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.
O.R.M.O.M.S.P. Lakshmanan Chettiar of Karaikudi Vs. the Commissioner o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad121; (1930)58MLJ68
1. In this case the facts are shortly these: The petitioner carried on business in money-lending in Madras In the course of such business, one P. L. N. K. Subramaniam Chetti owed him about Rs. 50,000. Subramaniam Chetti failed and to discharge his debt he transferred certain properties to the petitioner for 26,000 dollars. The items transferred consisted of monies due on simple money debts, monies due on mortgage, items and also rubber plantations. As regards monies due on simple money debts the petitioner recovered a smaller stum than the amount for which they were transferred and he wrote off, Rs. 5,733 in the accounts and claimed that this was a business loss and got a reduction of income-tax. As regards the mortgage items, while a certain portion of the mortgaged property was recovered, he was not able to recover the amount for which they were assigned and he also claimed it as a business loss and got a deduction. As regards the rubber estate it was sold at a profit and the questio...
P.L.N.K.M. Nagappa Chettiar Vs. Official Assignee
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-1929
Reported in: 126Ind.Cas.283
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 wag 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 5/8, and the insolvent's share being the remaining 3/8. The applicant accordingly drew two hundis in favour of the insolvent on a firm styled O.R.M.O.M.S.P. The money realized 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 1925 he was ad...
Ponnuswami Goundan and anr. Vs. Kalyanasundara Ayyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad770
Anantakrishna Ayyar, J.1. This second appeal raises a somewhat important question relating to the construction of Section 67, Evidence Act. The original suit was instituted by the plaintiff for a declaration that he is the owner of the lands in suit, that the defendants had no occupancy rights, that the defendants were in possession as lessees under the plaintiff and for the recovery of possession of the land with mesne profits. The defendants pleaded that they were entitled to occupancy rights in the suit lands, that the plaintiff was not entitled to eject them, and that the plaintiff was entitled only to recover a rent of Rs. 10 per annum and not any mesne profits.2. To prove the contention of the plaintiff, the plaintiff put in Ex. M, a muchilika alleged to have been executed by defendant 1 to Ramaswami Iyer, the plaintiff's vendor, on 2nd August 1893. Defendant 1 denied having executed Ex. M. He is a marksman, not able to write his name. Ex. M purports to have been executed by defe...
P.L.M.P.L. Palaniappa Chettiar Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad126; 122Ind.Cas.339; (1930)58MLJ23
1. The question we are asked to answer is:When an Income Tax Officer takes action tinder Section 34 of the Income come Tax Act for the purpose of raising the rate of tax on the ground that the rate originally fixed was too low is not the Income Tax Officer bound to re-assess the income that is, to determine afresh the correct taxable income of the assessee?2. Section 34 refers to income escaping assessment and it provides that in such cases it may either be that the income has escaped assessment or has been assessed at too low a rate the Income Tax Officer may serve on the person liable to pay tax on such income, profits or gains, or, in the case of a Company, on the principal officer thereof, a notice containing all or any of the requirements which may be included under Sub-section (2) of Section 22 and may proceed to assess or re-assess such income, profits or gains, and that the provision of this Act shall, as far as possible, apply accordingly as if the notice were a notice issued ...
Kethireddi Kodandarami Reddi, by Mother and Next Friend, Seethamma Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad479; (1930)59MLJ531
Anantakrishna Aiyar, J.1. This second appeal preferred by the defendant arose out of a suit for maintenance filed by his step-mother against him, a minor. The plaintiff and the defendant's mother are co-widows and they were married on the same day to Chinna Subba Reddi who died on 16th April, 1918. The plaintiff filed her suit for maintenance on 12th April, 1923 and she claimed future maintenance from April, 1923, at Rs. 40 per mensem and also Rs. 120 for arrears of maintenance for January, February and March, 1923. The main plea of the defendant was that there was a will executed by the defendant's father under which the plaintiff was entitled to only the income from the two acres of wet land mentioned in the will, and that in any event she had jewels to the extent of Rs. 800 and also monies to the extent of Rs. 2,000, and consequently she was not entitled to maintenance claimed in the plaint. The District Munsi'f held that: the plaintiff was entitled to maintenance, since the questio...
Muthuswami Servaigaran and anr. Vs. Thangammal Ayiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad242; (1930)58MLJ148
ORDER1. This Criminal Revision Petition has been posted before us for a decision upon two preliminary points.2. The facts are that the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Pattukottai, in exercise of his powers under Section 144, Criminal Procedure Code, directed the petitioners to vacate the Nagaram Palace building forthwith on the ground that the occupation caused annoyance and obstruction to the Zamindarini and was likely to cause an immediate disturbance of the public tranquillity and a riot. In accordance with this order the Palace was vacated and an application was subsequently made under Sub-section (4) of Section 144, Criminal Procedure Code, to the Additional District Magistrate of Tanjore to rescind the order of the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Pattukottai. This application he rejected. The original order was dated 23rd January, 1929 and the order rejecting the petition was on the 23rd February. The petitioners then presented this revision petition. When it came on for hearing before...
S.L.S. Chettiappa Chettiar and ors. Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad119
1. The point referred to us for decision is whether there was any evidence before the Commissioner of Income-tax on which he could find that the $ 30,000 remitted from Ipoh to Madras during the year of assessment was remitted not in 'discharge of the debt owed by the Ipoh branch to the assessee but as the latters' share of the profits and (2) whether the sum of $ 48,460 $ 793, $ 1,225, $ 1,806 and $ 604 amounting in all to $ 52,888 can be held to be income derived from business and not merely accretions of capital?2. The facts are shortly these: There was a firm in Madras and a firm in Ipoh carrying on money-lending business. The partners were the same. During the course of dealings moneys were due by the Ipoh firm to the Madras firm. The Ipoh firm was making profits in the accounting year 1925-26 the year of assessment being 1926-27. In the accounting year sums were remitted out of the Ipoh profits to this Madras firm, which in the Madras accounts were appropriated to wipe off the deb...
Swarnammal Vs. K. Muniswami Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad225; 122Ind.Cas.800
ORDERJackson, J.1. The procedure of the learned 2nd Presidency Magistrate cannot be supported. He dismissed a complaint and discharged the accused which he is empowered to do under Section 370, Criminal P.C., without giving any reasons. But he elected to give as his reason that there was no legal evidence. This was taken up on revision and on the face of the record the learned Presidency Magistrate is wrong and there is legal evidence, the sworn statement of P.W. 3. But the Magistrate submits a report under Section 441, Criminal P.C., reiterating his statement that there is no legal evidence, and recording for the first time that he disbelieves P.W. 3. This argues great confusion of mind because if the evidence of P.W. 3 requires judicial consideration there evidently is legal evidence.2. It seems obvious that at the time he discharged the accused the Magistrate never directed his mind to the credibility of P.W. 3, because he held that there was no legal evidence.3. His subsequent argu...
S.L.S. Chettiappa Chettiar Karaikudi and ors. Vs. the Commissioner of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-1929
Reported in: 122Ind.Cas.349
1. The point referred to us for decision is (1) whether there was any evidence before the Commissioner of Income Tax on which he could find that the $ 30.000 remitted from Ipoh to Madras during the year of assessment was remitted not in discharge of the debt owed by the Ipoh branch to the assessee but as the latter's share of the profits and (2) whether the sum of $ 48,460, $793, $ 12,225, $ 1,806 and $ 604 amounting in all to $ 52,888 can, be held to be income derived from business and are not merely accretions of capital?2. The facts are shortly these. There was a firm in Madras and a firm in Ipoh carrying on money lending business. The partners were the same. During the course of the dealings, moneys were due by the Ipoh firm to the Madras firm. The Ipoh firm was making profits in the accounting year 1925-26, the year of assessment being 1926-27. In the accounting year sums were remitted out of the Ipoh profits to the Madras firm, which in the Madras accounts were appropriated to wi...
The Secretary of State for India in Council Represented by the Collect ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-09-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad576; (1930)59MLJ30
Curgenven, J.1. This petition is preferred by the Secretary of State against an order passed by the Subordinate Judge of Kumbakonam in a land acquisition case. Certain land of the respondent was acquired and under Section 10 of the Act (1 of 1894) he put in a claim to compensation which was made up of the value of the land, of some cocoanut trees, and of two walls, together with a sum claimed as compensation for depreciation of his property. In due course an award was made and subsequently the respondent asked the Collector under Section 18 to refer the matter for the determination of the Court. Before the Court he supplemented his claim by the addition of two new items, the cost of constructing new walls and the cost of erecting latrines. It was objected on behalf of the Government that the Court had no power to entertain such newly preferred claims. The learned Subordinate' Judge, however, found that in certain circumstances Section 25 gave him jurisdiction. He disallowed the claim i...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »