Chennai Court September 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.
Giridharadoss Company, Proprietors, Sowcar Lodd Govindass Krishnadoss ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad193; (1928)54MLJ316
1. These appeals arise out of applications filed by landholders for enforcing the terms of a decree fixing a certain time for payments and ordering eviction of the tenants from the land in default of payments within that time. The decree that is sought to be executed, decree in A.S. No. 49 of 1919, Temporary Sub-Court, Vellore, after directing the defendant to pay rent to the plaintiffs mesne profits and costs, in paragraph 4 stated 'that, if the defendant pays plaintiffs the arrears of rent together with interest at 6 per cent per annum and costs in both courts on or before 20th February, 1920, he be relieved as against forfeiture and, in case of default, the defendant be evicted and the plaintiffs be put in possession of the respective land'. The respondents before us not Having paid their dues under the decree before the 20th-of February, 1920, the plaintiffs applied for enforcing the terms and getting possession of the property. It has now Been found by the lower courts that the pa...
V. Arumugam Pillai Vs. V. Kandasami Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad211a
1. There is no sufficient reason to interfere with the Subordinate Judge's order. There was indeed no need for the petitioner to get the order that the inquiry into the original petition would proceed ex-parte, so far as he was concerned, set aside, if, as is now explained for him, he wanted only to take part in the case at the stage which it had reached. When he eventually did appear, he was entitled to take part in the proceedings and is still entitled to do so, provided that his intervention at this stage does not delay the proceedings. For instance, if the evidence had been closed, it would not be proper to allow him to call fresh evidence unless he has satisfied the Subordinate Judge that he had good reason for not appearing earlier. On that point the Subordinate Judge was not satisfied, and I see no sufficient reason to differ from him. The petition is dismissed with costs....
Jainul Abideen Marakayar and ors. Vs. Habibulla Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad430
1. This is an appeal against an order of remand passed under Order 41, Rule 23, Civil P.C., in A.S. 180 of 1926.2. The defendants are the appellants and the plaintiff the respondent before us. The suit was brought by the plaintiff, mortgagee, to enforce a covenant of preemption in his favour in a mortgage-deed, dated 10th September 1923 (Ex. A), executed by defendant 1. Under that covenant, the mortgagor, defendant, agreed that in the event of his deciding to sell the mortgaged properties within the period fixed in the mortgage bond for the payment of the mortgage debt, he should offer them for sale at the then market price, in the first instance, to the plaintiff. The plaintiff's case is that in breach of the said covenant defendant 1 sold the mortgaged properties to his wife, defendant 2, for Rs. 700 by a registered sale-deed, Ex II, dated 5th November 1923. The plaintiff says that defendant took the sale-deed with notice of his right of pre-emption, and that he is therefore entitled...
Dodla Rami Reddi Vs. Penubolu Venkatanarasimalu Setti and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad458
Madhavan Nair, J.1. This civil miscellaneous second appeal arises out of a. petition filed by the appellant to recognize the assignment to him of the decree passed in O.S. 10 of 1920 on the file of the Principal District Munsif of Nellore and for execution of the same. In that suit one Katakam Lakshamaya obtained a. decree against defendant 5 for a sum of Rs. 312. This was assigned by the decree-holder to the present appellant. When notice of the assignment was sent to the judgment-debtor, he filed an objection petition in which he pleaded that the assignment was intended to defraud the counter-petitioner's company of its due in O.S. 251 of 1920 and that the decree was assigned for a smaller sum than was really due to the decree-holder.2. Both the Courts held that there was no consideration for the assignment deed Ex. A and that it was intended to prevent the counter-petitioner's company from setting off the decree amount in O.S. 251 of 1920 against the amount in O.S. 10 of 1920. In ho...
Dodla Rami Reddi Vs. Penubolu Venkatanarasimhulu Setti and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-1927
Reported in: 109Ind.Cas.617
1. This civil miscellaneous second appeal arises out of a petition filed by the appellant to recognise the assignment to him of the decree passed in O.S. No. 10 of 1920 on the file of the principal District Munsif of Nellore and for execution of the same. In that suit one Katakam Lakshmayya obtained a decree against the 5th defendant for a sum of Rs. 312. This was assigned by the decree holder to the present appellant. When notice of the assignment was sent to the judgment-debtor, he filed an objection petition in which he pleaded that the assignment was intended to defraud the counter-petitioner's company of its due in O.S. No. 251 of 1920 and that the decree was assigned for a smaller sum than was really due to the decree-holder. Both the Courts held that there was no consideration for the assignment deed Ex. A. and that it was intended to prevent the counter-petitioner's company from setting off the decree amount in O.S. No. 251 of 1920 against the amount in O.S. No. 10 of 1920. In ...
The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Mohideen Sahib of Bellary
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-1927
Reported in: 106Ind.Cas.226
1. The question referred is, 'Whether a body of individuals who have agreed to take in auction, work and share the profits from four toddy shops can be taxed under Section 3 of the Income Tax Act on the combined profits of the four shops.'2. The Income-tax Commissioner finds that there was a body of seven persons who formed a sort of partnership. Of these seven persons, four bid and obtained leases of four toddy shops and the profits from those four toddy shops were shared between the seven persons; apparently also all the seven assisted in the working and financing of those shops. On this finding he holds that this association of persons was not an illegal association under the Abkari Rules, Here the petitioner's Vakil questions that finding and contends that his client and others have offended against the law in that they have contravened the provisions of Rule 27 of the General Conditions of those licenses, viz., 'No privilege of supply or vend shall be sold, transferred or sub-rent...
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Binny and Co. (London), by Agents B ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-1927
Reported in: (1927)53MLJ672
1. What we are asked to determine is the meaning of the words 'tax was recovered' in Section 50 of the Indian Income-tax Act. It is contended by the assessee that the word 'recovered' which ordinarily has the meaning of taking back must refer to the repayment of the tax in the United Kingdom referred to in Section 49 and that the words 'tax was recovered' must be read as meaning tax was refunded to the assessee under the provisions of Section 27 of the Finance Act of 1920. Unfortunately for this contention we see that S.50 is applicable not only to Section 49 but also to Section 48; and if we are to apply this meaning of the word 'recovered' to Section 48, it would mean that when a person had obtained a refund under Section 48 he is given under Section 50 another year within which to apply for that same refund. It certainly makes nonsense of these two sections. The word 'recovered' does not necessarily mean the actual taking back of what has been given as is obvious from its use throug...
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Yagappa Nadar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad1038; (1927)53MLJ666
1. The question referred by the Income-tax Commissioner is:Whether toddy extracted from cocoanut trees situate on lands assessed to Government revenue is or is not agricultural income 'within the meaning of Section 2(1) and whether the Income-tax Act applies to profits derived from the sale of such toddy.2. It is contended for the petitioner that he as lessee of the trees is entitled to treat the income derived from the toddy which is produced from these trees as agricultural income. The juice which by contact with air in time becomes toddy is a product of these cocoanut trees and it is contended that as such it is an agricultural product. That undoubtedly is so, and the income derived therefrom by the person who has produced that product by agricultural operations would be agricultural income, but it does not at all follow that if he sells the juice to another person and that person makes an income by again selling that product, the latter income is agricultural income. Ordinarily, it...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Binny and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad1039
1. What we are asked to determine is the meaning of the words 'tax was recovered' in Section 50, Indian Income-tax Act. It is contended by the assessee that the word 'recovered,' which ordinarily has the meaning of 'taking back' must refer to the repayment of tax in the United Kingdom, referred to in Section 49, and that the words 'tax was recovered' must be read as meaning 'tax was refunded to the assessee under the provisions of Section 27, Finance Act, 1920.' Unfortunately for this contention we see that Section 50 is applicable not only to Section 49, but also to Section 48; and if we are to apply this meaning of the word 'recovered' to Section 48, it would mean that when a person had obtained a refund under Section 48 he is given under Section 50 another year within which to apply for that same refund. This certainly makes nonsense of these two sections. The word 'recovered' does not necessarily mean the actual taking back of what has been given as is obvious from its use througho...
Veeraraghavachariar, Late a Minor by Guardians, Rukmani Ammal and anr. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad1073; (1927)53MLJ792
William Phillips, Officiating C.J.1. The question that has been referred for our opinion is:In a temple scheme settled by the Court where liberty to apply is reserved to a person or persons (a) to ask for directions as to carrying out the scheme or (b) to move the Court for alterations or modifications of the scheme--is this reservation intra vires of the Court or is a separate suit necessary either under the provisions of Section 92, Civil Procedure Code, or on the 'ground that the suit has come to an end and the Court therefore functus officio?2. This question has been decided by a Bench of this Court in Abdul Hakim Baig v. Burratniddin ILR (1925) M 580 where it was held that the provision in a scheme for an application being made for relief specified in Section 92, Civil Procedure Code, was ultra vires. The same view was also taken by another Bench of this Court in Brahmayya v. Venkatasuryanarayanamurthy (1925) 50 MLJ 409 and in Narayanamurthi v. Achayya Sastrulu : AIR1925Mad411 , S...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »