Chennai Court April 1934 Judgments
Ghulam Mohideen Sahib Vs. Dist. Magistrate and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad545; 153Ind.Cas.4
ORDERVaradachariar, J.1. This application asks for the issue of a writ of prohibition to the District Magistrate of Chingleput, to prohibit him from further proceeding in the matter of an application under Section 12, Place of Public Resort Act (1888) made to him by one Chunnilal Sowcar. It is not necessary to set out the history of the matter in much detail. It is enough to say that an application for license was in the first instance made to the Local Panchayat as required by Section 198, Local Boards Act, and in accordance with the provisions of that section it was first dealt with by the President of the Panchayat and afterwards by the Panchayat body itself. On the assumption that notwithstanding the enactment of Section 198, Local Boards Act, the power under Section 12, Madras Act 2 of 1888 still subsists, the applicant moved the District Magistrate. The present application has been made to stop further proceedings, as the petitioner contends that the District Magistrate has no ju...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras Vs. Gopu Balakrishnayya and Others.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1934
Reported in: [1935]3ITR98(Mad)
BEASLEY, C. J. - Two questions have been referred to us. I will deal with the first of them only, viz., 'Whether on the facts of this case there was a firm in existence against which proceedings for assessment could be taken under Sections 22 and 23.'The Income Tax Commissioner in dealing with that question says that that is primarily a question of a fact. With that I entirely agree. He continues that some legal consideration are involved. I do not know where they are. The facts of the case, so far as the reference before us is concerned, are that this firm ceased to do active business in November, 1931, but there is ample evidence which is contained in a partnership deed (exhibit B) which was produced and also in the resolutions passed by the company on the 20th April, 1932 (Exhibit A) showing that the partners were meeting together and passing resolutions and describing the company as a going concern. Having thus described themselves in resolutions, they did so, as before mentioned, ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. P.R.A.L.M. Muthukaruppan Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad633
Beasley, C.J.1. The question referred to us is whether on the facts of this case the sum of Rs. 38,305 is a receipt of capital or of profit assessable under Section 4 (2), Income-tax Act. The petitioner was a partner in the S.P.K.A.A.M. Firm in Colombo. He retired from that firm; and an account was taken of the capital and of the profits, etc., and the petitioner was given his share and went out of the firm with it. His contention is that his retirement from the firm brought about a dissolution of the firm and that on such a dissolution the profits and capital etc., of the firm became consolidated into capital for distribution amongst the partners. He therefore contends that the sum in question cannot be assessed to Income-tax as profits following the decision in Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras v. Sidaha Gowder & Sons 1932 Mad. 375 in which the decision in Inland Revenue Commissioner v. Burrell (1924) 2 K.B. 52 was applied. The Commissioner of Income-tax contests this position and c...
Tag this Judgment!M.G. Sundaragiriraja Ayyangar and ors. Vs. D. Balasubramania Ayyar and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad637; 152Ind.Cas.155
Ramesam, J.1. The only question in this case is whether the delay in filing the appeal to the lower appellate Court should be excused and the appeal allowed to proceed or the appeal should be dismissed, the delay not being excused. The appeal was originally presented to the High Court on 13th July 1925. It was directed to be returned by order dated 18th September 1930. There was no further delay in representation to the District Court where it ought to have been presented on 5th March 1925. The District Judge held that the period which elapsed after 13th July 1925 may be excluded from the computation but held that the interval between 5th April 1925 and 13th July 1925 cannot be excluded.2. It is conceded on all hands that at that time the practice was to file such appeals (under the Land Acquisition Act Section 54) to the High Court. The two decisions of this Court S.R. 7968 of 1927, Devadoss and Jackson, JJ., and Venkatareddi v. Adinarayan Rao 1929 Mad. 351 holding that the appeal lay...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. P.R.A.L.M. Muthukarupan Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-1934
Reported in: 155Ind.Cas.705
Beasley, C.J.1. The question referred to us is whether on the facts of this case the sum of Rs. 38,305 is a receipt of capital or of profit assessable under Section 4(2), Income-Tax Act. The petitioner was a partner in the S.P.K.A.A.M. Firm in Colombo. He retired from that firm and an account was taken of the capital and of the profits, etc., and the petitioner was given his share and went out of the firm with it. His contention is that his retirement from the firm brought about a dissolution of the firm and that on such a dissolution the profits and capital, etc., of the firm became consolidated into capital for distribution amongst the partners. He, therefore, contends that the sum in question cannot be assessed to income-tax; as profits following the decision in Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras v. Siddha Gowdar and Sons : (1932)62MLJ638 in which the decision in Inland Revenue Commissioner v. Burrell (1924) 2 K.B. 52 : 9 T.C. 27 : 93 L.J.K.B. 709 : 40 T.L.R. 562 : 131 L.T. 727 was ...
Tag this Judgment!Meppalli Raman Nambudri Vs. Uralars Committee Members of Taliparamba T ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad672; 152Ind.Cas.632
Madhaavan Nair, J.1. The surety, defendant 1 is the appellant. The first point pressed is that there is no money due from defendant 2 to the plaintiffs. Both the Courts have found that the discharge pleaded is not proved. This point cannot be pressed in second appeal. The second point is whether the plaintiffs, i.e., the President, the Treasurer and the Committee, who admittedly manage the temple affairs, though there are fifty Uralars for the temple, can maintain the suit. It is not denied that the management has been entrusted by all the Uralars to the plaintiffs. This is not a case where the trusteeship has been delegated by a trustee to a stranger. Prom amongst the trustees themselves they have, to 'facilitate management, authorised a Committee of five trustees to look after the temple affairs. This Committee appointed defendant 2 as Samudayi and is now claiming moneys due from him during hits management from 16th September 1925 to 2lst November 1925. I cannot sea how the cases whi...
Tag this Judgment!V. Raman Nair Vs. Parameswaran Nambudiri and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad683; 153Ind.Cas.15
Varadachariar, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit brought to recover from defendant 1 what is described in the plaint as 'neervaratn' (loosely translated as water-cess), for three years. There is some obscurity as to the nature and basis of the claim and certain previous litigations have only added to the obscurity; but as they do not make the matter res judicata it is unnecessary to refer in detail to these litigations. The substance of the plaintiff's claim is that he is at present maintaining an artificial system of irrigation channels constructed more than fifty years ago by one Pichu Iyer at his own cost, as a result whereof a large extent of land in the possession of various people including the adiyamkulath tarwad received the benefit of supply of water drawn from a river in the Cochin State. Defendant 1 is in possession of about 831/4 paras (seed area) of lands by purchase from the Kadiyamkulath tarwad. The plaintiff says, that the arrangement under which Pichu Iyer c...
Tag this Judgment!Peer Mohideen Rowther Vs. Asia Bivi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad686; 152Ind.Cas.739
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The question that arises in this appeal is, whether defendant l's liability is to be determined with reference to Section 90, Trusts Act (2 of 1882). Mr. Bajah Ayyar contends that the heirs of a deceased Mohammedan take as tenants-in-common, and that one co-tenant does not stand in fiduciary relation to his other co-tenants. The learned Counsel relies upon Kennedy v. De Drafford (1897) A.C. 180, and my judgment in Ramaswami Ayyar v. Subramania Ayyar 1923 Mad. 147, for the position that the relationship of one co-owner towards another is not of a fiduciary character. The question here however is not whether the mere fact that defendant 1 was a co-tenant, could render him liable to be treated as a fiduciary owner, but the point to decide is, whether by reason of his dealings with his co-owner's share and the responsibilities he assumed in regard to it he did not beyond being a bare tenant-in-common, also put himself in fiduciary relationship.2. At the death of Meer...
Tag this Judgment!Mullankandiyil Kundangat Chalil Krishnan and ors. Vs. Kandangat Chalil ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad38; 152Ind.Cas.17
Sundaram Chetty, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs-appellants for the setting aside of certain alienations made by the adult members of the tavazhi mentioned in the plaint and for certain incidental reliefs. One set of alienations attacked in the plaint are covered by Exs. III, IV-a, and V. All these mortgages were created over the othi right which the tavazhi possessed in certain immovable property. The tavazhi had to get a sum of Rs. 500 as the mortgage money, besides Rs. 100 together with interest thereon, as purangadam and also the value of the improvements effected on the property, in case of redemption of the mortgage by the original owner. Both the Courts below have found that the aforesaid mortgages are valid and binding on the tavazhi tarwad, and in respect of those mortgages the declaration sought for by the plaintiffs cannot be given. The last of the alienations attacked by the plaintiffs is evidenced by Ex. VIII, which is a deed of assig...
Tag this Judgment!S.A.R.M.S.P.A. Annamalai Chetti and ors. Vs. S.A.R.M.S.P. Palaniappa C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad266; 155Ind.Cas.151
Ramesam, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit by a Nattukottai Chetti (plaintiff 1) against his father (defendant 1), his half brothers (defendants 2, 3 and 7) stepmother (defendant 4) and half-sisters (defendants 5 and 6) to recover his share of the family property. Plaintiff 2 is the son of plaintiff 1. The matter came up on a former occasion before this Court and was disposed of by Kumaraswami Sastri, J., and one of us. We then found that the plaintiffs were entitled to one fourth share of the family property and the case was sent back for ascertaining the amount due to the plaintiffs in respect of the various items claimed. The Subordinate Judge has now passed a final decree. The plaintiffs have filed this appeal and there is also a memorandum of objections filed by defendants 1, 4 and 7 (respondents 1, 3 and 4). (The judgment after dealing with certain items of property proceeds.) The next item argued by the appellants relates to interest from the date of plaint up to the date of...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »