staying sale had been obtained by defendant 1's son from the District Court on proceedings taken in connexion with O.S. 119 of 1925 in which he claimed item 4 as his own and asked for an injunction restraining its sale. The appellant though she had notice of the sale did not inform the Court that her properties were to be sold last according to the decree. Items 1 to 3 were sold in auction and then the appellant put in the present application under Sections 47 and 151, Civil P.C., to set aside the sale on the ground that the sale is bad because it took place contrary to the direction...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »