Chennai Court December 1936 Judgments
Rathnammal Alias Rajamani Ammal Vs. the Secretary of State for India i ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad314; (1937)1MLJ321
King, J.1. This second appeal raises an interesting point with regard to the interpretation of the proviso to Section 1(b) of the Madras Irrigation Cess Act of 1865. The appellant here is a ryot owning certain land which has been classified as single crop wet. He has however been growing upon this land certain crops which have remained upon the land throughout the whole fasli and have received water during that period. The Government accordingly assessed him to penal water rate on the ground that he has taken water without due authority from a source in addition to that which has been assigned by the Revenue authorities to his land. Both the Courts below have dismissed his suit and he has now appealed to the High Court. The proviso in question runs as follows:No cess shall be leviable under this Act in respect of land held under ryotwari settlement, which is classified and assessed as wet, unless the same be irrigated by using without due authority water from any source hereinbefore me...
Tag this Judgment!M. Kanniappa Naicker and Company Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad316; (1937)1MLJ619
1. The questions propounded are:(a) Whether on the facts of this case the assessee firm did succeed to the business of the individual partners within the meaning of Section 26(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act? and(b) whether a firm constituted under a registered deed of partnership of which one member is a firm is not entitled to be registered as a firm for the purpose of income-tax merely because while specifying the individual share of the profits and losses the instrument does not specify the shares inter se of the partner firm.2. Prior to the 31st August, 1933, a firm called M.K. Naicker & Sons was supplying labour to the Madras Port Trust under a contract which expired on the 31st August, 1933, and M. Raju Naicker and R. Govindarajulu Naicker in partnership had a similar contract with the Madras Port Trust which also expired on the same date. The labour under the contract was supplied by the former partnership M.K. Naicker & Sons to two godowns belonging to the Madras Port Trust an...
Tag this Judgment!G. Krishnaswami Naidu Vs. the Municipal Council Represented by Its Com ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad641; (1937)1MLJ597
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This is an application to revise the order of the District Munsiff of Bellary directing that the Government should be impleaded as a party to the suit. The reason given by him is, apart from the question whether the Government is a necessary party or not, that he considers it desirable that it should be a party to the suit. The question is, whether in the exercise of his discretion under Order 1, Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code, the District Munsiff has gone wrong and it is therefore unnecessary for me to consider the decisions in Krishnayya v. The Bellary Municipal Council I.L.R. (1891) 15 Mad. 292 and Nathalal Ramdas v. The Nadiad Municipality I.L.R. (1922) 47 Bom. 306 as they only hold that in a suit where a claim to property is asserted against the Municipality, the Government is not a necessary party. Whether the Government is a proper party or not, would depend on the facts of each case and no general rule can be laid down. This action relates to a vacant si...
Tag this Judgment!Vedala Vallabhacharyulu and anr. Vs. Vedala Rangacharyulu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad449
ORDERVenkataramana Rao, J.1. The question involved in this Revision Petition is one of court-fee and for the disposal of the same it is necessary to look into the allegations in the plaint and the substance of the relief claimed. Plaintiff 1 is a divided brother of one Vedala Raghavacharyulu, the husband of defendant 2. Plaintiffs 2 and 3 are the sons of plaintiff 1. Raghavacharyulu died in or about January 1929, leaving him surviving his widow, and by his last will and testament conferred certain rights in his estate on the widow and after her lifetime on the plaintiff. The case of the plaintiffs is that she has only a life-interest and that they have a vested remainder therein, The plaintiffs allege that the testator directed that the debts left by him should be discharged by his widow in a certain manner but she failed to do so, that she in collusion with defendant 1 executed certain promissory notes in his name, some of them purporting to be renewals of debts of her husband, that o...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. the Hon'ble Sri Ravu Swetachalapati Ram ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad515
1. The question before us is:Whether in respect of the following three sums, viz., Rs. 8,436 being income assessable under the head 'property', Rs. 998 under 'business' and Rs. 3,755 under other sources (quarries and fisheries) the petitioner was rightly taxed as an individual or whether he should have been taxed as the representative of a Hindu undivided family.2. The assessee, the Rajah of Bobbili, is the present holder of the impartible estate of Bobbili. During the previous year (1st April 1934 to 31st March 1935) he was also the Chief Minister to the Government of Madras. He is, besides, the managing member of a Hindu undivided family of which he and his brother are the senior co-parceners. For the assessment year 1935-36 his total income from all sources liable to income-tax was ascertained to be Rs. 64,083 made up of the following items:1. Salaries. ... Rs. 49,3992. Interest on securities. ... 4203. Property. ... 8,4464. Business, money lending(Rupees 998) and Kerosine OilAgency...
Tag this Judgment!Chivikula Lakshminarayana Vs. Singu Hanumayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad580
Burn, J.1. There is no dispute about the facts. The only question decided by the learned Subordinate Judge and the only question arising for decision in this appeal is one of limitation. It is clear that if the question arising between the plaintiffs and the contesting respondents falls under Section 47, Civil P.C., the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge is correct. As to this I do not think there is any room for doubt. The contesting defendant are persons who purchased the mortgaged property pendente lite. There are many decisions the result of which is that purchasers of the mortgaged property pendente lite are representatives of the judgment-debtor and there is no dispute with regard to this point. Mr. Raghava Rao's contention is that the question which arises now between the plaintiffs and the contesting defendants does not come within Section 47 because it did not arise in execution of the decree. Section 47 however provides that all questions arising between the parties or...
Tag this Judgment!M. Kanaappa Naicker and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1936
Reported in: [1937]5ITR49(Mad)
The questions propounded are :'(a) whether on the facts of this case the assessee firm did succeeded to the business of the individual partners within the meaning of Section 26(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act and (b) whether a firm constituted under a registered deed of partnership of firm for the purpose of income-tax merely because while specifying the individual share of the profits and losses the instrument does no specify the shares inter se of the partner firm.'Prior to the August 31, 1933 a firm called M. K. Naicker and Sons was supplying labour to the Madras Port Trust under a contract which expired on the August 31, 1933 and M. Raju Naicker and Govindarajulu Naicker in partnership had a similar contract with the Madras Port Trust which also expired on the same date. The labour under the contract was supplied by the former partnership, M. K. Naicker & Sons, to two godowns belonging to the Madras Port Trust and by the latter partners to two other godowns also belonging to the Ma...
Tag this Judgment!G. Krishnasawmy Naidu Vs. the Municipal Council and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1936
Reported in: 170Ind.Cas.919
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This is an application to revise the order of the District Munsif of Bellary directing that the Government should be impleaded as a party to the suit. The reason given by him is, apart from the question whether the Government is a necessary party or not, that he considers it desirable that it should be a party to the suit. The question is whether in the exercise of his discretion under Order I, Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code, the District Munsif has gone wrong and it is, therefore, necessary for me to consider the decisions in Krishnayya v. Bellary Municipal, Council 15 M 292 and Nathalal Ramdas v. Nadia Municipality 47 B 306 : 79 Ind. Cas. 192 : 25 Bom. LR 58 : AIR 1923 Bom. 456 as they only hold that in a suit where a claim to property is asserted against the Municipality, the Government is not a necessary party. Whether the Government is a proper party or not, would depend upon the facts of each case and no general rule can be laid down. This action relates to...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: the Indian Income Tax Act Xi of 1922
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1936
Reported in: 168Ind.Cas.13
1. The questions propounded are:(a) Whether on the facts of this case the assessee firm did succeed to the business of the individual partners within the meaning of Sections 26 (2) of the Indian Income Tax Act? and(b) Whether a firm constituted under a registered deed of partnership of which one member is a firm is not entitled to be registered as a firm for the purpose of income-tax merely because while specifying the individual share of the profits and losses, the instrument does not specify the shares inter se of the partner, firm.2. Prior to August 31, 1933, a firm called M, K. Naicker & Sons was supplying labour to the Madras Port Trust under a contract which expired on August 31, 1933, and M. Raju Naicker and Govindarajulu Naicker in partnership had a similar contract with the Madras Port Trust which also expired on the same date. The labour under the contract was supplied by the former partnership M.K. Naicker & Sons to two godowns belonging to the Madras Port Trust and by the l...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. the Honourable Sri Ravu Swetachalap ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1936
Reported in: 168Ind.Cas.168
1. The question before us is:Whether in respect of the following three sums, viz., Rs. 8,436 being income assessable under the head 'property', Rs. 998 under 'business' and Rs. 3,755 under other sources (quarries and fisheries), the petitioner was rightly taxed as an individual or whether he should have been taxed as the representative of a Hindu undivided family2. The assessee, the Raja oF.B.obbili, is the present holder of the impartible estate oF.B.obbili. Daring the previous year (April 1, 1934 to March 31, 1935, he was also the Chief Minister to the Government of Madras. He is, besides, the managing member of a Hindu undivided family of which he and his brother are the senior co-parceners. For the assessment year 1935-36 his total income from all sources liable to income-tax was ascertained to be Rs. 64,083 made up of the following items:Rs.1. Salaries ... 49,3992. Interest on Securities ... 4203. Property ... 8,4464. Business money-lending(Rs. 998) and Kerosine oil Agency (Rs. 52...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »