Chennai Court March 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.
Cheena Pena Rena Perianan Chetti Vs. Taluk Board Through Its President ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1932
Reported in: (1932)63MLJ148
Waller, J.1. The petitioner, who was the plaintiff in the suit, has a money-lending business at Rangoon, but resides within the limits of the Taluk Board of Devakottah. The dispute between him and the Board is as to his liability to pay the profession tax. The Board seeks to assess him on the whole of the income derived by him from his business at Rangoon. His first contention is that he is not assessable at all, as income cannot be received as income more than once. Alternatively, he pleads that, in any event, he cannot be assessed on more than that part of his income which has been remitted to him from Rangoon.2. In regard to his first contention, several decisions in income-tax cases have been cited. Two of them are in his favour. The first is Sundar Das v. The Collector of Gujrat (1922) I.L.R.3 Lah.349 (F.B.). The assessee had accumulated in Baluchistan, where no income-tax is leviable, except on salaries, his profits from military contracts until they amounted to over Rs. 23 lakhs...
S.K.M.R.M. Somasundaram Chettiar and ors. Vs. Rm. Ar. Ar. Rm. Arunacha ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Mad523; (1932)63MLJ28
ORDERRamesam, J.1. This is an application for leave to appeal in forma pauperis against the decree of the Sub-Court of Devakottah in an original suit. This petition originally came on before our brother Jackson, J., who called for a report from the Sub-Court on the pauperism of the appellants who are defendants in the original suit. The report was in their favour. The matter next came on before our brother Wallace, J., when it was claimed by the learned advocate for the respondent that he should be first heard before the petition is disposed of. Having regard to the practice of this Court not to hear the respondent at this stage, the learned Judge referred the matter for disposal before a Bench of two Judges. This is how it conies on before us.2. Undoubtedly the practice of this Court has been for at least the last 32 years, during which period I have been in touch with it, not to hear the respondent on the question whether the decree of the Court below is 'contrary to law or to some u...
Pena Rina Yena Manickavasagam Chettiar Vs. the Union Board of Devakott ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad92; (1932)63MLJ741
Waller, J.1. In this case two second appeals were originally filed. It is obvious that the matter involved was of a small cause nature and therefore the appeals do not lie. Two applications were filed to convert the appeals into civil revision petitions which were allowed.2. The question involved is as to the collection of profession-tax from the petitioner by the respondent, the Union Board of Devakottah. The petitioner lives within the area of the Union Board, but carries on a money-lending business at Madras, Mannargudi and Nellore. His contention is that, as he has already paid the profession-tax on the income from his business in those places, he is not liable to pay again on it at his place of residence. He pleads, in fact, that income cannot be received as income twice over. That is a contention we have rejected in our judgment in Perianan Chetti v. Taluk Board, Devakotta I.L.R. (1932) 55 Mad. 848 : 63 M.L.J. 148, We reject it again for the reasons given in our judgment in that ...
Ammathayarammal Vs. the Official Assignee
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad137; (1933)64MLJ208
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, C.J.1. The 1st defendant in the suit under appeal is an insolvent and the 2nd defendant is his wife. The Official Assignee claimed in the suit a declaration that three houses, the title deeds of which stand in the name of the insolvent's wife, the 2nd defendant, were in reality the property of the insolvent who paid for them. The defendants on the other hand contended that the insolvent's wife was the actual buyer and that all the money required came from her pocket with the exception of l/6th of the price of one of the houses.2. It is not necessary at this stage to go into any of the facts of the case because an objection has been taken, which we are dealing with as a preliminary objection, to certain procedure adopted at the trial. The Official Assignee called the insolvent, the 1st defendant in the suit, in support of his case. Whilst he was under examination-in-chief, Mr. Grant who appeared for the Official Assignee put a number of questions to the witn...
V.K. Lakshmana Mudaliar and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Mad497
ORDERWalsh, J.1. There were five accused in this case of whom accused 1 to 4 were the directors of a certain company called National Livestock Registration Bank Ltd., Madras, and accused 5 was the company itself. There were three charges against them: the first Under Section 134(4), Companies Act, the second Under Section 32(4) and the third Under Section 87(2). All the accused were found guilty of the first two offences. Accused 3 was acquitted of the third offence. Accused 1, 2, 4 and 5 were convicted and various fines imposed. Accused 3 is since dead. Cr. R. C. No. 641 of 1931 has been put in by accused 1 and 2 and Cr. R. C. No. 648 by accused 4 and 5.2. Taking the first charge Under Section 134(4), Section 134(1) says:After the balance sheet has been laid before the company at the general meeting a copy thereof signed by the Manager or Secretary of the Company shall be filed with the Registrar at the same time as the copy of the annual list of members and summary prepared in accord...
Govinda Nattar and anr. Vs. Murugesa Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Mad557
Walsh, J.1. The respondents in this case filed a suit to recover from defendants 1 to 4 a sum of Rs. 4,600 odd alleged to be due on a promissory note dated 25th September 1921 executed by defendant 1, father of defendants 2 to 4. The plaintiffs asked for a personal decree against defendant 1 and recovery from the other three defendants out of their shares in the joint family properties in their hands. While the trial was proceeding, the parties referred the matter to arbitrators and the matter of this promissory note and another was settled by compromise Ex. K, in which there is the following clause:In default we agree to pay the entire amount of the decree in the said suit and the entire amount in respect of V. Subramanya Mudali's bond.2. Defendants 1, 2 and 4 who were the only contesting defendants signed this compromise. As regards the noncontesting defendant evidence had already been given by the plaintiffs in support of their claim. A decree was passed in terms of the compromise a...
P.O. Karthiruma Goundan Vs. Rangammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Mad456; (1932)62MLJ622
Reilly, J.1. The petitioners object to the Subordinate Judge dealing with a petition presented to him under Section 192 of the Indian Succession Act and contend that he has no jurisdiction to do so. The Subordinate Judge has been empowered to deal with matters under that Act by a general notification of the High Court issued under Section 29 of the Madras Civil Courts Act. It is not disputed that the Subordinate Judge has so been invested with all the powers with which he could be invested under that section. But it is contended that properly interpreted that section makes it possible to authorise Subordinate Judges only to deal with matters which come before a District Delegate under Part IX of the Succession Act but of which he cannot dispose. The words of Section 29(1) of the Madras Civil Courts Act are:The High Court may, by general or special order, authorise any Subordinate Judge to take cognizance of, or any District Judge to transfer to any Subordinate Judge under his control, ...
Bondada Manumallaswami and anr. Vs. Rinisetti Chinna Narayanaswami (De ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1932
Reported in: (1932)63MLJ107
Waller, J.1. The question in this second appeal is as to the construction of the will of a Hindu named Jagannatham. The material part of the will reads as follows:After my death, my wife Andalamma shall have the power of gift and', sale in alL/ny moveable property, which should remain unsold and undisposed of by me in gift in my lifetime. My wife Andalamma should have power to adopt any boy she would like, if she feels inclined to make an adoption, with power to give him such property as she should like; she has power to make such adoptions till my family is perpetuated. If she does not like to make an adoption my sister's sons, viz. (1) Bondada Manumallaswami and (2) Jibu Raghavayya's son Venkateswara Rao, should, after her lifetime,, enjoy in equal moieties, with power of gift and sale, they, their sons, grandsons, etc., in succession {i.e., from generation to generation) such of the property which my wife should not have disposed of by gift or sale in her lifetime.2. The plaintiffs ...
P. Venkatachalam, a Business Concern in Condiments, by Mr. C. Pattabhi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Mad705; (1932)63MLJ568
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. The suit under appeal was brought by the receivers of P. Venkatachalam's condiment business to restrain the defendants from selling the curry powder manufactured by them called the 'Madras Curry Powder' in packages designed and labelled so as to resemble those of the plaintiffs. The 2nd defendant in the suit is the minor son of the late P. Section Loganatham, a grandson of the original P. Venkatachalam, who died about a year ago. It is conceded that the defendants did not sell or offer for sale any of their curry powder in Madras. The acts complained of were committed in England where, it must be observed, there is an action pending against a firm called Colinson & Co. claiming the same reliefs as here and for the same alleged reasons. Waller, J., did not decide the case on the merits but held on the admitted facts that he had no jurisdiction to try the suit. That point was not raised in the written statement nor was there any issue taken upon i...
M. Ramakrishna Reddi and ors. Vs. Reddivari Narasimha Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Mad527
ORDERIn matters where a respondent's legal representative wishes to bring himself on the record, he ought to apply by petition Under Order 22, Rule 4, Civil P. C. But he need not apply for setting aside the abatement, for it is the appellant's appeal that abates against him. When he is willing to come in after time, he is obliging the appellant and is not seeking a favour at the hands of the Court. The petition is ordered; and the abatement of the appeal set aside....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »