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.
Gunda Naranna Naidu Vs. Bhairi Venkataramayya Bhuktha Garu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad762; (1935)68MLJ722
Pakenham Walsh, J.1. The appellant brought this suit to set aside a scheme framed by the Hindu Religious Endowments Board with regard to the temple of Sri Hatakeswaraswami at Bhairi Singapuram. The scheme briefly was that the temple was to be administered by a body of trustees three in number - who were appointed for a period of three years. The plaintiff, stating that he was the hereditary trustee that he had! not been guilty of mismanagement and that the scheme framed; is unnecessary and ultra vires, brought the suit for setting aside the same. The Court held that the scheme was not ultra vires, that it was not inadvisable and upheld it with a small alteration that, though the plaintiff was not a hereditary trustee, he could not be turned out except by a suit at the end of three years. The finding was that the suit temple was an 'excepted temple' under Section 5 (5)(a) of the Act of 1925 and for the purpose of this appeal we propose to confine ourselves to that Act.2. This being an '...
Boppanna Somayya Vs. Tadepalli Anjaneyulu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad382; (1935)68MLJ267
1. This matter has been referred to us by the Subordinate Judge of Tenali under Section 60 of the Stamp Act. Some documents were admitted by the District Munsif, but subsequent to their admission in the appellate stage, the question of the sufficiency of the stamp attached to the documents was raised and the learned Subordinate Judge having some doubts about the matter has referred the case to us purporting to do so under Section 60 of the Stamp Act. A preliminary objection has been taken that an Appellate Court has no power to make a reference under Section 60 of the Act and that Section 60 only applies to trial Courts, which when a doubt is felt at the stage of admission of a document as to whether it is or is not properly stamped can refer the matter to the High Court. In support of the preliminary objection the Full Bench decision of this High Court reported in Reference under Stamp Act, Section 49 I.L.R. (1887) 11 Mad. 38 was referred to. That is a decision under Section 49 of the...
Roi (Bari) Stree Vs. Rassinga Naik and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1934
Reported in: 155Ind.Cas.553; (1935)68MLJ606
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. This case has been referred to us by the Agent to the Governor in Ganjam. It relates to a petition for divorce on the grounds of adultery and desertion under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act. The facts of the case are that the petitioner separated herself from her husband on account of his adultery with a concubine in his house. On these, grounds she was awarded maintenance by a Criminal Court on the 29th July, 1929, at the rate of Rs. 2 a month. This order the respondent failed to comply with only paying Rs. 13-3-0 to the petitioner from that date and no more. The learned Agent to the Governor says that, although for judicial separation adultery or desertion may form a reasonable cause, both these facts have to exist before a dissolution can be ordered but he is of the opinion that the husband's living in adultery does not imply that he deserted the petitioner but that the fact that he failed to maintain her even after a decision of a compe...
R. M. A. T. M. Meyyappa Chettiar Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Madra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1934
Reported in: [1935]3ITR93(Mad)
.BEASLEY, C. J. - The question propounded is : 'whether on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the sum of $ 20,000 could be held constructive remittance of profits in the year of account and assessable as such under Section 4(2) of the Act.'The year of account is 1931-32; and in that year the assessee was assessed on a total income of Rs. 76,000 odd. The facts of the case are that the assessee was a partner in a business in Bassein and also in a business in Ipoh in the Federated Malay States. In 1928 the Ipoh business in which the assessee was partner advanced a sum in dollars equivalent to Rs. 31, 200 to the Bassein business and in the books of both those business it was set out as a loan by the Ipoh business to the Bassein business. In 1929-30 the Bassein business ceased to be a partnership and the assessee became its sole proprietor and in that situation the Bassein business, of which he was the sole proprietor, was the debtor to the Ipoh firm in which he was merely a p...
Alla Venkata Kistnayya Vs. Alapati Ramaswami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad302; 157Ind.Cas.591; (1935)68MLJ407
Ramesam, J.1. This revision petition arises out of a suit filed by the Respondent on a promissory note, the petitioner before me being the defendant.2. The plaintiff filed the suit under Order 37, Civil Procedure Code. The defendant applied for leave to defend and notice was ordered to the plaintiff. Afterwards the Court passed the following order 'The petitioner will deposit the amount admittedly due on the suit pro-note and give security of unencumbered immoveable property for the balance claimed in the suit as a condition precedent to his being permitted to defend the suit'. The present Revision Petition is against this order.3. The Subordinate Judge has not addressed himself to the question whether the defendant's affidavit discloses a bona fide defence. In Periya Miyana Marakayar v. Subramania Aiyar (1923) 46 M.L.J. 255 it was held by Schwabe, C.J., and myself that if there is a triable issue in the case the Court ought to grant leave to defend without requiring the defendant eith...
Rajagopala Naidu and ors. Vs. Ramasubramania Ayyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad449
Varadachariar, J.1. Appellants as representing the five pattraigars or groups of inhabitants of their village, sued to recover possession of the village temples and the properties stated to be their endowments. The suit was filed in February 1920, and the plaint stated that defendant 1 had been in unlawful managemeut and possession from December 1911, the date of his father's death. It is common ground that the father of the defendants, one Aswatha Ayyar, was in possassion and management from 1890 up to his death in December 1911; but the plaintiffs claim that Aswatha Ayyar was in possession only as their nominees. Defendant 1 denied that the plaintiffs had any right to the management of the suit temples or their properties and set up title in Aswatha Ayyar, either in accordance with the custom of the institution or1 by prescription. In the alternative he also contended that he himself, having been in possession from December 1911 had acquired a title by prescription or that, at any ra...
Mundluru Gangappa Vs. Official Receiver
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad300
ORDERVenkatasubba Rao, J.1. I am afraid the learned District Judge has fallen into a serious-error in regard to the consideration for the mortgage. He observes that the trial Court's view that the mortgage is supported by consideration, is wrong. Out of the alleged consideration of Rs. 5,000 a sum of about Rs. 3,800 is said to represent a past debt. The-Official Receiver who moved the Court-says in his petition that the mortgage amounts to a fraudulent preference,, which statement implies the existence-of some debt. He also says that the; debt was purposely inflated,' which again shows that far from the debt being repudiated, it was admitted. Even the insolvent, who deposes against the' alienee, has had to admit that in respect of past dealings a sum of about Rs. 3,800 was due. That there was consideration therefore to this extent admits of no question. The balance of the consideration is said to be about-Rs. 1,200 paid in cash on the date of the mortgage. P. W. 2 (examined for the Off...
A. Vs. K. R. M. Kasinathan Chettiar V. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mad ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-1934
Reported in: [1935]3ITR89(Mad)
BEASLEY, C. J. - The question referred to us is : 'Whether the entries in the account books were not evidence for rebutting the presumption that the remittances of Rs. 16,000 to the petitioner in British India between 9th September and 4th June, 1922, were made from profits of gale business whether the aforesaid sum of Rs. 16,000 was assessable to income-tax.' It appears to us that the question referred is not very happily worded because, of course, entries in account books must be some evidence for rebutting the presumption which is raised against as assessee. What is really sought by this question to be decided is whether the Income Tax Officer here was bound to accept as conclusive of the case the entries made in this particular case. The facts of the case are that the assessee who is the manager of a Nattukottai Hindu undivided family carrying on money lending business at Galle and Colombo in Ceylon with headquarters at Devakottah, between 9th September, 1931, and 4th January, 1932...
Mandluru Ganagappa Vs. the Official Receiver
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-1934
Reported in: 159Ind.Cas.541
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. I am afraid the learned District Judge has fallen into a serious error in regard to the consideration for the mortgage. He observes that the trial Court's view that the mortgage is supported by consideration, is wrong. Out of the alleged consideration of Rs. 5,000, a sum of Rs. 3,800 is said to represent a past debt. The Official Receiver who moved the Court, says in his petition that the mortgage amounts to a fraudulent preference, which statement implies the existence of some debt. He also says that the debt 'was purposely inflated', which again shows that far from the debt being repudiated, it was admitted. Even the insolvent, who deposes against the alienee, has had to admit that in respect of past dealings a sum of about Rs. 3,800 was due. That there was consideration, therefore, to this extent, admits of no question. The balance of the consideration is said to be about Rs. 1,200, paid in cash on the date of the mortgage. Petitioner's Witness No. 2 (examined...
Balaji Rao Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1934
Reported in: [1935]3ITR461(Mad)
.The question referred to us is :- 'Whether the sum of Rs. 11,781 paid as gratuity by the bank its provident and Gratuity Fund Rules is income assessable to tax under sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the Act.'The facts of the case are sufficiently plain from the question framed. It is contended before us on behalf of the assessee that, at this gratuity was paid by the bank to him after his retirement, it is not assessable to income tax under Section 7(1). This is an argument which we are quite unable to follow. We are invited to draw a distinction between gratuity paid to an employee during his employment and that paid to a former employee after the period of his employment has come to an end. There is no warrant whatever in the Act for drawing any such distinction. A gratuity is definitely made assessable to income tax under Section 7(1) of the Act under the head 'Salaries' and we see nothing whatever to support or warrant the argument presented to us that it is to be limited in the wa...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »