Chennai Court December 1936 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.
Ranganayaki Ammal Vs. Janaki Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad338
ORDERStodart, J.1. Petitioner sought to be impleaded in a suit and against the order refusing her prayer she now files this petition. Petitioner had a money decree against a joint Hindu family represented by two minors. In execution she attached all the property of the family and was proceeding to bring it to sale, when the grandmother of the said minors filed the present suit for maintenance of Rs. 10 per mensem and Rs. 300 arrears. As usual she claimed a charge on all the family property, which as I have said at the date of suit had been attached, by this petitioner and was about to be brought to sale. The guardian of the minors averted the Court sale by conveying to the petitioner six items of the property. Petitioner then applied to be brought on the record in the present suit in order to defend the said property which she had purchased from the anticipated charge claimed by the plaintiff. The lower Court rejected her petition on the ground that the sale to the petitioner was pende...
Perakam Catholic Sangham Proprietors, Parinchu and Ors. Vs. Vekkekovil ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad419
ORDERVenkataramana Rao, J.1. The question involved in this Civil Revision Petition is whether the suit is barred by Section 69, Clause 2, Partnership Act. The suit is to recover a sum of money due on a promissory note to an unregistered firm executed before the Partnership Act of 1932. The action was laid admittedly after October 1933 when Section 69, Clause 2 of the Act came into force. The learned District Munsif of Chowghat dismissed the suit holding that as the firm was unregistered, Section 69, Clause 2 was a bar to the suit. Section 69, Clause 2 runs thus:No suit to enforce a right arising from a contract shall be instituted in any Court by or on behalf of a firm against any third party unless the firm is registered and the persons suing are or have been shown in the Register of Firms as partners in the firm.2. There is no doubt that this section enacts a rule of procedure. It imposes a condition for the enforcement of a right and does not affect the right itself. Being an enactm...
Kundula Ramayya Vs. Bangaru Rangaraju and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad504; 170Ind.Cas.883
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This batch of revision petitions arises out of an order for rateable distribution of the sale proceeds of property realised in execution of a decree in O.S. No. 23 of 1931 passed by the Subordinate Judge of Narsapur. This order is impeached by the petitioner the decree-holder in the said suit on the ground that the sale proceeds are not liable to be distributed. To appreciate the contentions raised en his behalf by his learned Counsel Mr. Suryanarayana, a few facts may be necessary. the petitioner filed a suit the, said O.S. No. 23 of 1931 against one Chunduri Panakala Rao and his three sons to recover a sum of Rs. 9,192 9-0 on foot of a promissory note executed by the said Chunduri Panakala Rao in bis favour. It is admitted that the said Chunduri Panakala Rao and his three sons who are defendants Nos. 2 to 4 in that suit form members of an undivided Hindu family. The allegation in the plaint is that the debt was contracted by the father for a necessary purpose ...
Renganayaki Ammal Vs. Janaki Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-1936
Reported in: 171Ind.Cas.798
Stodart, J.1. Petitioner sought to be impleaded in a suit and against the order refusing her prayer he now files this petition.2. Petitioner had a money decree against a joint Hindu family represented by two minors.3. In execution she attached all the property of the family and was proceeding to bring it to sale, when the grandmother of the said minors filed the present suit for maintenance of Rs. 10 per mensem and Rs. 300 arrears. As usual she claimed a charge on all the family property, which, as I have said at the date of suit, had been attached by the petitioner and was about to be brought to sale.4. The guardian of minors averted the Court sale by conveying to the petitioner six items of the property. Petitioner then applied to be brought on the record in the present suit, in order to defend the said property which she had purchased from the anticipated charge claimed by the plaintiff. The lower Court rejected her petition on the ground that the sale to the petitioner was pendente...
Parakam Catholic Sangham Proprietors, Chamkath Parekkath Variyed's Son ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-1936
Reported in: 171Ind.Cas.821
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. The question involved in this Civil Revision Petition is whether the suit is barred by Section 69 of Clause 2 of the Partnership Act. The suit is to recover a sum of money due on a promissory note, to an unregistered firm executed before the Indian Partnership Act of 1922. The action was laid admittedly after October 1933 and when Section 69, Clause 2 of the Act came into force. The learned District Munsif of Chowghat dismissed the suit holding that as the firm was unregistered, Section 69, Clause 2, was a bar to the suit. Section 69, Clause 2, runs thus:No suit to enforce a right arising from a contract shall be instituted in any Court by or of behalf of a firm against any third party unless the firm is registered and the persons suing are or have been shown in the Register of Firms, as, partners in the firm.2. There is no doubt that this section enacts a rule of procedure. It imposes a condition for the enforcement of a right and does not affect the right itse...
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. P.T. Chengalvaroya Chettiar and anr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad300; (1937)1MLJ182
1. Two questions have been referred to us by the Commissioner of Income-tax, vis.:(1) Whether the sum of Rs. 30,450 paid by the assessee to the Government under the instrument of lease dated 2nd July, 1930, is inadmissible as a revenue expenditure; and(2) Whether after dissolution of the partnership the Income-tax Officer had jurisdiction to assess the firm as a unit and whether Section 44 of the Act gives jurisdiction to the officer both to make a joint and several assessment or whether the individual partners alone are liable to be assessed in respect of their proportionate shares.2. With regard to question No. 1, the facts are quite sufficiently, stated by the Commissioner of Income-tax in his letter of reference, but, quite briefly they are that the assessee by a deed dated the 2nd July, 1930, got the exclusive right to excavate shells lying under Government property for three years for a payment of Rs. 30,450 payable by certain instalments and described in the instrument as regard...
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. the Honourable Sri Ravu Swetachalap ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-1936
Reported in: (1937)1MLJ707
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 Raja 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 coparceners. 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 Kerosene oil agency (Rs. ...
Chengalavaroya Chettiar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-1936
Reported in: [1937]5ITR70(Mad)
Two question have been referred to us by the Commissioner of Income-tax, viz.,'(1) Whether the sum of Rs. 30,450 paid by the assessee to the Government under the instrument of lease dated July 2, 1930, is inadmissible as a revenue expenditure; and (2) whether after dissolution of the partnership the Income-tax Officer had jurisdiction to assess the firm as a unit and whether Section 44 of the Act gives jurisdiction to the officer both to make a joint and single assessment or whether the individual partners alone are liable to be assessed in respect of their proportionate share'.With regard to question No. 1, the facts are quite sufficiently stated by the Commissioner of Income-tax in his letter of reference, but quite briefly they are that the assessee by a deed dated the July 2, 1930, got the exclusive right to excavate shells lying under Government property for three years for a payment of Rs. 30,450 payable by certain instalments and described in the instrument as regards Rs. 10,150...
Raja of Bobbili Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-1936
Reported in: [1937]5ITR78(Mad)
The question before us is :'Whether in respect of the following three sums, viz., Rs. 8,434 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.'The assessee, the Raja of Bobbili is the present holder of the impartible estate of Bobbili. During 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 coparceners. 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. Salaries49,399.2. Interest on securities420.3. Property8,446.4. Business money-lending (Rs. 998) and Kerosene oil Agency (Rs. 525)1,523.5. Other so...
In Re: Muthu Moopan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad301; (1937)1MLJ334
King, J.1. On 10th September, 1935, the Revenue Inspector of Modakurichi firka, Coimbatore District, made a complaint to the Police under Section 353, Indian Penal Code, against two accused, Mari Moopan and Mootha Moopan. A charge-sheet was filed by the Police before the Sub-Magistrate of Erode, who, after hearing the prosecution evidence, came to the conclusion that a prima facie case was made out not under Section 353 but only under Section 186. He thereupon framed a charge under that section and took the evidence for the defence. When the case came to be argued the plea was raised for the accused that the trial was illegal as Section 195(1)(a), Criminal Procedure Code, enacts that no Court shall take cognisance of an offence under Section 186, Indian Penal Code, except upon the complaint of the public servant concerned or some other public servant to whom he is subordinate. The Sub-Magistrate upheld this plea and acquitted the accused. The Revenue Inspector thereupon filed his compl...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »