Chennai Court December 1934 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.
Paparaju Veeraraghavayya Vs. Kilaru Kamala Devi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad193; 157Ind.Cas.1104; (1935)68MLJ67
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The question that is raised may be stated thus: The purchase was subsequent to the attachment but the agreement in pursuance of which the purchase was made, was prior to the attachment. Does the purchase prevail or not against the attachment?2. The suit in question was filed on the 22nd April, 1933, the application for attachment before judgment was made on the 22nd June, the attachment was ordered on the 24th June and effected on the 13th July. On the 20th June, that is, two days prior to the application for attachment, the defendants executed an agreement in favour of the petitioner agreeing to sell him the property. Relying on this agreement, the petitioner put in a claim petition on the 22nd August and the District Munsif, finding the agreement proved, made the following order on 17th October, 1933:Attachment will continue subject to the rights of the petitioner under the agreement, elated 20th June, 1933.3. The claimant can take no exception to this order, a...
Majeti Ramachandrayya Vs. Mamidi Buchayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad288; (1935)68MLJ241
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The question raised is as regards the right to discovery and inspection. The plaintiff is the commission agent of the defendant and sues him on a promissory note said to have been executed in pursuance of a settlement of account. The dealings consisted in the defendant sending the plaintiff timber for sale on commission and monies being advanced by the plaintiff to the defendant. The defendant pleads that the plaintiff, while professing to sell the timber to third parties, sold it on various occasions to himself and that owing to such and other acts of fraud on his part, he, the defendant, is not bound by the settlement. On a previous application by the defendant, inspection was ordered of the plaintiff's ledger and fair day-books. The discovery now sought relates to certain other books such as the plaintiff's rough day-books and shop-books. The question is whether the defendant's request should be granted.2. There are at least three English cases bearing directl...
Pindiprolu Perraju and ors. Vs. Pindiprolu Subbarao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad419; (1935)68MLJ376
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. These Civil Revision Petitions raise a question of court-fee. The suits are for partition of the joint family property, but certain creditors have been made parties on the ground that the debts, alleged to be due to them, are not binding on the plaintiffs. There is a prayer that their share should be delivered to them free of the specified debts. The Lower Court has held that in respect of each debt, a separate fixed Court-fee of Rs. 15 should be paid as upon a declaration under Article 17-A(i) of Sch. II, of the Court-Fees Act. It is contended for the Petitioners that the order of the Lower Court is wrong and that they are not liable to pay any additional Court-fee in respect of the debts mentioned.2. Mr. Subramaniam puts his argument thus : It is within the proper scope of a partition suit that the debts should be ascertained and discharged. The Civil Rules of Practice expressly provide that at the hearing of a suit the Court shall determine whether there are a...
Kalapati Peda Pitchamma and anr. Vs. Chiruvella Pedamuneyya Minor by N ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad380; 155Ind.Cas.559; (1935)68MLJ466
Ramesam, J.1. This matter comes upon reference by the Additional District Munsif of Nellore on account of a difference of opinion between him and the Court Fee Examiner.2. The facts out of which this reference arises are these. A small cause decree was passed ex parte for Rs. 155-10-0. The defendant then put in a petition to set aside the ex parte decree and filed along with it a security bond executed by a surety for the performance of the decree. It looks as if the security bond was/not originally stamped at all, but, when the petition came on before the Court, the Court ordered the petitioner to affix the usual court-fee stamp of 8 annas to the security bond which was the practice of that Court. The decree has been set aside and the suit restored.3. The Court Fee Examiner now thinks that the stamp to be affixed to the security bond is not 8 annas stamp under Article 6 of Scheduld II of the Court Fees Act, but a stamp of Rs. 1-4-0 under Article 15 of the Stamp Act. Now Article 15 of ...
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Janab Hajee Muhammad Sadak Khoyee S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1934
Reported in: (1936)70MLJ24
Ramesam, J.1. This matter comes on before us on a reference by the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act. The facts of the case are these. The assessee Janab Hajee Mohammad Sadak Khoyee Sahib, carries on money-lending business in Viziana-garam within the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer, Vizagapatam circle. In the course of his money-lending business he advanced a sum of Rs. 1,50,000 to the Zamindar of Salur in the Vizagapatam District and obtained a mortgage-deed which is Ex. A dated the 8th November, 1928. The document directs the amount of consideration to be paid to various creditors of the mortgagor. It provides for payment of interest at one per cent, per mensem at the end of the year. If the interest is not fully discharged at the end of the year, overdue interest will be added to the principal and will carry compound interest. The principal amount was to be paid within ten years. At the end of ten years if the amount is not paid the m...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Janab Hajee Muhammad Sadak Khoyee Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1934
Reported in: AIR1936Mad144; 160Ind.Cas.948
Ramesam, J.1. This matter comes on before us on a reference by the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 66(2), Income-tax Act. The facts of the case are these. The assessee, Janab Hajee Mohammad Sadak Khoyee Sahib, carries on money-lending business in Vizianagaram within the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer, Vizagapatam circle. In the course of his money-lending business he advanced a sum of Rs. 1,50,000 to the Zamindar of Salur in the Vizagapatam District and obtained a mortgage-deed which is Ex. A dated 8th November 1928. The document directs the amount of consideration to be paid to various creditors of the mortgagor. It provides for payment of interest at one per cent. per mensem at the end of the year. If the interest is not fully discharged at the end of the year, overdue interest will be added to the principal and will carry compound interest. The principal amount was to be paid within ten years. At the end of ten years if the amount is not paid, the mortgagee may file...
Marudamuthu Asari Vs. Kumaraswami Asari and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad414; 157Ind.Cas.268
Madhavan Nair, J.1. Plaintiff is the appellant The second appeal arises out of a suit instituted by him for the recovery of the suit property purchased by him from one Annopurnathammal under Ex. B in 1926. Annapurnathammal is the widow of one Annaswami. Annaswami and Periaswami are brothers. The plaintiff's case is that there was a. partition between Periaswami and Annaswami. that the suit property fell to the share of Annaswami and that after his death it was inherited by his widow from whom he has derived a valid title to it by purchase under Ex. B. The defendants were alleged to be trespassers ; but their case is that there was no partition between Periaswami and Annaswumi and that, on the death of Annaswami, Periaswami became entitled to all the properties by right of survivorship. They further alleged that theiy purchased the property in execution of the decree in 0 Section No. 1103 of 1H19 on the file of the District Munsif of Ariyalur against Periaswami, the undivided brother of...
Pindiprou Perraju and ors. Vs. Pindiprolu Subba Rao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1934
Reported in: 156Ind.Cas.625
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. These Civil Revision Petitions raise a question of court-fee. The suits are for partition of the joint family property, but certain creditors have been made parties on the ground that the debts, alleged to be due to them, are not binding on the plaintiffs. There is a prayer that their share should be delivered to them free of the specified debts. The lower Court has held that in respect of each debt, a separate fixed court-fee of Rs. 15 should be paid as upon a declaration under Article 17A(i) of Schedule II of the Court Fees Act. It is contended for the petitioners that the order of the lower Court is wrong and that they are not liable to pay any additional court-fee in respect of the debts mentioned.2. Mr. Subramaniam puts his argument thus: It is within the proper scope of a partition suit that the debts should be ascertained and discharged. The Civil Rules of Practice expressly provide that at the hearing of a suit the Court shall determine whether there are ...
Majeti Ramachendrayya Vs. Mamidi Buchayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1934
Reported in: 157Ind.Cas.599
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The question raised is as regards the right to discovery and inspection. The plaintiff is the commission agent of the defendant and sues him on a promissory note said to have been executed in pursuance of a settlement of account. The dealing consisted in the defendant sending the plaintiff timber for sale on commission and monies being advanced by the plaintiff to the defendant. The defendant pleads that the plaintiff, while professing to sell the timber to third parties, sold it on various occasions to himself and that owing to such and other acts of fraud on his part, he, the defendant, is not bound by the settlement. On a previous application by the defendant, inspection was ordered of the plaintiff's ledger and fair day-books. The discovery now sought relates to certain other books such as the plaintiff's rough day books and shop books. The question is whether the defendant's request should be granted.2. There are at least three English cases bearing directly...
The South Indian Industrials, Ltd. by Its Managing Director Mahomed Ha ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1934
Reported in: (1935)68MLJ379
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. The question reierred B to us is:Whether there was sufficient legal evidence to justify the Income-tax Officer's finding that during the year of account the Company carried on no business within the meaning of Section 2(4) of the Income-tax Act, XI of 1922, and that the losses claimed by the Company were of a capital nature and could not be set off against the income from dividends.2. The assessee Company is a limited company registered in 1904 under the Indian Companies Act. The main objects of the Company as set out in its Memorandum of Association are (1) to acquire and carry on the business then carried on by the Chittivalsah Spinning and Weaving Company Limited at Chittivalsah, (2) to acquire and carry on the business then carried on by the Madras Portland Cement and Tile Works, Ltd., at Madras and Bangalore and (3) to acquire and carry on the business then carried on by Messrs. Arbuthnot & Company, Madras including (a) Cement Works in Calc...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »