Chennai Court September 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.
L.C.T.S.P. Subrahmanyam Chettiar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad282
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The question referred to us is 'whether the sum of Rs. 13,730 paid by the Penang Firm at Penang to a creditor of the Tinnevelly firm be treated as a remittance of foreign profits in British India.'2. The question arises with reference to the inclusion in the additional assessment made upon the petitioner for the year 1932-33 (previous year 13th April 1931 to 12th April 1932) of this sum which is the amount paid by the petitioner's Penang shop in respect of two hundis drawn by him in the following circumstances. In or about July 1931 the trustee of a patasala at Kunnakudi deposited certain moneys with the Tinnevelly shop of the assessee. The trustee carries on money lending business outside India at Penang, Rangoon and Thonze. When he applied for re-payment of the money the petitioner issued two hundis on his Penang shop for the amount due with interest, namely Rupees 13,730. The Penang shop paid these amounts on 9th October 1931. The transactions relating to the dis...
Chidambaram Chettiar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad776; [1936]4ITR309(Mad)
MADHAVAN NAIR, J. - The question referred to us by the Commissioner of Income-tax is : 'In what year was the remittance of Rs. 50,000 (Rupees Fifty thousand) received ?'This question arises in connection with an additional assessment imposed upon the petitioner for the year 1930-31 with respect to this amount. The accounting year is the period from 13th April 1929, to 12th April 1930. The question is whether this amount may be considered to have been received by the assessee during this period in the following circumstances.The assessee is a Nattukottai Chetti doing business in Burma, Klang, Kualalumpur, Penang etc. On 3rd April 1929, a sum of Rs. 50,000 was debited to his account in his Klang books as having been paid on that date to S. A. Rm. Penang, a money-lending business owned by another Nattukottai Chetti. The entry does not say in what connection this amount was paid. But it is admitted that it relates to the purchase of house sites by the petitioner. He was negotiating for the...
L. C. T. S. P. Subramanyam Chettiar Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1935
Reported in: [1935]3ITR346(Mad)
MADHAVAN NAIR J. - The question referred to us is whether the sum of Rs. 13,730 paid by the Penang Firm at Penang to at Penang to a creditor of the Tinnevelly Firm can be treated as a remittance of foreign profits in British India.The question arises with reference to the inclusion in the additional assessments made upon the petitioner for the year 1932-33 (previous year 13-4-31 to 12-4-32) of this sum which is the amount paid by the petitioner Penang shop in respect of two hundies drawn by him in the following circumstances. In or about July 1931 the Tinnevelly shop of the assessee. The trustees carries on money-lending business outside India at Penang, Rangoon and Thonze. When he applied for repayment of the money the petitioner issued two hundies on his Penang shop for the amount due with interest, namely, Rs. 13,730. The Penang shop paid these amounts on 9-10-1931.The transactions relating to the discharge of the debt and the payments were recorded in the Penang folio of the Tinnev...
A.V.V. Govindasami Mudaliar Vs. Shiyali Sri Thripurasundari Amman
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1935
Reported in: 159Ind.Cas.865; (1935)69MLJ793
K.S. Menon, J.1. The suit is to recover arrears of rent for three years from 8th February 1930, the date of the lease in favour of the defendant. The defence is that, as the defendant was adjudicated insolvent on 7th August 1931 and as that adjudication was annulled only on 21st February 1932, when a composition in satisfaction of the debts was approved, the plaintiff is not entitled to sue for the rent that accrued due during that period, but can only recover it by proving his claim in the insolvency proceedings. It is true that the defendant was adjudicated insolvent on an application by a creditor and that subsequently he entered into a composition in satisfaction of his debts with some of his creditors, but it is admitted that the plaintiff was not a party to any of those proceedings. There is also no proof that the plaintiff was even aware of those proceedings. The relevant portion of Section 39 of the Provincial Insolvency Act runs thus:The Court shall frame a schedule in accorda...
A.K. Bijili Sahib Vs. Dadhamia Bhalambai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad48; (1935)69MLJ802
Venkatasubba Rao, Officiating C.J.1. It is unnecessary to consider whether the learned Judge has followed the correct procedure as laid down in Section 14 of the Legal Practitioners Act. The pleader in question claimed to retain his client's papers on the ground that a part of his fees was not paid. The learned Judge does not give a finding whether any portion of the fee was still due, but throughout the discussion, he seems to assume that the pleader's allegation is true. There is a clear finding that the other allegations of misconduct made against the pleader are exaggerated, if not baseless. The only question then is, can it be said that the pleader was guilty of professional misconduct on the ground that he refused to part with the papers? I do not propose to decide finally whether a legal practitioner in India has the right of possessory lien. In Rajah Muthu Krishna v. Nurse : AIR1921Mad320 Wallis, C.J., in the following sentence assumes that he has such a lien:They can insist on...
The General Corporation Ltd., by Director K.M. Rao Vs. the Commissione ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1935
Reported in: (1935)69MLJ876
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The question referred to us by the Income-tax Commissioner is:Where an assessee carrying on a mica business is obliged to stop it on account of a cyclone but still incurs expenditure during the year of account with the intention of resuming the same if conditions and prospects proved favourable but the business in fact was never resumed, is the expenditure so incurred allowable as a deduction against the profits and gains of the assessee's other business?2. The facts are these : The assessee is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. The Company carried on business in motor accessories at Madras, Bombay, Coimbatore and Ootacamund, and in mica mine at Nellore. In this reference before us we are concerned with a sum of Rs. 5420 which the Company claims it is entitled to deduct for expenses incurred in carrying on the mica business. The mining business was started at Nellore in 1926. It was worked till November, 1927, when the production was stopped on a...
Madura Municipality Vs. Raman Servai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad98
ORDERMenon, J.1. The Madura Municipality leased certain plots of land to the defendants in the suits, out of which these Civil Revision Petitions arise. As the leases in question did not comply with the provisions of Section 69, District Municipalities Act, the Municipality had to sue the defendants for damages for use and occupation instead of for rent. Even that claim was negatived by the lower Court on the ground that Section 65, Contract Act was not applicable to a case of this kind following the ruling in Srivilliputtur Municipal Council v. Arunachala Nadar 1933 37 LW 429, hence these petitions. The decision relied on by the lower Court was, however set aside by a bench of this Court and the judgment is reported in Arunachala Nadar v. Srivilliputtur Municipal Council 1934 58 Mad 65. The question whether Section 65, Contract Act would apply to a case of this kind was there discussed at length and was answered in the affirmative. In this case the leases, not having been taken in acc...
General Corporations Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1935
Reported in: [1935]3ITR350(Mad)
MADHAVAN NAIR, J. - The question referred to us by the Indian Income Tax Commissioner is :'Where an assessee carrying on a mica business is obliged to stop it on account of a cyclone but still inucrs expenditure during the year of account with the intention of resuming the same if conditions and prospects proved favorable, but the business in fact was never resumed, is the expenditure so incurred allowable as a deduction against the profits and gains of the assessees other business ?'The facts are these : The assessee is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. The company carried on business in motor accessories at Madras, Bombay, Coimbatore and Ootacamund, and in mica mine at Nellore. In this reference before us we are concerned with a sum of Rs. 5,420 which the company claims it is entitled to deduct for expenses incurred in carrying on the mica business. The mining business was started at Nellore in 1926. It was worked till November 1927 when the production was stoppe...
Paruchuri Venkatramayya Vs. Abburi Virayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1935
Reported in: 160Ind.Cas.423; (1935)69MLJ914
King, J.1. Defendants 2 to 5 in O.S. No. 752 of 1930 on the file of the learned District Munsif of Guntur are Virayya, Ponnayya, Nayudamma and Venkayya, members of a joint Hindu family. In 1927 one Kotha Rattamma obtained decrees against these Defendants. In January 1928 Virayya and Ponnayya were adjudicated insolvents. At some time in 1930 subsequent to 5th March, Rattamma executed these decrees by bringing to sale the shares of the non-insolvent members, Nayudamma and Venkayya. Meanwhile, on 5th March 1930 one Abburi Virayya Defendant 1 in O.S. No. 752 brought a suit against all the members of the family on a promissory note executed by Virayya and Ponnayya, the two insolvents. He obtained a decree ex parte in April 1930 and in September 1930 was awarded rateable distribution from the proceeds of the sale above referred to. Shortly afterwards this suit O.S. No. 752 was brought by Plaintiff, who claims under a will executed by Rattamma, for a declaration that Defendant l's decree was ...
P.P.P. Chidambara Nadar Vs. K.P.C. Mahalinga Nadar Alias Katteri Malay ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1935
Reported in: 163Ind.Cas.968; (1936)70MLJ282
ORDERVenkatasubba Rao, J.1. The questions raised relate to the passing of the Receiver's accounts before an order is made for his discharge. The accounts to be passed are for the period from 11th February, 1923 to 20th July, 1931.2. The first objection relates to the sum of Rs. 6,700 and odd, the interest claimed by the Receiver on the advances made by himself. The lower Court has disallowed the item in toto on the ground that before advancing the money the Receiver has not obtained the previous sanction of the Court. The law imposes a certain penalty when the Receiver chooses to advance his own money without first obtaining the Court's permission, but it does not follow that the penalty extends to the disallowance of the interest. Jessel M.R. points out in Ex parte I sard. In re, Bushell (1883) 23 Ch. D. 75 that if a Receiver chooses to advance money of his own without the previous authority of the Court, he can only look to the estate for indemnity. The practice in the Chancery Divis...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »