Chennai Court May 1933 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.
Sudali Alias Muthuammal Vs. Velayudam Pandaram
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-03-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Mad99; (1933)65MLJ586
Ramesam, J.1. This is a revision petition against the decree of the District Munsif of Ambasamudram in S.C.S. No. 543 of 1929. The suit was filed to recover Rs. 290 consisting of Rs. 270, the principal and interest due on a promissory note, dated 18th October, 1915, for Rs. 205-14-0 and Rs. 20, the principal and interest due on an oral loan of Rs. 13. The second claim was not afterwards pressed and it is not necessary to refer to it any more.2. One of the points raised in the case is that the plaintiff having previously filed a suit in the Village Court for Rs. 35, a portion of the claim of Rs. 270, he is precluded from bringing this suit. The District Munsif disallowed that plea relying on Augustus Brothers v. Fernandez (1915) 29 M.L.J. 474. In that case there was a reference to the High Court by the Subordinate Judge of Cochin on the question whether Order 2, Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code applies to Village Courts. The parties were not represented in the High Court and it was he...
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Nachal Achi, Widow of S. Rm. Rm. Ra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-03-1933
Reported in: (1934)66MLJ17
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. Three questions have been referred to us by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras. Question (1) is:When income has escaped assessment, can an assessment be made under Section 34 on the successor of the person who, if no succession had taken place, would have been liable to the tax?Question (2) is:If such assessment is otherwise valid, is it invalidated by the fact that the succession took place after the close of the year in which the income escaped assessment (in this case the year 1929-30) ?Question (3) is:When a notice under Section 34 has been served on a person and he has made a return in response thereto, can the proceedings be continued by the issue of notices under Sections 22(4) and 23(2) to the successor of such person, or should proceedings against the successor be started de novo ?2. The facts of the case are that 1928-29 was the year of account and that an original assessment was made on the profits of the business carried on by th...
In Re: Kaliappa Goundan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-03-1933
Reported in: (1933)65MLJ597
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. The two appellants were charged in the Sessions Court of Coimbatore with having murdered a woman named Muthayee, the wife of the 1st appellant, on the 16th September of last year and also with having caused evidence of the said offence to disappear by placing her body on the railway line with the intention of screening themselves from legal punishment. They were thus charged, firstly, under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, and secondly, under Section 201, Indian Penal Code. The learned Sessions Judge convicted them of the offence of attempt at murder under Section 307, Indian Penal Code, under the first count and sentenced them to transportation for life. The appellants appeal against that conviction. The Public Prosecutor has presented a Memorandum of Criminal Appeal against that order of the learned Sessions Judge on the following grounds, namely, that the appellants ought to have been convicted of murder and that the learned Sessions Judge, ha...
Kaliappa Goundan and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-03-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad798; 145Ind.Cas.953
Beaslsy, C.J.1. The two appellants were charged in the Sessions Court of Coimbatore with having murdered a woman named Muthayee, the wife of the Ist, appellant on September 16 of last year and also with having caused evidence of the said offence to disappear by placing her body on the Railway line with the intention of screening themselves from legal punishment. They were thus charged firstly, under Section 302, Indian Penal Code and, secondly, under Section 201, Indian Penal Code. The learned Sessions Judge convicted them of the offence of attempt at murder under Section 337, Indian Penal Code, under the first count and sentenced them to transportation for life. The appellants appeal against that conviction. The Public Prosecutor has presented a Memorandum of Criminal Appeal against that order of the learned Sessions Judge on the following grounds, namely, that the appellants ought to have been convicted of murder and that the learned Sessions Judge having found in para. 18 of his jud...
Vemuri Subramanyam Garu and ors. Vs. Avanigedda Subbayi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-01-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Mad143; 150Ind.Cas.384
Ramesam, J.1. This is a revision petition against the order of the District Judge of Kistna refusing to pass an order under Section 78, Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act. The facts are that in the village of Avanigedda, there is an idol called Lankamma and a temple dedicated to the idol, and according to the petitioners before me certain lands form the endowment of this temple. An application was filed before the Hindu Religious Endowments Board and the Board found that these lands are not service inam lands of the respondents but endowments of the temple, They then proceeded to frame a scheme for the management of the temple and its properties. The proceedings of the Board were passed on 15th September 1927. In para. 4 of the District Judge's order he ramarked:There is nothing on record to show whether or not a scheme has been framed under the Act in respect of the temple lands and whether the hereditary trustee has been removed, and if so under what circumstances.2. Apparently, t...
(Palli) Vittala Hedge Vs. Paniyur Hosamane Sheenappa Shetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-01-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad872; 147Ind.Cas.386
Pandalai, J.1. The lower Court has dismissed an execution petition by the appellant filed in the Karkal Munsif's Court on 3rd July 1929, to execute his decree made in O.S. No. 875 of 1919 by the Udipi Munsif's Court on the ground of want of jurisdiction and limitation. The learned District Judge was so struck by the irregularities of the execution department in the Subordinate Courts in his district and the careless manner in which that department was being worked by the officers of the Courts as well as by litigants and their advisers that he has passed very strong strictures on what ho quite rightly terms the apathy and indifference associated with the execution of civil Court decrees. The justification of these remarks in this execution consists in fifteen applications in execution during a period of five or six years in all of which it seems the particulars required by Order 21, Rule 11, Civil P.C., were wrongly entered. The fact of there having been an appeal was ignored with the ...
Su. Ellappa Mudaliar Vs. A. Swaminatha Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-01-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad755; 145Ind.Cas.858
Ramesam, J.1. This is a revision petition against the decree of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Chingleput, dismissing the plaintiff's suit in S.C.S. No. 187 of 1929. The plaintiff alleged that he and the defendant had dealings with another firm and in connexion with those dealings, that firm obtained a joint and several decree against the plaintiff and the defendant to the extent of Rs. 612-3-0. Execution was taken against the plaintiff alone and the plaintiff had to pay up the whole decree amount. He therefore brings the suit for contribution of half the decree amount against the defendant. The defendant pleaded that the plaintiff, the defendant and a third party, named Balasubramania Mudali, carried on business as partners and the liability incurred by the plaintiff, and the defendant was in connexion with the business of that partnership. He also pleaded that the plaintiff discharged the debt out of the assets of the partnership which he had in his hands. But as to this plea ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›