Chennai Court May 1933 Judgments
Kavanna Nagutha Muhammad Naina Marikayar Vs. M.S. Ahmed Marakair
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-30-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Mad55; 147Ind.Cas.929; (1934)66MLJ383
ORDERRamesam J.1. The facts so far as they are necessary for this petition are as follows. A complaint was filed before the Police Magistrate of Singapore against the petitioner before us on the 17th July, 1931, charging him with criminal misappropriation. The petitioner returned to British India about the middle of 1931. The Police Magistrate issued a warrant for the arrest of the petitioner to the District Superintendent of Police of South Arcot. The warrant was endorsed by the District Magistrate and the petitioner was arrested under the warrant and brought before the District Magistrate under Section 13 of the Fugitive Offenders Act. Mr. Boulton, the District Magistrate of South Arcot, was of opinion that he was not bound to comply with all applications for extradition. He thought his discretion in dealing with the matter was not limited to the particular circumstances mentioned in Section 19 and he therefore refused to order the extradition of the petitioner. There was an appeal t...
Tag this Judgment!V.M. Ratnavelu and anr. Vs. K.S. Iyer, Assistant Branch Manager, the M ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-11-1933
Reported in: (1933)65MLJ529
Burn, J.1. Two persons were charged for cheating (Section 420, Indian Penal Code) in two cases and were tried by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Vellore. There was a dispute before the Magistrate on the question whether he had jurisdiction to try the case. The accused persons contended that he had not, and that the cases ought to be tried in Madras. The complainant contended that he had, and the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate held that he had jurisdiction, proceeded with the trial, and acquitted both the accused.2. The complainant filed revision petitions in this Court against the orders of acquittal. Lakshmana Rao, J. dismissed the revision petitions, observing that the Lower Court, i.e., the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Vellore, 'had clearly no jurisdiction to try the case' and that 'all his remarks relating to the merits of the case must be regarded as mere obiter dicta'.3. Then the complainant filed fresh complaints before the Chief Presidency Magistrate on the same facts. The Ch...
Tag this Judgment!Kalepalli Rajitagiripathi Vs. Jannavala Pedakotayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-11-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad855; 147Ind.Cas.195; (1933)65MLJ675
Curgenven, J.1. The plaintiff, who appeals, was a ryot of the South Vallur Zamindari, and his holding was sold in 1915 for arrears of rent under Sections 111 et seq of the Madras Estates Land Act, bought in by the landholder, and re-granted to the 1st defendant. He sued in 1927 to recover it, and without taking any evidence, the preliminary issue, whether the suit was within time, was decided against him, and the suit dismissed. The question involved in this issue is this - whether the sale was held with jurisdiction and had therefore, if found irregular, to be set aside, or whether it was held without jurisdiction and was therefore a nullity. In the former case it is admitted that, whichever article of the Limitation Act is applicable - Nos. 12, 95 or 120 - the suit would be out of time. In the latter the plaintiff could ignore the sale, and the suit would be within the twelve years available for recovery of the property.2. The learned District Judge has proceeded upon the assumption,...
Tag this Judgment!N.M.S. Sadasivier Krishnier Estate Through Its Trustees N.M. Nagasamie ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-11-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad781; 147Ind.Cas.369; (1933)65MLJ673
Curgenven, J.1. The plaintiffs are the petitioners. The suit was brought on an insufficiently stamped promissory note which was for this reason rejected by the Subordinate Judge and the suit dismissed. The question is whether having regard to the provisions of Section 36 of the Stamp Act the Subordinate Judge was right in rejecting the note; in other words, whether the note had not already been admitted in evidence. The circumstances are set out in the judgment of the Lower Court. It appears that the 1st defendant had admitted execution of the note and the hearing of the case had been closed and judgment was in preparation when the Subordinate Judge's attention was drawn to the fact that the note was insufficiently stamped. He then proceeded to consider whether he had in fact admitted the document and answered the question in the negative. He was guided to this conclusion by a decision of this Court, Venkanna v. Parasuram Byas I.L.R. (1929) Mad. 137 : 56 M.L.J. 633, where it has been h...
Tag this Judgment!A.S.P.L.V.R. Ramaswami Chettiar Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-11-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Mad59; (1933)65MLJ849
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. The following question has been referred to us by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras, in pursuance of this High Court's order in O.P. No. 108 of 1932, dated the 30th August, 1932, namely,Whether the rentals derived from properties taken over in discharge of debts in the course of foreign money-lending business and treated as assets of that business can be assessed as part of the profits of that business when remitted to British India under Section 4(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act.2. The petitioner is a Nattukottai Chetti and is the proprietor of a money-lending business in Burma and also a partner with a 7/8ths share in a banking business at Kuala Lampur in the Federated Malay States, namely, the 'A.S.P.L.V.R.' Firm. In the year of account a large sum of money was shown in the books of the firms at Burma and Kuala Lampur to have been remitted from Kuala Lampur to Burma during that year. The question arose during the assessment whether that ...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Ayyar Vs. Muthulakshmi Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-11-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Mad169; 150Ind.Cas.1137; (1934)66MLJ342
Pakenham Walsh, J.1. This was a suit by a reversioner to set aside an alienation in respect of the suit properties on the ground that the alienation was not for necessary purposes binding on the reversion. The property belonged to one Subbarama Aiyar who died in 1892. The alienation was made by his widow Krishnammal in 1894 in favour of the wife of her brother. This Krishnammal died in 1925. She had one daughter Rukmani Ammal by Subbarama Aiyar, who ultimately married the son of the brother in whose wife's favour she had demised the properties. This Krishnamma's daughter Rukmani died in 1915 leaving behind one daughter, the 1st defendant. The trial Court found that the alienation made by Krishnammal in favour of her brother's wife, Sankari Ammal, was a sham transaction and decreed the plaintiff's suit. On appeal the lower appellate Court found that the transaction was genuine and was for purposes binding on the estate and dismissed the suit. Against this decree the present second appea...
Tag this Judgment!(Trikaderi Manakal) Vasudevan Adiserpad and ors. Vs. (thekkamparambhat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-11-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Mad115
Ramesam, J.1. This is an appeal against the decree of the District Judge of South Malabar in O.S. No. 3 of 1929. The suit was filed under Section 73, Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act 2 of 1927, In the plaint the following reliefs were prayed for: (a) removing such of the defendants from their places as trustees of Tirumullapalli temple as the1 Court finds to be guilty of fraud or gross mismanagement ; (b) framing a scheme of management for the Tirumulapalli temple in Karalamanna Amsam, Wallu-vanad taluk, in consultation with the Board of Religious Endowments; (c) directing defendants 1 to 5 and 11 and 12 to render an account of their management after producing all account books and documents and other temple property in their possession or power and pay such sums as are found due; (d) directing defendants 1 to 5 and 11 and 12 to surrender all temple articles, jewels, documents, keys, etc., in their possession or power; (e) directing defendants 1 to 5 and 11 and 12 to pay damages f...
Tag this Judgment!Trikaderi Manekal Vasudevan Adiserpad and ors. Vs. thekkumparambath Ma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-11-1933
Reported in: 148Ind.Cas.1155
Ramesam, J.1. This is an appeal against the decree of the District Judge of South Malabar in Order Section No. 3 of 1929. The suit was filed under Section 73 of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, II of 1927. In the plaint the following reliefs were prayed for:(a) removing such of the defendants from their places as trustees of Tirumullapath temple as the Court finds to be guilty of fraud or gross mismanagement;(b) framing a scheme of management for the Tirumullapalli temple in Karalamanna Amsorn, Walluvanad Taluk, in consultation with the Board of Religious Endowments.(c) directing defendants Nos. 1 to 5 and 11 and 12 to render an account of their management after producing all account books and documents and other temple property in their possession or power and pay such sums as are found due.(d) directing defendants Nos. 1 to 5 and 11 and 12 to surrender all temple articles, jewels, documents, keys etc. in their possession or power.(e) directing defendants Nos. 1 to 5 and 11 ...
Tag this Judgment!V.K. Rathnavelu and ors. Vs. K.S. Iyer, Assistant Branch Manager, the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-11-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad765; 145Ind.Cas.878
1. Two persons were charged for cheating (Section 420 Indian Penal Code) in two cases and were tried by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Vellore.: There was a dispute before the Magistrate, on the question whether he had jurisdiction to try the case. The accused persons contended that he had not, and that the cases ought to be tried in Madras. The complainant contended that he had, and the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate held that he had jurisdiction proceeded with the trial, and acquitted both the accused.2. The complainant filed revision petitions in this Court against the orders of acquittal. Laksbmana Rao, J., dismissed the revision petitions, observing that the lower Court, i.e., the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Vellore, 'had clearly no jurisdiction to try the case' and that 'all his remarks relating to the merits of the case must be regarded as mere obiter dicta.'3. Then the complainant filed fresh complaints before the Cheif Presidency Magistrate on the same facts. The Chief Pre...
Tag this Judgment!Lingamallu Seenayya Vs. Lingamalla Ramalingayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-10-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Mad12; (1933)65MLJ789
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. The plaintiff was a member of a firm, and the defendant was his sub-partner. The Lower Courts proceed on the footing that the main partnership was dissolved in 1921. This is disputed by Mr. Sitarama Rao, the Counsel for the plaintiff (respondent); but in the view I am taking, it is unnecessary to pursue this point. The accounts of the partnership were settled in August, 1925, and it was found that there having been a loss, the plaintiff had to bear his share of it. The plaintiff had paid in 1922 a major portion of what was found at the settlement to be due by him for his share. The suit was filed in August, 1925, apparently some days after the settlement, The question to be decided is, is the suit barred by limitation? The Lower Courts, being of the opinion that Article 120 applies, have held that the suit was filed within time.2. Mr. Lakshmanna for the defendant argues that the suit is governed by Article 106 of the Limitation Act. That Article relates to a sui...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »