Chennai Court January 1932 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.
Ramier Vs. Muthukrishna Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1932
Reported in: 137Ind.Cas.305; (1932)62MLJ687
Ramesam, J.1. The facts out of which this C.M.S.A. arises are these. The respondents before us obtained a final mortgage decree on 20th January, 1916, in the District Munsif's Court of Melur in respect of properties part of which were situated within the jurisdiction of the District Munsif's Court of Melur and part within the jurisdiction of the District Munsif's Court of Madura Town. Subsequent to the passing of the decree (in February, 1920) there was a notification by the High Court re-arranging the jurisdiction of the District Munsif's Courts in the District the result of which was that the suit properties came within the jurisdiction of a third District Munsif's Court, namely, the District Munsif's Court of Madura Taluk. The present application for execution was filed on 27th July, 1927, in the Court of the District Munsif of Madura Taluk without applying for the transfer of the decree from the Melur Court. The Melur Court has always continued to exist. The District Munsif of the ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mrs. J.V. Saldhana
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Mad378
Ramesam, J.1. The facts out of which this reference by the Commissioner of Income-tax arises may be shortly stated. Mr. J. V. Saldhana, a resident of Mangalore died in April 1922 leaving behind him a widow and seven children, one of whom died subsequently. At the time of his death he owned coffee plantations in the Mysore State and house properties in Mangalore and was a partner to the extent of a one-third share in a firm of coffee curers styled A. J. Saldhana and Son, Mangalore. Under the Indian Succession Act his property descended to his widow and to his children, the widow getting one-third share and the children getting equally the remaining two-thirds. They do not constitute a joint family but are tenants-in-common of the estate which has not been divided by metes and bounds. Mrs. Saldhana was originally assessed by the income-tax officer on the basis that the whole of the income accrued to her. She then objected to the assessment and contended that she was the owner of only one...
Bhaskaru Pantalu Manikayaswami Vs. Mudagal Lakamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Mad432
Jackson, J.1. This appeal is mainly concluded by the findings of fact with which this Court cannot interfere. It is found that the plaintiff was obstructed in the temple and that she was never excommunicated in due form, and she has been granted damages.2. The short point argued is whether the claim for damages is time barred. It will be so barred if it falls within Article 22, Lim. Act. Article 22, Lim. Act, runs: 'For compensation for any other injury to the person.' 'Injury' in this connexion has a wider connotation than physical hurt. As pointed out in Govind Balakrishna v. Pandurang Vinayakar [1912] 36 Bom. 443 assault, even though it causes no hurt is an offence affecting the human body under Penal Code. In Clerk and Lindsell's Law of Torts, Chapter 9, which includes all acts of battery, assault, etc., is headed 'Trespass to the Person;' and in Velum Pakkiri Taragan v. Subbayan Samban [1919] 42 Mad. 271, trespass to the person is held to include voluntary obstruction. So it must ...
J. Rama Rao and anr. Vs. Katta Venkatannagiri Srinivasiah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Mad417; 137Ind.Cas.799
Curgenven, J.1. The question arising in this civil miscellaneous second appeal, which is preferred by the judgment-debtor and the receiver, is whether the land constituting the jaghir which the former enjoys is attachable in execution. The learned District Judge has answered the question in the affirmative on two grounds: firstly, that it is res judicata; and, secondly, that the question of law in respect of this identical jaghir has already been decided by this Court. The matter is said to be res judicata upon the strength of a previous execution petition, Ex. A, but Mr. Somayya does not desire to press this point, as, from the terms of the order, the matter seems to be somewhat in doubt. He relies rather upon the previous decision of this Court above alluded to. That has been reported as Rama Rao v. K. Thima Reddi [1920] 54 I.C. 331, and the learned Judges who decided it point out that the Pensions Act, which was relied upon in order to protect the property from attachment, makes a d...
Bhaskaru Pantalu Manikyaswami and anr. Vs. Mudagal Lakamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1932
Reported in: 138Ind.Cas.84
Jackson, J.1. This appeal is mamainly concluded by the findings, of fact with which this Court cannot: interfere. It is found that the plaintiff was, obstructed in the temple and that she was never excommunicated in due form, and she has been, granted damages.2. The short point argued; is whether the claim for damages if time barred. It will be so barred if it, falls within Article 22 of the Indian Limitation Act. Article 22 of the Indian Limitation Act runs 'For compensation for any other injury to the person' 'injury' in this connection has a wider connotation than physical hurts As pointed out in Govind Balkriskna v. Pandurang Vinuyak 15 Ind. Cas. 505 : 36 B. 443 : 14 Bom L.R. 323, assault, even though it causes no hurt, is an offence affecting the human body under the Indian Penal Code. In Clerk and Lindsell's Law of Torte, Chap. IX which includes all acts of battery assault etc, is headed 'Trespass to the person;' and in Velan Pakkiri Taragan v. Subbayan Samban 49 Ind. Cas. 533 : ...
J.J. Martis Vs. Cuthbert D'Souza
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-15-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Mad390; 137Ind.Cas.26; (1932)62MLJ538
Cornish, J.1. The question referred is whether a promissory note stamped with quarter anna postage stamps can be validated by the Collector under Rule 18 of the Government of India Stamp Rules.2. Section 37 of the Indian Stamp Act empowers the Governor-General in Council to make rules providing that, where an instrument bears a stamp of sufficient amount but of improper description, it may, on payment of the duty with which the same, is chargeable, be certified to be duly stamped, and any instrument so certified shall then be deemed to have been duly stamped as from the date of its execution. Rule 18 which has been made in pursuance of this power enables the Collector, where an instrument bears a stamp of sufficient amount, but of improper description, on payment of the duty with which the instrument is chargeable, to certify by endorsement that it is duly stamped.3. The answer to the question referred depends on whether the quarter anna stamps on the instrument are stamps of improper ...
Devidan Sowcar and anr. Vs. Janaki Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Mad428; (1932)62MLJ632
ORDERSundaram Chetty, J.1. In this criminal revision case, the petitioners seek the cancellation of the order of the Commissioner of Police, Madras, in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 3449 of 1931, dated 31st October, 1931, regarding the: disposal of certain jewels taken from them by the Police, in the course: of an investigation of the offences of cheating and criminal breach of trust, alleged to have been committed by one Baby Animal, a woman of the dancing girl caste. The petitioners are professional money-lenders, carrying on business in Sowcarpet, Madras. They allege that these jewels were pledged with them by the said Baby Animal, who had previous dealings with them, and the loans were advanced by them on the pledge of these jewels, bona fide believing her to be the owner thereof, and without knowledge of any defect in her title. The investigation by the Police seems to have proceeded to some extent, but before its completion, the accused (Baby Ammal) died on 10th October, 1931. ...
V.N. Krishna Aiyar Vs. V.N. Subbarama Aiyar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Mad462; (1932)62MLJ550
Anantakrishna Aiyar, J.1. The appellant before us is the youngest of the three brothers of an undivided Hindu family, the eldest being the first respondent, and the other brother being the second respondent. The family had a cloth trade at Palghat, and another business at Mysore and Bangalore relating to mining leases, etc. The family possessed immoveable properties in Malabar, in Bangalore and in Travancore. Disputes having arisen between the brothers, they executed an agreement in favour of three persons to settle as arbitrators the matter of partition of all the joint family properties including the businesses at Palghat and Bangalore. On the allegation that the arbitrators passed the award--Exhibit C--dividing the. immoveable properties among the brothers in the way they thought fit and also deciding how the business should be disposed of and fixing the liability of the parties to each other in various respects, the two respondents filed an application in the Court of the Subordina...
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. V.S.K.S. Somasundaram Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Mad435; (1932)63MLJ22
Ramesam, J.1. The facts out of which this reference arises may be shortly stated as follows : A Hindu joint family consisting of the father and manager V.S.K.S. Soma-sundaram Chetty and his son has been assessed under Section 3 of the Act. The permanent home of the family is Lakshmipuram in the Pudukottah State where it has a money-lending-business. It also carries on piccegoods businesses at Madras and Madura in British India and a money-lending business at Taiping in the Federated Malay States. It is also a partner in a money-lending business at Klangin the Federated Malay States and in a piecegoods business at Kumbakonam; and apparently it has some money-lending business in Colombo. In the year of account 1928-29 it has been found that the assessees received in British India on various dates sums of money aggregating to Rs. 40,000 from the foreign businesses at Taiping, Klang and from the customers in Colombo. The Income-tax Officer sought to assess the joint family in respect of th...
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Messrs. Best and Co., Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Mad434; (1932)63MLJ15
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. The following question has been referred to us by the Income-tax Commissioner, viz.:Whether the transfer by the petitioners of Eagle Rolling Mills to a limited company on the 31st December, 1926, constitutes the latter company successor to the petitioners within the meaning of Section 26(2) of the Act.2. Section 26(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act reads as follows:Where, at the time of making an assessment under Section 23, it is found that the person carrying on any business, profession or vocation has been succeeded in such capacity by another person, the assessment shall be made on such person succeeding, as if he had been carrying on the business, profession or vocation throughout the previous year, and as if he had received the whole of the profits for that year.3. As the question referred shows, there was a transfer by the petitioners of the Eagle Rolling Mills to another company at the end of 1926. Messrs. Best & Co., the petitionershere, ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »