Chennai Court August 1932 Judgments
S.A.S. Subbiah Aiyar Vs. the Official Receiver
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad25; (1932)63MLJ727
Krishnan Pandalai, J.1. The two Lower Courts have arrived at opposite conclusions on the question whether when a debtor against whom a petition in insolvency has been presented dies before adjudication and the proceedings are continued under Section 17 of the Provincial Insolvency Act the Official Receiver or creditors can invoke the power of the Court to set aside settlements and alienations voidable under Sections 53 and 54. The first Court gave a negative answer and the lower appellate Court an affirmative answer to this question. I venture to think that the difficulty felt by the Lower Courts is due rather to the form of the order of adjudication which the Insolvency Court passed in the case rather than to anything obscure in the provisions or language of the Act.2. The facts are simple and undisputed. A creditor's petition (I.P. No. 58 of 1927) was filed against one Section K. Krishna Aiyar. He died some 15 months afterwards before any order of adjudication was passed. Notice of t...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. T. Namberumal Chetty and Sons
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad1; (1932)63MLJ805
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. The question referred to us by the Commissioner of Income-tax is:When the Assistant Commissioner in an appeal to him from the order of assessment of the Income-tax Officer enhances the assessment under one head of income without causing an increase in the total income (by not including altogether income assessed under another head) does an appeal lie to the Commissioner under Section 32 against that order?2. This is a novel point and the facts which give rise to the question are as follows : The petitioners were assessed by the Income-tax Officer, Madras, II Circle, on a total income of Rs. 41,154 made up as follows : (1) Property, Rs. 46,092 and (2) Other sources - dividends, interest on debentures and remittances of profits from Trichur, Rs. 2,206 less (3) loss in business, Rs. 7,144, making a total as before mentioned of Rs. 41,154. The tax levied was Rs. 4,068-12-0. The petitioners appealed to the Assistant Commissioner and claimed that the ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Mazumdar Sobhanadri Rao Pantulu Garu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad42; 140Ind.Cas.462; (1932)63MLJ759
ORDERJackson, J.1. This is a question of Court-fees. The plaintiff, an inamdar, claims to have full right to both kudivaram and mehvaram in the land which comprises the inam (paragraph 3), so the letting to tenants is for temporary periods (paragraph 4), and the inam is not an estate within the definition in Act I of 1908 (paragraph 5) ; all tenants are tenants at will (paragraph 6). In December, 1926, the defendants who are temporary tenants were given notice to quit (paragraph 7) and the plaintiff prays for a decree establishing his right in the suit lands and removing the defendants.2. This plaint plainly sets forth a familiar form of suit. The inamdar claims both varams, and therefore though he has no proof of actually letting the defendants into possession, he claims the right to eject them after due notice, by virtue of his title to the kudivaram. The tenants do not dispute his claim to the melwaram, but assert occupancy right.3. The Court-fee has been paid under Section 7, Claus...
Tag this Judgment!M.S.M.M. Meyyappa Chettiar Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1932
Reported in: (1932)63MLJ796
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. The question referred to us is - Whether on the facts of this case any presumption as to the receipt of profits can be raised and, if it can, whether the presumption has not been rebutted.2. The facts of the case which can be stated quite shortly are as follows : The assessee carries on a business in Rangoon; and in Ipoh he is the sole proprietor of a business, which at the material times it is alleged by the assessee earned no profit at all, and he is also a partner in another money-lending business with other persons which did result in a profit at the material times. In 1926 sums of money amounting to Rs. 4,10,000 were sent from Ipoh to Rangoon to the petitioner there, the last sum being a sum received in December, 1926. In the Rangoon books there is a ledger account for Ipoh and in Ipoh there is a ledger account for Rangoon and money passing, from one place to the other is set out in the respective ledger accounts. The Income-tax authorities...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: T. Balaji Rao Naidu Garu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad103; 140Ind.Cas.441
ORDERReilly, J.1. This is an application that the production of printed judgments may be excused in order that a second appeal may be admitted out of its turn with the further purpose that an injunction may then be obtained preventing a District Board election from being held on 3rd September 1932, in which election the appellant, whose nomination has been rejected, wishes to be a candidate. The appellant after the rejection of his nomination filed a suit in the District Munsif's Court and obtained a declaration that he had been validly nominated for election and an injunction restraining the Election Officer from holding the election without the appellant as a candidate. On appeal the District Judge dismissed the suit, and the second appeal is against that dismissal.2. I do not think it proper that I should help the appellant by making any special order in his favour. If this second appeal is eventually admitted, it may be considerable time before it is heard, and at any rate it could...
Tag this Judgment!Chinniah Rowther and anr. Vs. A.B. Muthuraman Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-1932
Reported in: AIR1934Mad250
Madhavan Nair, J.1. This civil miscellaneous second appeal arises out of an application by the assignee of a mortgage-decree to execute the entire decree against only one of the two items of the mortgaged property. The facts are briefly these. The suit property was subject to a mortgage dated 21st August 1908. The mortgagee holding this mortgage instituted a suit for sale of the property, defendants 1 and 2 are the mortgagors, defendant 3 held a second mortgage' defendant 4 held a third mortgage Mid defendant 5 a fourth mortgage over the property. The present appellant is defendant 4. He purchased item 1 of the mortgage property in execution of the decree in O.S. No. 825 of 1926 by the third mortgagee in the present suit. After purchasing this item he has now obtained an assignment of the entire decree from the decree-holder in the present suit O.S. No. 1305 of 1926, and he seeks to execute the decree against item 2, not wanting to proceed against item 1, which he had already purchased...
Tag this Judgment!K.V. Srinivasathathachar Vs. Naravalur Srinivasathathachar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad259; (1933)64MLJ63
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The question raised relates to the construction of Section 54, Civil Procedure Code. The Lower Court has made an order directing the decree to be forwarded to the Collector for partition being effected. Mr. Venkatachari for the appellant contends that the order is wrong. It is first urged that the section does not apply unless the partition is not only of the land but also of the revenue assessed on it ; in other words, unless the division of the land is to be followed by the apportionment of the revenue. This construction is opposed to the plain provisions of the section. What the section refers to is, the partition of the estate assessed to the payment of revenue and not the partition of the estate as well as the revenue. Why in construing the section, which is plain and unambiguous, words not to be found there should be imported into it, I fail to see. I agree with the observations of Rankin, C. J., on this point in the two cases cited at the bar, namely, Moul...
Tag this Judgment!Erranki Venkatasubba Rao Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad270
ORDERBardswell, J.1. The Stationary Sub-Magistrate, Kovvur, has held that Section 197, Criminal P. C, does not apply to the case of the petitioner (accused 3) as he was the karnam. His order cannot be supported on this ground, as though the petitioner was the karnam, he was also acting the as Village Magistrate at the time when he is alleged to have committed the offence. What then has to be seen is whether the offence imputed to him by the prosecution can be in any way attributed to or connected with his office as Village Magistrate. It is not necessary in this particular case to put the matter more meticulously or to balance carefully the various rulings which have been called to my notice on the rather vexed subject of how and when Section 197 applies, as it is clear to me that the offence is not one for a prosecution for which a sanction is required under that section. He is charged by the police with having dishonestly received or retained stolen property under Section 411, I.P.C....
Tag this Judgment!Uppu Satyanarayana Vs. H.B. Yorke
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad148; 140Ind.Cas.524
ORDERBardswell, J.1. The petition is filed by the President of the Samalkota Panchayat Board, the respondent being the Manager of the Deccan Sugar and Abkari Co., Ltd., at Samalkota. The respondent was prosecuted by the petitioner for failure to take out licenses for (1) the manufacture of arrack with machinery; (2) the manufacture of CO2 gas with machinery; (3) the manufacture of confectionery with machinery. The Cocanada Taluk Board had on 28th August 1930 passed a resolution to the effect that no place within its jurisdiction should be used for any of the three specified manufactures, without the license of the President of the Union Board concerned if the place was within Union limits, the fee for a licence in each case being Rs. 400 while the license was only to endure for a year. The manufacture or refining of sugar was also specified and the fee for this was fixed at Rs. 500. This resolution was notified in the District Gazette on 23rd September 1930. A resolution in similar ter...
Tag this Judgment!Sree Mahant Prayag Dossjee Varu Vs. Raja Venkata Perumal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad410
Pandalai, J.1. The learned Subordinate Judge has in an elaborate order setting out the pleadings and the nature of the amendment sought and numerous decisions cited to him allowed the amendment of the plaint but made it conditional on the plaintiff paying Rs. 25 as costs to the defendant which the defendant's advocate received. This Civil Revision Petition is against the order for amendment, on the merits, i.e., on the question whether the learned Judge has exercised his jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. I cannot find that he has been guilty of any illegality or irregularity. I am not sure that it can be asserted that he used his discretion wrongly.2. Both parties are temples litigating through their respective trustees. The dispute relates to the boundary between two neighbouring villages belonging to the two temples respectively. In 1925-26 there were survey proceedings as a result of which the boundary between the villages was demarcated in the particular way as ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »