Chennai Court October 1935 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.
N.K. Venkatesan Vs. B. Rama Rao, Official Liquidator
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-02-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad97
1. The only point of substance in this appeal is that the appellant was given no notice under Rule 59 (Madras O.S. Rules under the Companies Act), after the list of contributories had been settled. This might have been a good point but unfortunately for the appellant, it was not even raised before the learned District Judge. It is therefore at this stage a mere technicality which cannot be allowed to defeat the Official Liquidator unless the appellant has some solid merits in his favour.2. On the merits it is clear that the appellant could only have raised before the learned District Judge the same objections as he had already raised in his; counter to the Official Liquidator's application to include his name in the list of contributories. The same objections were raised by many other contributories and were rejected by the learned District Judge. We agree with the learned District Judge that the appellant's membership was not terminated; by the appropriation of his share capital towar...
Patil Subba Reddi Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-02-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad160
King, J.1. The appellant in this case was the Village Magistrate of Pedda Yekkalur. He has been convicted under Section 211, Penal Code, in respect of the fact that in a report by him to a police officer on 4th February 1934 he has falsely included in the list of accused who committed dacoity at his house the name of his inveterate enemy Bala Rangayya. I need not discuss the merits of the case, whether Bala Rangayya was or was not present or whether the accused knew that he was not present and therefore made a false statement in the report which he gave to the police because the conviction of the appellant has in my opinion to be set aside on another ground of law.2. Under Section 211, I.P.C., the person who institutes or causes to be instituted any criminal proceeding against any person with intent to cause injury to him and knowing that there is no lawful or just ground for such proceeding is guilty of an offence. In the present case, what is alleged for the appellant is that the per...
Ariyaputra Naicken Vs. Muthu Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-02-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad165; 160Ind.Cas.753
Varadachariar, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff whose suit for possession and mesne profits has been dismissed by the lower Court. The plaintiff claims title under a purchase from one Natesa Chetti on 23rd December 1921 (Ex. A). This Natesa Chetti had in turn purchased the suit property from a father and his son, Narasier and Narayana Rao under Ex. A-2 on 21st December 1918 and the principal question for determination is the nature of the title acquired by Natesa Chetti. At the time of Natesa's purchase, the property was subject to a usufructuary mortgage in favour of the present defendant 1, the equity of redemption being vested in Narasier and Narayana Rao. Natesa Chetti was the son-in-law of defendant 1. Defendant 1 had agreed to assign his usufructuary mortgage right in the suit properties and certain other properties of his to one Hanumanthayya and the latter had instituted a suit for specific performance of that agreement in O.S. No. 352 of 1917 on the file of the District...
K.V.A.L. Ramanathan Chettiar and anr. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-02-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad780
Madhavan Nair, Offg. C.J.1. The Income-tax Commissioner has referred to this Court the following questions for decision: (i) Whether on the admitted facts of the case, the sum of Rs. 14,313 was assessable to income-tax as a remittance of foreign profits under Section 4(2), Income-tax Act. (ii) Whether on the facts of the case the initial presumption that the sum of Rs. 14,313 must be deemed to be a remittance of petitioner's foreign profits has not been fully rebutted and the assessment of the said sum legal or warranted by the provisions of the Income-tax Act. The facts are these: One K.V.A.L., family became divided into three branches: K.V.A.L.E.M., K.V.A.L.A.L. and K.V.A.L.M. The petitioner, Ramantham Chettiar, is the manager of the K.V.A.L.E.M. branch of the family. He carries on the business of banking in Madras, Kuala Lampur and other places, his family is residing at Kottaivur in Ramnad District.2. In this case we are concerned with the assessment of the petitioner for the year ...
Jupudi Kesava Rao Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-02-1935
Reported in: [1935]3ITR339(Mad)
.MADHAVAN NAIR, OFFG., C. J. - The question referred to us is, In the circumstances of this case is the petitioner herein liable to be assessee under Section 26(2) of the Indian Income Tax Act?The circumstances are these : The petitioner, J. Kesava Rao, and his deceased father J. Gangayya constituted a Hindu undivided family deriving income from money-lending business. Gangayya was manager of the family and the assessments used to be levied on him as representative of the family. For the assessment of the 1932-33 (accounting year 1932-32) notice was issued to Gangayya under Section 22 (2) of the Income Tax Act on the 9th April, 1932, and he filed his return on the 20th May, 1932 showing a net income of Rs. 12,755. Gangayya died on the 15th July, 1932, before assessment could be levied on him. After his death the petitioner continued to carry on the business. Notices were then issued to him under Sections 22(4) and 23 (2) of the Act. He complied with these notices and was finally assess...
In Re: Patil Subba Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-02-1935
Reported in: 160Ind.Cas.988
King, J.1. The appellant; in this ease was the village Magistrate of Pedda Yekkalur. He has been convicted under Section 211, Indian Penal Code, in respect of the fact that in a report by him to a Police Officer on February 4, 1934, he has falsely included in the list of accused who committed dacoity at his house the name of his inveterate enemy, Bala Rangayya. I need not discuss the merits of the case, whether Bala Gangayya was or was not x present or whether the accused knew that he was not present and, therefore, made a false statement in the report which he gave to the Police, because the- conviction of the appellant has in my opinion to be set aside on another grouud of law.2. Under Section 211, Indian Penal Code, the person who institutes or causes to be instituted any criminal proceeding against any person with intent to cause injury to him and knowing that there is no lawful or just ground for such proceeding, is guilty of an offence. In the present case, what is alleged for th...
Sesha Ayyar Vs. Krishna Ayyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-02-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad225; 162Ind.Cas.68
Cornish. J.1. This reference has been made upon a Civil Revision Petition in which the petitioner was defendant No. 3 in a suit brought by plaintiff-respondents to recover money paid as subscriptions to a prize kuri. Defendant No. 3 and the other defendants promoted this kuri for the purpose of raising funds for a temple. The plaint alleges that plaintiff No. 1 took two tickets in the kuri and had paid Rs. 270 representing 45 monthly payments on his two tickets. It states that the scheme was that the kuri was to be conducted for 50 months and that those subscribers who had not been so fortunate as to draw a prize were, at the close of the kuri after the 50th drawing, to be refunded the amount of the money subscribed by them. There is the further allegation that the kuri came to an end after payment of the 45 instalments and that despite the plaintiffs' demand for a refund of his subscriptions no repayment has been made by defendants. The sum claimed is Rs. 270 which is the amount of 45...
Shiyali Vengu Chetti Vs. Valjee Kanjee and Company
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-01-1935
Reported in: 159Ind.Cas.762; (1935)69MLJ862
Burn, J.1. This is an appeal from an order of the learned District Judge of South Arcot dismissing an application said to be a petition under Section 47, Civil Procedure Code. The petitioner was the second defendant in the suit and he alleged that execution proceedings taken in the District Court of South Arcot were void. He said that those proceedings had all been taken during his minority and this application was in time because he had presented it shortly after attaining his majority. The facts have been sufficiently stated in the order of the learned District Judge and there is no necessity to state them again now. So far as we are able to see, there were no merits in the application, and there are none in the appeal.2. The first contention of the learned Advocate for the appellant is that the District Court of South Arcot had no jurisdiction to go on with the execution proceedings since the order of the High Court transmitting the decree to the District Court of South Arcot for ex...
Swaminatha Ayyar Vs. Saivu Rowthan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-01-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad123; 160Ind.Cas.559
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. The facts necessary for the disposal of this second appeal may be briefly stated. One Gopalakrishnier and Rangier were members of a joint Hindu family, the said Gopalakrishna Ayyar being the elder and managing member thereof. In respect of debts incurred for the joint family, creditors obtained decrees, among them plaintiff in suits O.S. No. 79 of 1925 and O.S. No. 26 of 1926 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court of Palghat. The two decrees were obtained by the plaintiff against the said Gopalkrishnier as family manager both personally and against the family properties in his hands. The date of the decree in O.S. No. 26 of 1926 is 14th September 1926. The date of the decree in O.S. No. 79 of 1925 is 11th January 1926. Subsequent to the passing of these two decrees defendant 1 instituted a suit O.S. No. 46 of 1927 impleading both Gopalakrishnier and Rangier and also the Official Receiver, South Malabar. The claim was to recover the suit amount from Gopalak...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›