Chennai Court May 1930 Judgments
S.P.S. Ramaswami Chettiar and ors. Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-01-1930
Reported in: (1930)59MLJ403
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, C.J.1. The facts in this case have been sufficiently set out in the answers to the question referred to us of my learned brothers Anantakrishna Aiyar and Curgenven, JJ., which I have had the advantage of seeing and I therefore do not propose to state them. The question seems to me to resolve itself into one as to whether the loss sustained by the assessee in this case was one which can be described as incidental to his business. If it was, then he is entitled to have his profits upon which he is liable to pay income-tax reduced by the amount of that loss. It was argued for the assessee (1) that the robbery of the assessee's money was one which was incidental to his business of a money-lender,, and (2) that the money stolen was his 'stock-in-trade,' because it was money which, had it not been stolen, was available to him for the purpose of lending to borrowers and making a profit thereby. There is no evidence in this case that this sum was 'stock-in-trade' '...
Tag this Judgment!T.S. Ramabhadra Odayar and anr. Vs. T.S. Gopalaswami Odayar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-01-1930
Reported in: (1930)59MLJ782
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, C.J.1. These are three linked appeals, namely, Appeal No. 411 of 1925, Appeal No. 439 of 1925 and Appeal No. 6 of 1926. Of these, Appeal No. 439 of 1925 was argued first as in that the main and the most important contentions between the parties had be considered. I propose in my judgment to deal with all the three appeals together.2. All these appeals arise out of O.S. No. 67 of 1919 Subsequently renumbered as O.S. No. 22 of 1924 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Kumbakonam. That was a suit for partition. The parties to the suit were all members of an undivided Hindu family related to one another in the manner set out in Schedule A to the plaint. This Hindu family was possessed of considerable immoveable property and in the partition suit the plaintiff claimed a half share in the whole property. The plaintiff stands by himself representing one branch of the family. The genealogical table (Schedule A) shows that all the parties to the suit trace their...
Tag this Judgment!Rajah Kocherlakota Venkata Jagannadha Rao Garu Vs. Maharajah Ravu Venk ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-01-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad140; (1931)60MLJ56
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. Appeal No. 409 of 1925.--The plaintiff's suit was for a mortgage decree for Rs. 1,88,487-15-6 representing principal and interest alleged to be due under a mortgage deed, Ex. A. This deed arose out of the compromise already dealt with in Appeal No. 446 of 1925. It will be remembered that under that compromise, dated the 29th of November, 1920, one of the properties purchased in the ' Court sale, viz., Polavaram village with its hamlets was agreed to be retained by the Rajah of Polavaram in consideration of the payment of the sum of Rs. 1,39,986-1-0 to the plaintiff. The compromise was entered into by the Rajah's adoptive mother. This amount had been deposited in Court by the plaintiff being the balance remaining after the Court sale of the defendant's properties by the plaintiff. Being unable to pay this sum in cash the 1st defendant's adoptive mother as his guardian executed in favour of the plaintiff on the 14th of December, 1920, a bond for t...
Tag this Judgment!Neelamraju Venkatanarasimhayya Vs. Neelamraju Rajya Lakshmamma and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-01-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad273; (1930)59MLJ949
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, C.J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant in this second appeal which arises out of a suit filed by him as a reveirsioner to the estate of one Nilamraju Butchayya for possession of the suit property. This property was by Ex. XIV sold in the year 1889 to one Nilamraju Bajamma by Ademma, the adoptive mother of Butchayya. The alienee is the 14th defendant in the suit In 1905 Ademma adopted Butchayya, then a minor boy. He died in 1909 being then still a minor, as has been found by the District Munsif, although there is no finding upon the point of minority by the Lower Appellate Court. On his adoption he divested his adoptive mother of the property and it became invested in Mm. Artier his death his adoptive mother got his estate as his legal representative. She died in 1921 and the appellant then filed this suit to set aside the sale under Ex. XIV. It will thus be seen that the suit was filed fourteen years after the death of the adopted son Butchayya.2. In the Dis...
Tag this Judgment!Chaturbujadoss Kushaldoss and Sons Vs. Minor Rajamanicka Mudali by Fat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-01-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Mad930; (1931)60MLJ97
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The 1st defendant is the appellant in Appeal No. 250. of 1925 and he is the decree-holder in C.S. No. 81 of 1921 on the file of the High Court, Madras. The 2nd defendant is the appellant in Appeal No. 332 of 1925 and he is the auction purchaser of the properties sold in execution of the decree in C.S. No. 81 of 1921. These appeals arise out of a suit instituted by the plaintiff for a declaration that the decree in C.S. No. 81 of 1921 and the attachment and sale held in execution of that decree are not binding on him.2. The facts are briefly these. One Parthasarathi Mudali who was doing business in yarn and cloths had dealings with the 1st defendant, Kushaldoss & Sons, and owed them a considerable sum of money. He died on the 18th May, 1920, leaving a will, dated 14th May, 1920. By this will the plaintiff, his nephew, was given the whole estate of the testator subject to the other dispositions mentioned in it. After the death of Parthasarathi Mudali, his widow Sengal...
Tag this Judgment!Ramaswami Chettiar and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-01-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Mad808
Beasley, C.J.1. The facts in this case have been sufficiently set out in the answers to the question referred to us of my learned brothers Anantakrishna Ayyer and Curgenven, JJ., which I have had the advantage of seeing and I therefore do not propose to state them. Tie question seems to me to resolve itself into one as to whether the loss sustained by the assessee in this case was one which can be described as incidental to his business. If it was, then he is entitled to have his profits upon which he is liable to pay income-tax reduced by the amount of that loss. It was argued for the assessee: (1) that the robbery of the assessee's money was one which was incidental to his business of a money lender; and (2) that the money stolen was his 'stock-in-trade' because it was money which, had it not been stolen, was available to him for the purpose of lending to borrowers and making a profit thereby. There is no evidence in this case that this sum was 'stock-in-trade' at all and the money w...
Tag this Judgment!T.S. Ramabadra Odayar and anr. Vs. T.S. Gopalaswami Odayar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-01-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad404; 129Ind.Cas.801
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, C.J.1. These are three linked appeals, namely, Appeal No. 411 of 1925, Appeal No. 439 of 1925 and Appeal No. 6 of 1926. Of these, Appeal No. 439 of 1925 was argued first as in that the main and the most important contentions between the parties had to be considered, I propose in my judgment to deal with all the three appeals together.2. All these appeals arise out of O.S. No. 67 of 1919 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Kumbakonam. That was a suit for partition. The parties to the suit were all members of an undivided Hindu family related to one another in the manner set out in schedule A to the plaint. The Hindu family was possessed of considerable immovable property and in the partition suit the plaintiff claimed a half share in the whole property. The plaintiff stands by himself representing one branch of the family. The genealogical table (schedule A) shows that all the parties to the suit trace their descent back to one Sepperumal Odayar; and in...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›