Chennai Court January 1930 Judgments
S.S. Subbiah Iyer Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1930
Reported in: (1930)58MLJ581
Owen Compton Beasley, C.J.1. In accordance with the order of the High Court, dated the 24th April, 1929, three questions have been referred to the High Court under Section 66 (3) of the Indian Income-tax Act by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras. Those questions are : (1) whether a sale and conveyance by a debtor of the assessee in respect of a money-lending business carried on by the assessee out of British India in discharge of the principal and interest of debt due to such business of lands situate in British India amounts to a remittance into British India of profits of the assessee made in that foreign business, (2) whether the presumption as to foreign remittances being from out of the profits is applicable or available in a case where the dealings between the British and the foreign businesses consist of large sums of money being more or less regularly repaid by remittances by the foreign business, and (3) whether the said presumption is applicable or available in a case whe...
Tag this Judgment!Subbiah Iyer Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1930
Reported in: (1930)58MLJ602
1. Two questions have been referred to the High Court, viz.:(1) 'Whether in the computation of foreign profits assessable under Section 4 (2) of the Income-tax Act, there is any presumption in law available to the Income-tax authorities entitling them, in the absence of any specific facts or evidence, to appropriate the remittance of a sum of money as one made successively from out of the assessee's profits in the first, second or third year of the period of three years, specified in the section and whether such allocation of the remittances to the earliest year of the said period based entirely on such a presumption of law is legal or whether the remittance in any year should first be set against the profits of that year, the balance against the unassessed profit of the immediately preceding year and so on' and(2) 'Whether a purchase of lands in British India by the assessee carrying on the money-lending business outside British India in satisfaction or part satisfaction of a loan adv...
Tag this Judgment!S.A. Subbiah Iyer Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Mad449
Beasley, C.J.1. In accordance with order of the High Court dated 24th April 1929 three questions have been referred to the High Court under Section 66 (3), Income-tax Act by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras. Those questions are: (1) whether a sale and conveyance by a debtor of the assessee in respect of a money lending business carried on by the assessee out of British India in discharge of the principal and interest of debt due to such business of lands situate in British India amounts to a remittance into British India of profits of the assessee made in that foreign business; (2) whether the presumption as to foreign remittances being from out of the profits is applicable or available in a case where the dealings between the British and the foreign business consist of large sums of money being more or less regularly repaid by remittances by the foreign business and (3) whether the said presumption is applicable or available in a case where the moneys remitted are in the current...
Tag this Judgment!Pinnamraju Rajamraju Vs. Potturi Tirupatiraju and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Mad670; 126Ind.Cas.601
ORDERPandalai, J.1. Four persons were accused before the Stationary Sub-Magistrate of Amalapur for offences under Sections 424 and 379, Indian Penal Code. The facts alleged against them were that in execution of a decree obtained, by P.W. No. 2, against one P. Subbaraju, since deceased, the decree-holder accompanied by an amin of the Munsif s Court P.W. No. 1 went to attach cattle belonging to the estate of the deceased, and that after the amin had attached one cow, a calf and a she-buffalo, the accused drove them away. The Stationary Sub-Magistrate examined witnesses including P.W. No. 1 the Court amin, P.W. No. 2 the decree holder and P. Ws, Nos. 3, 4 and 5 attestors to the attachment list. The Stationary Sub-Magistrate discharged the accused under Section 253(1) on the ground that the proceedings conducted by the amin P.W. No. 1 did not in law amount to actual attachment. He says:He (the amin) did not know what he had to do when he attached the property and so in the cross-examinati...
Tag this Judgment!Ramaswami Chettiar Minor by Next Friend S.R.M.S.A. Annamalai Chettiar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad357; (1931)60MLJ229
Eddy, J.1. It is a tribute to the learned Counsel who have appeared before me that my mind has fluctuated a good deal during the course of their arguments. Rightly or wrongly my mind is now stabilised. There are before me two applications. Both applications are made in a suit for partition entitled C.S. No. 762 of 1926 relating to a joint family known as the P.M.A. Firm. In that suit a preliminary decree was passed on the 22nd November, 1928. By that preliminary decree it was ordered and decreed that the suit be and thereby was referred to a Commissioner to take the following accounts:(a) an account of the property, credit and effects of the said joint family (inclusive of the assets, profits and liabilities of the said P.M.A. Firm belonging to the said joint family) as on the institution of the suit,(b) an account of the debts and liabilities of the said family outstanding, and(c) an account of all moneys of the joint family which have come into the hands of both or either of the defe...
Tag this Judgment!V. Narasimha Aiyangar, Official Liquidator of the City Hygienic Milk S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad58; (1931)60MLJ280
Ramesam, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of our brother Beasley, J., as he then was, dismissing an application of the Official Liquidator of the City Hygienic Milk Supply Co., Ltd., under Section 235 of the Indian Companies Act for an order compelling the Directors of the Company to pay certain amounts by way of compensation in respect of their acts of misfeasance, etc. Two points were raised before the learned Judge and both were decided against the applicant. The Official Liquidator appeals.2. In appeal the two points that arise are: (1) . Whether Directors of Companies under the Indian Companies Act are trustees for the purpose of Section 10 of the Limitation Act; and (2) if they are not trustees, from what date does limitation run.3. Taking up the first point, it is now clear that, even in England in spite of occasional use of loose expressions to the contrary, it is now settled that Directors of - Companies are not trustees. In In re Forest of Dean Coal Mining Company (187...
Tag this Judgment!Ramaswami Chettiar Vs. P.M.A. Vellayappa Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1930
Reported in: 131Ind.Cas.643
Eddy, J.1. It is a tribute to the learned Counsel who have appeared before me that my mind has fluctuated a good deal during the course of their arguments. Rightly or wrongly my mind is now stabilized. There are before me two applications. Both applications are made in a suit for partition entitled C.S. No. 762 of 1926 relating to a joint family known as the P.M.A. firm. In that suit a preliminary decree was passed on 22nd November, 1928. By that preliminary decree it was ordered and decreed that the suit be and thereby was referred to a commission to take the following accounts: '(a) An account of the property, credit and effects of the said joint family (inclusive of the assets, profits, and liabilities of the said P.M.A. firm belonging to the said joint family) as on the institution of the suit; (b) an account of the debts and liabilities of the said family outstanding, and (c) an account of all moneys of the joint family which have come into the hands of both or either of defendant...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Munusami Nainar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-1930
Reported in: (1930)58MLJ649
ORDERKrishnan Pandalai, J.1. The petitioner was the village headman of Sirukadambur vattam in the District of South Arcot. He was convicted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Tirukoilur of an offence under Section 409, Indian Penal Code, criminal breach of trust by a public servant of a sum of Rs. 17-12-6 and sentenced to simple imprisonment till the rising of the Court and a fine of Rs. 60 or further imprisonment for 15 days in default. At the outset it does strike one that if the conviction is right the sentence is utterly inadequate. The conviction and sentence were, however, upheld by the learned Sessions Judge of South Arcot. The petitioner now applies to this Court to set aside his conviction.2. The facts are, that on the 19th of June, 1925, P.W. 1, a ryot within the jurisdiction of the village where the petitioner was the headman, paid to the petitioner Rs. 17-12-6 being an instalment of an agricultural loan taken by him and which fell due on the 10th of April, 1925. The petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Chigurupati Subbanna Vs. the District Labour Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Mad618; (1930)59MLJ33
Owen Compton Beasley, C.J.1. The appellant was served with a notice under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894), Exhibit A. The date upon which he was called upon to appear was the 21st September, 1926. According to the Land Acquisition Officer the appellant did not appear on the 21st September. According to the appellant he did appear but appeared late and the Land Acquisition Officer was angry with him, but nevertheless allowed him to make his claim orally at a later date and allowed him to file two sale-deeds in respect of land close by the land under acquisition. On the 1st December the Land Acquisition Officer made his award and in that award he commenced by stating, 'The landowner did not turn up and make any claim in response to the notice issued under Sections 9 and 10 of the Act. He, however, filed copies of two sale-deeds which give a rate of Rs. 2,400 and Rs. 2,450 an acre' and then he proceeded to deal with those sales and show how those lands were distinguishab...
Tag this Judgment!Palakolanu Manikyam and ors. Vs. Palakolanu Chandrasekharudu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Mad573; (1930)58MLJ542
Anantakrishna Aiyar, J.1. The plaintiffs instituted the suit out of which this second appeal has arisen in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Narsapur against the defendant for a declaration that the decrees in R.S. No. 14 of 1922 on the file of the Sub-Collector, Narsapur, and A.S. No. 6690 of 1923 on the file of the Collector of Kistna are 'null and void for want of jurisdiction and illegal and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from executing the decrees in the said suit and appeal.'2. The defendant's father was a village carpenter in a Government village governed by the Madras Act III of 1895. The lands which are the subject-matter of the present suit and also the subject-matter of R.S. No. 14 of 1922 are lands attached to the office of the village carpenter. On the allegation that the defendant was appointed as the village carpenter by the Revenue Authorities in 1921, he filed R.S. No. 14 of 1922 in the Court of the Sub-Collector of Narsapur Division for recov...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »