Chennai Court March 1936 Judgments
A. Venkitaswami Chettiar and ors. Vs. Sekkuti Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1936
Reported in: (1936)71MLJ580
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. This is an application by the plaintiff for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council. One Sandanam Pillai died in 1919, leaving his widow the fourth defendant and two sons, the first and the second defendants. The third defendant is the son of the first. The suit was brought on a mortgage bond executed in 1923 by the first and fourth defendants. The trial Court passed a decree for the full amount claimed, against the executants of the bond, namely, defendants 1 and 4. As regards defendants 2 and 3, they were held liable only for a fraction of the debt. The plaintiff filed an appeal to the High Court and the result of it was, that the lower Court's decree against defendants 1 and 4 was confirmed; the third defendant's share in the joint property was held liable almost for the full amount claimed, that is to say, so far as he was concerned, the lower Court's decree was practically reversed; lastly, in regard to the second defendant, the High Court confirmed the fi...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. M.A.L.A.R. Aryan Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1936
Reported in: 173Ind.Cas.143; (1937)2MLJ928
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. The question propounded is:Whether the sum of Rs. 59,968 remitted in 1931-1932 by the Saigon-partnership out of its profits to the Rangoon partnership amounted to a receipt of profits pro tanto by the partners in 1931-1932 so as to be assessable in their hands.2. The assessee was and is a partner in a money-lending business carried on in Rangoon consisting of three partners under the vilasam of M.A.L. The same three partners are the sole partners in a similar business carried on in Saigon under the same vilasam. During the period commencing with the 21st May, 1931 and ending on the 24th March, 1932, by means of three remittances made by telegraphic transfers and by bank drafts a sum of Rs. 59,967-8-0 was remitted by Saigon to Rangoon. It has been found as a fact that these remittances came out of profits made by the Saigon partnership. Under these circumstances the share of the assessee in that sum was assessed under Section 34 of the Indian Inc...
Tag this Judgment!Thontepu Chinna Pullayya Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1936
Reported in: [1937]5ITR132(Mad)
The question referred to us by the Commissioner of Income-tax is'Whether when all the members of a Hindu undivided family after separation and partition constitute themselves into a firm in order to continue the business hitherto carried on by the undivided family, the assessment of the total income of the undivided family up to date of separation and partition should be made(a) on the firm carrying on the business as successors of the undivided family within the meaning of Section 26(2) of the Income Tax Act, or(b) on the members aforesaid as if no separation or partition had taken place according to Section 25-A(2) of the Income Tax Act'.The facts sufficiently appear in the question propounded and it is therefore not necessary to state them more fully. This point, it appears to me, has been considered and decided in Jupudi Kesava Rao v. Commissioner of Income Tax 70 M.L.J. 13 a decision of MADHAVAN NAIR, O.C.J., and STONE AND KING, JJ. I need only refer to the judgment of MADHAVAN NA...
Tag this Judgment!M.A.L.A.R. Aryan Chettiar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1936
Reported in: [1937]5ITR600(Mad)
THE CHIEF JUSTICE. - The Question propounded is, 'Whether the sum of Rs. 59,968 remitted in 1931-32 by the Saigon partnership out of its profits to the Rangoon partnership amounted to a receipt of profits pro tanto by the partners in 1931-32 so as to be assessable in their hands.'The assessee was and is a partner in a money-lending business carried on in Rangoon consisting of three partners under the vilasam of M.A.L. The same three partners are the sole partners in a similar business carried on in Saigon under the same vilasam. During the period commencing with May 21, 1931 and ending on March 24, 1932 by means of three remittances made by telegraphic transfers and bank drafts a sum of Rs. 59,967-8-0 was remitted by Saigon to Rangoon. It has been found as a fact that these remittances came out of profits made by the Saigon Partnership. Under these circumstances the share of the assessee in that sum was assessed under Sec. 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act. The contention put before the ...
Tag this Judgment!Rayalu Ayyar and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1936
Reported in: [1937]5ITR727(Mad)
THE CHIEF JUSTICE :- The question propounded is :-'Whether the sum of Rs. 12,348 and Rs. 2,074 should not in the circumstances of the case be deemed to form an item of expenditure allowable under the Indian Income tax Act, XI Of 1922.'The amounts claimed it is contended are allowable under Sec. 10(2)(ix) of the Act as being an expenditure incurred solely for the purpose of earning such profits or gains.The facts are that in December 1917, the assessee firm and three other yarn merchants, among these the firm of K. M. Subbier and Sons, entered into four separate and independent contracts with Messrs. Walker and Co., to purchase two lots of 290 bales each or 720 bales in all of Peacock Turkey Red yearn. The price of the first lot of 360 bales was fixed at Rs. 23-8-0 per bundle, that of the second lot being left over to be settled later. In July, 1911, the assessee firm and the three other merchants before mentioned entered into a partnership contract to deal with these 720 bales : the as...
Tag this Judgment!A. Venkataswami Chettiar and ors. Vs. Sekkutti Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1936
Reported in: 166Ind.Cas.251
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. This is an application by the plaintiff for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council. One Sandaram Pillai died in 1919, leaving his widow the forth defendant and two sons, the first and second defendants. The third defendant is the son of the 1st. The suit was brought on a mortgage bond executed in 1923 by 1st and 4th defendants. The trial Court passed a decree for the full amount claimed, against the executants of the bond, namely, defendants Nos. 1 and 4. As regards defendants Nos.2 and 3, they were held liable only for a fraction of the debt. The plaintiff filed an appeal to the High Court and the result of it was, that the lower Court's decree against defendants Nos. 1 and 4 was confirmed, the 3rd defendant's share in the joint property was held liable almost for the full amount claimed, that is to say, so far as he was concerned, the lower Court's decree was practically reversed; lastly, in regard to the 2nd defendant, the High Court confirmed the first Cou...
Tag this Judgment!Pakalapati Veerayya Vs. Devulapalli Sobhanadri
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1936
Reported in: (1937)1MLJ489
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This is a suit upon a promissory note dated 6th August, 1924, executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. The case for the plaintiff is that the amount was paid in cash. The execution of the pronote is admitted but the consideration is denied. The case for the defence is that the said promissory note was executed in view of a pending settlement of a criminal prosecution and a civil liability in respect of the sale of immovable property effected by the defendant and his father in favour of one Boddaluru Seshayya and four others; the complaint of the vendees was that on the date of the sale to them there was a mortgage on the property which was not disclosed. A decree was obtained on the footing of the said mortgage and the property sold in execution thereof and a suit was instituted for recovery of possession from the vendees. The said Boddaluru Seshayya thereupon launched a criminal prosecution being C.C. No. 100 of 1924 on the file of the Additional D...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Kimidi Narasimham
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Mad629
Pandrang Row, J.1. The appellant has been convicted of the murder of a boy of 12 years and sentenced to death by the Sessions Judge of Vizagapatam. The boy was seen last alive in the morning of 22nd October last. A search was made for him and a report was made to the police that he was missing and a dead body was discovered on 26th October at a spot marked A in the plan. The body was considerably decomposed, most of the soft parts having been eaten away by maggots but, the mother and two other relations of the boy were able to identify what remained of the deceased as his remains. A pair of gold ear-ornaments, which the boy was wearing when he was last seen alive, were however found to be missing and these are alleged to have been sold by the appellant on the very day on which the boy was last seen alive and in the very village to which the boy belonged.2. The evidence against the appellant is entirely of a circumstantial nature, but this is not to say that the evidence is not strong e...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnaswami Goundan Vs. Palani Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Mad843; (1936)71MLJ417
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The father of the minors in question made a will describing the appellant before us as his executor. The minors' mother presented a petition in the lower Court under the Guardian and Wards Act, contending that the appellant was not merely the executor but also the minors' testamentary guardian, and prayed for his removal as such guardian and for appointment of herself in his stead. The lower Court made an order imposing certain conditions on the appellant in regard to the discharge of his duties as guardian and directing him to furnish security for an amount which has been specified. The correctness of this order has been impeached before us.2. Though the learned Judge does not say under what provision of law he has acted, the respondent's Counsel seeks to justify the order by reference to Section 43 of the Guardian and Wards Act. But that section enables a Court to regulate by its order the conduct of guardians either appointed or declared by the Court. That lea...
Tag this Judgment!Balakrishnan and ors. Being Minors by Guardian Kalu Vs. Chittor Bank P ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1936
Reported in: (1936)71MLJ766
Varadachariar, J.1. These appeals arise out of O.S. Nos. 17 and 39 of 1931 on the file of the Sub-Court of Palghat. Some of the questions raised in these suits have already been dealt with by us in the judgment delivered by us in Appeals Nos. 253 and 350 of 1933. The present appeals have been preferred by the defendants 7 to 9 in these suits. They are the sons of the fifth defendant who joined as a surety in the promissory notes which gave rise to these suits. The fifth defendant has been held liable for the debts; the appellants contend that as these debts were not borrowed for any necessity of their family the family property should not be held liable for the discharge of the debts.2. The lower Court applied the rule of the Hindu Law and held that as the debts are not illegal or immoral the sons' shares in the family property are liable to be proceeded against for recovery of the father's debt, independently of any question of family necessity. We may mention that in the first instan...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »