Chennai Court April 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.
A. Harvey Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad1005; [1935]3ITR311(Mad)
THE CHIEF JUSTICE. - The question under reference is :'Whether Section 23-A could be legally applied to this case, there being no finding that failure to distribute Rs. 36,180 was with a view to prevent the imposition of tax on any of the shareholders.'Sub-section 2 of Section 23-A which is the one in question reads as follows :'Where the Income Tax Officer is satisfied that a company is under the control of not more than five of its members and that its profits and gains are allowed to accumulate beyond its reasonable needs, existing and contingent, having regard to the maintenance and development of its business, without being distributed to the members, or that a reasonable part of its profits and gains having regard to the said needs, has not been distributed to its members in such manner as to render the amount distributed liable to be included in their income, and that such accumulation or failure to distribute is for the purpose of preventing the imposition of tax upon any of th...
Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras Vs. B. J. Fletcher.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad953; [1935]3ITR223(Mad)
THE CHIEF JUSTICE. - Two question are referred to us by the Income Tax Commissioner, viz.,(1) 'Whether the sum of Rs. 36,794 paid to Mr. Fletcher in 1932-33 was income liable to tax, or was a capital sum exempted under Clause (v) of sub-Section (3) of Section (4) or otherwise, and(2) 'Whether Mr. Fletcher is entitled to relief under section 25 (3) of the Act on the ground alleged by him, viz., that he discontinued his profession in the year of account.'The sum set out in first question was received by the assessee in the year of account as an employee of the Buckingham and Carnatic Company Limited, Madras, over and above his monthly pay. This sum was received out of the Officer Retiring Fund of the Company. It is a fund created by the company and its constitution and management are governed by certain rules framed by the company and directors of the company for the time being have full discretion to alter, interpret or add to those rules which are before us. The company allots every ha...
Veerappa thevar and ors. Vs. C.S. Venkatrama Ayyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad872; 158Ind.Cas.940
Cornish, J.1. These appeals raise a common point. The three appellants were respondents to a decree-holder's execution petition for the sale of property attached prior to judgment. It; appears that a temporary injunction had been obtained to restrain the owner of the property, the later judgment-debtor, from alienating it. The matter was taken to the High Court on appeal, with the result that the order for an injunction was discharged and the property was attached. The High Court order was dated December 21, 1928, and the attachment was made on December 26, 1928. Prior to the attachment the owner of the property had entered into agreement with the appellants all on the same day, October 26, 1928, for the sale of the property. In pursuance of these agreement the property was conveyed by sale-deeds to the appellants, subsequent to the date of the attachment, The lower Court has found in favour of the validity of the agreements of sale, and this finding is not disputed in appeal. It has a...
Bodo Jagannadho Naiko and ors. Vs. Harihara Mahapatro and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad885; 158Ind.Cas.829
Beasley, C.J.1. In this appeal the lower Court has held that the proceedings in question were not barred by limitation by reason of the fact that they were merely a continuation of earlier proceedings. Those earlier proceedings culminated in the following order dated 1st February 1928 being passed by the Subordinate Judge of Berhampore viz. : 'Sale stopped for want of bidders. Execution petition is struck off the file.' This is yet another instance of an order being made which is wholly irregular and is not recognized by the law or by any code of procedure. It is an order which has been time and again condemned by this Court and by other Courts in reported decisions. It is necessary to refer to only two of them for this purpose. One of these is Pattannayya v. Pattayya 1926 Mad. 458, a decision of Devadoss and Waller, 33. There, Devadoss, J., whilst pointing out that there is no provision of law by which the executing Court could lodge a petition or record it or strike it off for what i...
T.R. Bhushnam Vs. C. Umapathi Mudaliar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad870; 159Ind.Cas.888
Pandrang Row, J.1. This is an appeal from the decree of the City Civil Judge, Madras, dated 15th October 1934, in O.S. No. 51 of 1933, a suit for a declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to free passage of light and air through the aperture marked A and the windows marked B, C, D, E and F in the plan attached to the plaint and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from raising any wall or other structure on their premises to the south of the plaintiff's house which might have the effect of obstructing such free passage of light and air. The plaintiff and the defendants are the owners of two contiguous houses Nos. 13 and 12, Kuppumutha Mudaly Street. The plaintiff built his house in 1905 and his house has got, besides the ground floor, a first floor and also a second floor. The second floor, however, is not material for the purpose of the present suit. The plaintiff's case is that the defendants are attempting to raise a wall 12 feet above the existing wall of their ...
Kaza Gangayya Vs. (Allada) Seshagiri Rao and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad922; 159Ind.Cas.38
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. If the decree has become time-barred against the judgment-debtor, it must be held to be equally barred as against the surety. The question therefore is, has it become unenforceable against the judgment-debtor? The decree was passed on 4th August 1917. The first execution petition was presented on 15th March 1919. The second petition was put in on 16th August 1924; in that the decree-holder gave credit for Rs. 100 said to have been paid in 1921 by the judgment-debtor. The present application was filed on 6th December 1927.2. The question that has really to be decided is, had the decree become barred when the second application was presented? The judgment-debtor's contention in the lower Court seems to have been, that although the part payment of Rs. 100 was made within three years from the date of the first petition, the certification having been made only on 16th August 1924 (the date of the second petition), the decree must be held to have become barred. This co...
Jonnavaram Balireddi Vs. Khatipulal Sab Alias Abdul Satar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad863; (1935)69MLJ458
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The suit has been brought by the plaintiff for the setting aside of certain mortgage deeds and sale-deeds executed by his father and for possession of the immoveable properties covered by them. Section 7(iv-A) introduced into the Court-Fees Act by the Madras Amendment reads thus:In a suit for cancellation of a decree for money or other property having a money value, or other document securing money or other property having such value, according to the value of the subject-matter of the suit, and such value shall be deemed to be if the whole decree or other document is sought to be cancelled, the amount or the value of the property for which the decree was passed, or the other document executed, if a part of the decree or other* document is sought to be cancelled, such part of the amount or value of the property.2. The plaintiff prays, in the words of this section, for the cancellation of documents securing money or other property having money value. Mortgage inst...
Jenavaram Bailireddi Vs. Khatipulal Sab and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1935
Reported in: 159Ind.Cas.263
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The suit has been brought by the plaintiff for the setting aside of certain mortgage deeds and sale deeds executed by his father and for possession of the immovable properties covered by them. Section 7 (iv-A) introduced into the Court Fees Act by the Madras Amendment reads thus:In a suit for cancellation of decree for money or other property having a money value or other document securing money or other property having such value, according to the value of the subject-matter of the suit and such value shall be deemed to be if the whole decree or other document is sought to be cancelled, the amount or the value of the property for which the decree was passed, or the other document executed,if a part of the decree or other document is sought to be cancelled, such part of the amount or value of the property.2. The plaintiff prays, in the words of this section, for the cancellation of documents securing money or other property haying money value. Mortgage instrument...
The Municipal Council of Tellicherry Represented by Its Chairman Vs. C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-13-1935
Reported in: 159Ind.Cas.53
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The Municipal Council of Tellicherry is the appellant. The respondent was assessed to profession tax by the Municipality for the years 1924-1927 under Section 93 of the Madras District Municipalities Act (V of 1920), on the ground that he was receiving income from outside the Municipality from a source 'other than houses and lands inside the Municipal limits'. The respondent paid the tax, but being aggrieved with the levy, instituted the suit, out of which this second appeal arises, for a refund of the amount. The District Munsif dismissed the suit. The decision of the District Munsif was set aside by the learned Subordinate Judge who held that the income, on which the tax was levied, did not come within the description of profession tax as mentioned in Section 93 of the Act. He also held that the Municipality had no jurisdiction to levy the tax, as no proper notice in accordance with the provisions of Section 80 of the Act to levy the taxi was duly published by the...
L.A. Krishna Ayyar Vs. Arunachalam Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad842; 158Ind.Cas.207
Beasley, C.J. 1. The facts in these appeals are that the appellant L. A. Krishna Ayyar obtained a decree against one S.R. Subramania Ayyar and his mother on 20th January 1919, the suit being upon two promissory notes. Previously he had got an attachment of S.R. Subramania Ayyar's immovable property on 18th October 1918. Whilst this attachment was in force, Subramania Ayyar executed a mortgage of his immovable properties on 7th November 1918 for Rs. 50,060 directing the mortgagee to pay Rs. 4,000 to the plaintiff-appellant and this sum was allowed as a credit when the decree in the suit was passed. On the date of the decree, the decree-holder, the appellant here, applied for the arrest of Subramania Ayyar but that petition was dismissed. He then filed a second execution petition for the sale of the properties attached before judgment. That petition was also dismissed, this time for the decree-holder's default, on 19th April 1922. He filed a third execution petition (E.P. No. 35 of 1924)...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »