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.
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Rm. P.L.S. Sivaswami Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad127; 124Ind.Cas.205
1. The points referred to us for decision are, (1) whether a combined notice under Sections 23(2) and 22(4) is a valid notice, and whether on a non-compliance of the terms of such a notice, an assessment under Section 23(4) could be justified and (2) whether in respect of an assessee who has submitted a return of his income under Section 22(2), a notice issued under Section 22(4) is valid so as to justify an assessment under Section 23(4) in the event of noncompliance of the terms of the notice2. As regards the first point we think it is covered by authority. That a combined notice may be sent has been held in In the matter of Harmukhrai Dulichand : AIR1928Cal587 , In the matter of Chandra Sen Jaini : AIR1928All283 , Commissioner of Income Tax, Burma v. Chettyar Firm 117 Ind. Cas. 564 : 7 R. 26 : A.I.R. 1929 Rang. 38 : Ind. Rul. (1929) Rang. 196 and Ram Kissendas Bagri v.. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengal 2 Ind. Tax Cas. 324.3. The second question has, we think, been practically answ...
Doraiswami thevar Vs. Chidambaram Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-1929
Reported in: 122Ind.Cas.175
Jackson, J.1. Petitioner is 2nd defendant in O.S. No. 160 of 1927 District Munsif's Court, Mayavaram. The plaintiff died and the respondents (Nos. 1 to 3) applied to be brought on the record as his legal representatives. They pleaded to be entitled to be brought on because the plaintiff had been suing in the character of their benamidar and they are the persons really interested in the suit, The learned District Munsif has accepted their plea without addressing his mind to its merits. He simply states that having found the plaintiff to be their benamidar they are in his opinion entitled to be recognised as legal representatives.2. This recognition would be under Order XXII, Rule 3, Schedule I, 'shall cause the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff to be made a party.' And Section 2, Clause (11), Civil Procedure Code, defines what a legal representative is. It is not suggested that the respondents (Nos. 1 to 3) in law represent the estate of the deceased but it is argued that t...
J.A. Sankara Raju Vs. Kuppammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-1929
Reported in: (1930)58MLJ98
Ramesam, J.1. The facts of this case are as follow:One Narayanaswami Naicker became an insolvent. He was adjudicated on the 2nd of July, 1928. One of the creditors mentioned in the schedule was Kuppammal. She was described as a mortgagee by deposit of title deeds. She applied on the 3rd of October for sale of the secured properties under Article 18 of the second schedule to the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act. Before her application came on for orders, there was a meeting of the creditors and a composition scheme was settled according to which the creditors were to be paid Re. 0-3-9 in the rupee; and two guarantors, namely Sankararaja, brother-in-law of the insolvent, and Govindarajulu Naicker promised to find Rs. 11,000 to make up the sum required for paying the creditors. They were to be given possession of the residuary assets of the insolvent and the benefit of the 'good will and possession of the business premises, namely, No. 134, Anna Pillai Street and an iron safe. The first pe...
In Re: Krishna Pannadi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-1929
Reported in: (1930)58MLJ352
ORDERJackson, J.1. The petitioner has been sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment for stabbing a man in the neck with a spear, and six months' rigorous imprisonment concurrently for hurting a man in S.C. No. 158 of 1928, Coimbatore. In S.C. No. 1.57 of 1928 he was the complainant, with the plea that certain of the prosecution witnesses in S.C. No. 158 had set upon him.2. There is no clear law as regards the procedure in counter-cases, a defect which the legislature ought to remedy.3. It is a generally recognised rule that such cases should be tried in quick. succession by the same Judge, who should not pronounce judgment till the hearing of both cases is finished.4. This precludes the danger of an accused being convicted before his whole case is before the Court, and also prevents there being conflicting judgments upon similar facts. But at the same time the rule involves obvious difficulty. It seems to infringe the fundamental principle that the Court must not import any facts ...
(Lodd) Govindoss Krishnadoss Vs. Gopeswar Lalji Maharaj and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad231
Ramesam, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the decree of our brother, Kumaraswami Sastri, J., in C.S. No. 192 of 24 which was a suit brought by the plaintiff for a declaration of his hereditary right to the management of the temple of Sri Vittalnathjee in Ekambareswar Agraharam, Madras, and that the defendant has no right to cancel the power-of-attorney executed by him in favour of the plaintiff and for an injunction. The learned Judge dismissed the suit and the plaintiff appeals.2. The facts of the case may be thus stated: In the year 1896 one Ganga Bai, widow of the plaintiff's paternal grandfather's brother, built a temple for Sri Vittalnathjee in Ekambareswar Agraharam and in 1900 she executed a Bhot Patra (Ex. A) in which she mentions the fact of her having built the temple in 1896 and got the idols of Sri Vittalnathjee and Sri Swaminijee installed therein and of having set apart a sum of Rs. 40,000 for the seva, puja, utsavams and other festivals of the deities and ...
Dakshinamoorthi Pathan Vs. Krishnasami Kadavaran and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad356
Anantakrishna Ayyar, J.1. The plaintiff's application for the passing of a final decree for the sale of the hypotheca in pursuance of the preliminary decree passed in his favour on 1st February 1918 fixing the time for payment as 1st August 1918. though allowed by the District Munsif, was disallowed by the learned Subordinate Judge of Tanjore on the ground that the petition was barred by limitation under Article 181, Limitation Act. The plaintiff has preferred this second appeal.2. Original Suit No. 47 of 1917 was a suit instituted by the plaintiff to recover money due on two hypothecation bonds, dated 30th November 1898, and 7th November 1914, respectively, the first bond comprising plaint items 1 to 3, while the second comprised plaint items 4 and 5. The mortgagor was defendant 1 and his son defendant 2 and defendant 3 claimed title, as auction, purchaser, to items 4 and 5, while defendant 4 was a private alienee of items 1 to 3. The preliminary decree passed by the First Court is da...
Krishna Pannadi Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad190; 123Ind.Cas.10
ORDERJackson, J.1. The petitioner has been sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment for stabbing a man in the neck with a spear, and 6 months' rigorous imprisonment concurrently for hurting a man in S C. No. 158 of 1923, Coimbatore. In S.C. No. 157 of 1928 he was the complaint, with the plea that certain of the prosecution witnesses in S.C. No. 158 had set upon him.2. There is no clear law as regards the procedure in counter cases, a defect which the legislature ought to remedy.3. It is a generally recognized rule that such cases should be tried in quick succession by the same Judge, who should not pronounce judgment till the hearing of both cases is finished.4. This precludes the danger of an accused being convicted before his whole case is before the Court, and also prevents there being conflicting judgments upon similar facts. But at the same time the rule involves obvious difficulty. It seems to infringe the fundamental principle that the Court must not import any facts into a...
Dakshnamoorthi Pathan Vs. Krishnasami Kadavaran and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-1929
Reported in: 123Ind.Cas.199
Anantakrishna Iyer, J.1. The plaintiff's application for the passing of a final decree for the sale of the hypotheca in pursuance of the preliminary decree passed in his favour on 1st February, 1918, fixing the time for payment as 1st August, 1918, though allowed by the District Munsif, was disallowed by the learned Subordinate Judge of Tanjore on the ground that the petition was barred by limitation under Article 181 of the Limitation Act. The plaintiff has preferred this second appeal.2. Original Suit No. 47 of 1917 was a suit instituted by the plaintiff to recover money due on two hypothecation bonds, dated the 30th November, 1898 and 7th November 1914, respectively, the first bond comprising plaint items Nos. 1 to 3, while the second comprised plaint items Nos. 4 and 5. The mortgagor was the 1st defendant and his son the 2nd. The 3rd defendant claimed title, as auction-purchaser, to items Nos. 4 and 5, while the 4th defendant was a private alienee of items Nos. 1 to 3. The prelimin...
P.L.N.K.M. Nagappa Chettiar Vs. the Official Assignee of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-1929
Reported in: (1930)58MLJ36
Waller, J.1. The applicant, as a co-trustee of the insolvent, asks that an account shall be taken of the amount due to the trust and for a first charge on the assets in the hands of the Official Assignee to the extent of the sum found due. In January, 1916, there was a partition between the applicant and his brother on the one side and the insolvent on the other. At the time of the partition it was agreed that the parties should set aside two sums of Rs. 10,000 for each of two charities. The applicant's branch was to contribute five-eighths, the insolvent's share being the remaining three-eighths. The applicant accordingly drew two hundis in favour of the insolvent on a firm styled O.R.M.O.M.S.P. The money realised on these hundis was left on deposit with that firm, an account being opened in the name of each of the charities, and was to carry interest at the Nadappu rate. There it remained until February, 1920, when the two accounts were transferred to the insolvent's own business. In...
R.M.V.R.M. Virappa Chettiar Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad123; (1930)58MLJ95
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. The question referred to us is, whether there is any evidence to justify the finding that the purchase and sale of lands formed part of any business which the assessee was carrying on. The Income-tax Officer in this case proceeds on what he says is a well-known fact that in the course of their business abroad and as a part of it Nattukottai Chetties purchase land and other properties when they are cheap and hold them until such time as they are able to sell them at a good price and that during the period these properties are in their possession the income derived, if any, on the one hand and the expense of maintenance, if any, on the other are included in their business accounts. In the present case, there is no evidence afforded by the books that the income derived and the expense incurred were included and made part of the firm's business accounts. All that appears is that these Chetties purchased one item of property in 1919 and another item of property in 1...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »