Chennai Court October 1929 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.
Damodaran Alias the Kuthiravattath Nair Avl. Vs. the Board of Commissi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad392; (1930)58MLJ494
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. The point referred to us for decision is what is the proper Court-fee payable in respect of an application filed under Section 84 (2) of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, II of 1927, to modify or set aside a decision of the Hindu Religious Endowments Board under Section 84 (1) of the Act? Under Schedule II of the said Act, the Court-fee payable on such an application is the fee leviable on a plaint under Article 17, Schedule II of the Madras Court-fees Amendment Act of 1922. The Madras Court-fees Amendment Act contains three Articles, namely, 17, 17-A and 17-B. The short point for consideration is whether Articles 17-A and 17-B must be read as parts of Article 17 or as independent Articles.2. The view taken by Phillips and Odgers, JJ., in Godasankara Valia Rajah v. Board of Commissioners for Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras (1928) 56 M.L.J. 113 is that Articles 17-A and 17-B must be read as parts of Article 17. The learned Judges observe that when th...
V. Seemiah Naidu Vs. Abdul Wahab Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1929
Reported in: 123Ind.Cas.809
ORDER1. This is a petition to revise the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Chittoor dismissing the appeal to him from an order of the Stationary Sub-Magistrate of Chittoor whereby the petitioner who was the complainant in a case of assault before that Magistrate was ordered to pay under &. 250 of the Criminal Procedure Code Rs. 100 by way of compensation to the accused as, in his opinion, the complaint was false and vexatious.2. Two points are taken in his petition, viz., (1) that the appellate Magistrate acted without jurisdiction in taking further evidence purporting to act under Section 428 of the Criminal Procedure Code, because, according to the appellant's Advocate, the appeal was not one under Chap. XXXI of the Criminal Procedure Code to which alone Section 428 applies and (2) that the appellate Magistrate acted illegally in omitting to record reasons for taking further evidence as he was required to do under Section 428.3. As to the first objection reliance is placed up...
Shum Shu Bibi Vs. Muhammad Rashid Ali Khan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad355; 126Ind.Cas.110a
1. We think that an order directing a certain amount to be paid into Court on an application for security for costs is an order under Order XLI, Rule 10, Schedule I, Civil Procedure Code, the non-compliance with which will entail the dismissal of the appeal. In this case the amount was not paid into Court within the time ordered, and Phillips, J., dismissed the second appeal. We see no grounds for interference. This Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed with costs of respondents Nos. 1 to 4....
Maila Rai Vs. Derappa and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad924; (1930)59MLJ234
1. This is an appeal against the decision of Phillips, J., reversing the decree of both the Lower Courts and dismissing the suit to redeem.2. The facts are shortly these. A deed of mortgage executed in 1844 was sought to be redeemed. The deed which is said to be a usufructuary mortgage deed, dated the 11th of December, i844, begins by stating that the mortgagor on account of his necessity usufructuarily mortgaged to the mortgagee for 248 varahas the property described in the document, The material portion is as follows:Thus in total I received from you 248 varahas as detailed above and delivered this day to your possession the entire land, bagayat house, cow-pen and also out-house bearing the said beriz and I have also given to you one decision obtained by me in respect of the said land and also one yadast executed by Shama Rao, Amin of Uppinangadi Taluk Munsiff's Court, for having delivered the said land to me. In future you alone shall pay the sirkar tirva to Government and enjoy the...
Dost Mahomed Vs. V. Browne and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad354; (1930)58MLJ187
Cornish, J.1. This appeal raises a question of the High Court's jurisdiction in insolvency. The debtor, V. Browne, was adjudicated insolvent upon his own petition by this Court on the 25th July, 1928. In his petition he described himself as residing at No. 10, Old Jail Road, Royapnram, Madras. The appellant, who is the principal creditor of the debtor, as soon as he heard of the adjudication, moved the Court to annul it, his allegation being that the High Court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the debtor an insolvent. The question depends upon Section 11 (b), Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, which requires as a condition to the exercise of the High Court's jurisdiction that the debtor, within a year before the date of the presentation of the insolvency petition, has ordinarily resided or had a dwelling-house within the limits of the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of the High Court.2. The debtor is an engine driver in the employment of the M. & S. M. Ry. Co., and, for the four ye...
In Re: Kondalu Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad427; (1929)57MLJ783
1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal from the judgment of Mr. Justice Jackson and the question is, does the appeal lie? There was a Second Appeal filed, and in that an application was made for stay of execution of the decree of the Lower Appellate Court. The application was dismissed by Mr. Justice Jackson and this is an appeal from his order.2. It is on account of the recent amendment of the Letters Patent that the present question arises. There was no certi-ficate granted by the learned Judge declaring that the case is a fit one for appeal. Mr. Venkatasubramania Aiyar's contention is this. The order in question is not a judgment passed by the High Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. The very expression 'Appellate Jurisdiction,' he contends, involves a scrutiny of a proceeding of an inferior Court. The order of the High Court refusing stay is not related to any order of the Lower Court and has an independent existence. Moreover,, power to grant or refuse stay is conferr...
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. S.M. Perianna Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad113; (1930)58MLJ10
Curgenven, J.1. In this case the Commissioner of Income-tax refers the following question for the decision of this Court:Where an assessee applies for adjournment by post or by telegram of an enquiry in respect of which he has been required by a notice under Section 23(2) to produce evidence and the Income-tax Officer grants an adjournment, is the letter (or the telegram, where it is a telegram) intimating the fact of the adjournment to the assessee either a notice under Section 23(2), or a requisition within the meaning of Section 63, of the Act?2. To understand precisely the nature of this question, it is necessary to look at the circumstances out of which it arose.3. The assessee made his return on 19th June, 1928, and on 22nd September a notice under Sections 23(2) and 22 (4) was issued to him requiring him to produce his accounts on 4th October. On 3rd October he sent a telegram pleading a private engagement and asking for an adjournment for two weeks. If this has been granted in ...
T.M.M. Sankaralinga Nadar and Brothers Vs. the Commissioner of Income- ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-1929
Reported in: (1930)58MLJ260
1. The assessees are a Hindu joint family and were sought to be assessed for the year 1926-27 as members of a joint family. They claimed an allowance for interest which they said was paid on sums of money standing in the books as borrowings from the wives of the male members. These sums according to the assessees have been standing for several years in their books as moneys which belonged to the ladies and which they lent to the firm and on which interest has been paid to them. So far as the female members are concerned, it is not disputed that they were being taxed separately as if the interest paid to them was income which they derived from moneys which they lent to the firm. This was going on till 1923 when the Income-tax Officer instituted an enquiry as to whether these sums were really loans to the trade made by the female members. Notice was given, enquiry was held, affidavits were filed and the Income-tax Officer came to the conclusion that these were loans and the allowance was...
Kondireddi Bulliraju Alias Achayamma Vs. Kondireddi Satyanarayanamurth ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-1929
Reported in: (1930)58MLJ388
ORDERAnantakrishna Aiyar, J.1. Under Section 15 of the amended Letters Patent, an appeal would lie from the decision of a single Judge of the High Court passed in a second appeal, where the Judge who passed the judgment declares that the case is a fit one for appeal. In Ramanayya v. Kotayya : (1929)57MLJ398 a Bench of this Court held that no appeal lay from the refusal of such leave by the Judge.2. The question has been raised before me as to the grounds on which leave to appeal should be granted or refused in such cases. The section only enacts that the Judge concerned should 'declare' that the case is a fit one for appeal. The principles that should guide him in dealing with such applications are not specified in the section.3. It was argued that if there was any question of law, leave must be granted. It was further argued that, if a second appeal was allowed, and the decision of the Lower Appellate Court reversed or modified, leave must be given since the single. Judge had no juris...
T.M. M. Sankaralinga Nadar and Brother Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-1929
Reported in: 126Ind.Cas.273
1. The assessees are a Hindu joint family and were sought to be assessed for the year 1926-27 as members of a joint family. They claimed an allowance for interest which they said was paid on sums of money standing in the books as borrowings from the wives of the male members. These sums according to the assessees have been standing for several years in their books as moneys which belonged to the ladies and which they lent to the firm and on which interest has been paid to them. So far as the female members are concerned, it is not disputed that they were being taxed separately as if the interest paid to them was income which they derived from moneys which they lent to the firm. This was going till 1823 when the Income Tax Officer instituted enquiry as to whether these sums were really loans to the trade made by the female members. Notice was given, enquiry was held, affidavits were filed and the Income Tax Officer came to the conclusion that these were loans and the allowance was made ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »