Chennai Court January 1937 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.
R. Krishna Murthi Ayyar Vs. Pasupuleth Munuswami and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1937
Reported in: 170Ind.Cas.15
Mockett, J.1. The petitioner is the decree-holder in S.C.S. No. 167 of 1933. The decree was against two defendants. It ordered them jointly and severally to pay a sum of money, and with regard to the 2nd defendant, it said:It is further ordered that the decree against 2nd defendant shall stand stayed in case he pays on the 5th of every month commencing from July 5,1933, at the rate of Rs. 10 per mensem until the decree is satisfied, in case of default of any instalment, this stay order will cease. The stay order will also have effect only on 2nd defendant furnishing security of immovable property for the decree amount and agreeing to pay interest at 9 per cent. por annum on or before July 5, 1933,2. A. security bond was executed by the 2nd defendant and it referred to certain immovable property and stated:I will be paying without default the said decree amount as per order of Court by the 5th of each month. In case of default of any instalment as , aforesaid, the balance that may then ...
The Chairman, Municipal Council Vs. Nyapathi Subba Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1937
Reported in: (1937)1MLJ496
Mockett, J.1. The petitioner is the Municipal Council, Rajahmundry, by its Chairman and the respondent is said to be a gentleman who is a large land-owner and who also does considerable money-lending business. He sued the Municipal Council for refund of payment of profession tax for the periods 1926 to 1930.2. Before us, the only point for decision, which goes to the root of the whole matter, is this. It is contended by the earned Counsel for the Municipality that this suit does not lie because the payments sought to be recovered were voluntary payments and such voluntary payments being in the nature of a gift cannot be recovered. The following history of this case is relevant. With regard to the two half-years 1926-1927, the respondent filed appeals before the appellate authority which were disposed of on the 18th January, 1928, summarily. He apparently being dissatisfied with those decisions continued to pay this tax from that time until 1930 and filed this suit in July, 1930. No pro...
In Re: Ramaswamy Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1937
Reported in: (1937)1MLJ310
ORDERPandrang Row, J.1. The petitioner in this case is a seller of a gramophone records in Madura Town. He has been convicted under Section 3, Sub-section 5 of the Town Nuisance Act of 1889, the act alleged against him being that he was having some gramophone records played inside his shop which attracted a crowd in the street outside and thereby caused obstruction. This statement of the case is enough to show that there can be no justification for the conviction. Section 3, Sub-section 5 clearly shows that it is only when wilful obstruction is caused, in any public street, road, thoroughfare or place of public resort that an offence is committed. In this particular case it is clear that there was no act done by the accused in any public street, road, thoroughfare or place of public resort. What he did was inside his own shop and it would also appear that he had the records played on the gramophone for the benefit of a prospective buyer and there is nothing to show that he wilfully did...
In Re: Ramasawmy Ayyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1937
Reported in: 168Ind.Cas.511
ORDERPandrang Row, J.1. The petitioner in this case is a seller of gramophone records in Madura Town. He has been convicted under Section 3, Sub-section 5 of the Town Nuisance Act of 1889, the act alleged against him being that he was having some gramophone records played inside his shop which attracted a crowd in the street outside and thereby caused obstruction. This statement of the case is enough to show that there can be no justification, for the conviction. Section 3, Sub-section 5 clearly shows that it is only when wilful obstruction is caused, in any public street, load, thoroughfare or place of public resort that an offence is committed. In this particular case it is clear that there was no act done by the accused in any public street, road, thoroughfare or place of public resort. What he did was inside his own shop and it would also appear that he had the records played on the gramophone for the benefit of & prospective buyer and there is nothing to how that he wilfully did i...
In Re: D.N. Venkatanarayana Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-15-1937
Reported in: (1937)1MLJ338
ORDERPandrang Row, J.1. The petitioner in this case is a coffee hotel-keeper at Trichinopoly, who has been convicted of an offence punishable under Section 5(1) of the Madras Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1918. The offence is said to have been committed in respect of the sale of milk on the 27th of June, 1935, by a servant boy employed in the coffee hotel and not by the petitioner himself, though, according to the prosecution, the petitioner was present when the milk was served to the Sanitary Inspector. One of the main defences in both the Courts below was that the servant boy sold the milk contrary to his master's orders and without his consent. In support of this defence he made an application under Section 6, Sub-section 2 of the Act which provides that:Where an employer is charged with an offence under the Act he shall be entitled on application duly made by him to have any other person whom he charges as the actual offender brought before the Court at the time appointed fo...
S.A.S.S. Chellappa Chettiar, Money-lender Vs. the Commissioner of Inco ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-15-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad393; (1937)1MLJ351
1. The assessee is the manager of a Hindu undivided family carrying on money-lending business in India, Burma and the Federated Malay States with borrowed capital. The findings of fact are not very clear but before us the argument has proceeded on the following basis: Owing to certain clients in Burma being unable to meet their obligations, the assessee was compelled to receive in repayment of loans made by him, agricultural lands in Burma. The money which had been lent had originally been borrowed by the assessee for the purpose of his money-lending business, that is to say, that he borrowed and in his turn lent the same money no doubt at a higher rate of interest. It was conceded by Mr. Patanjali Sastri that the assessee was carrying on one business for the year of assessment 1934-1935. It has not been contended before us that the assessee was retaining and cultivating these lands of his own inclination, but owing to the fall in agricultural lands he was involuntarily in possession a...
Seshan Pattar's son Ambi alias Subramanian Pattar and Anr. Vs. Thandan ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-15-1937
Reported in: (1937)2MLJ728
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. These are two batches of civil revision petitions and although they both arise out of similar claims, the contentions that have been put forward and therefore require to be considered are different. For a proper appreciation of the points raised, it will be necessary at the outset to set out the relevant dates.(i) On 11th November, 1927, Kunjunni Nair (the respondent) in the suit filed by him against one Ramaswami Pattar (O.S. No. 45 of 1927) attached the land in question before judgment.(ii) On 8th December, 1927, a decree was made in that suit and we understand (although this is of no consequence) that in it was specifically mentioned that the attachment before judgment was confirmed.(iii) On 24th June, 1928, the suit land, attached as mentioned above, was mortgaged to Ambi alias Subramania Pattar (the petitioner before us) who, on the strength of his mortgage, filed most of the suits in the Courts below claiming rent.(iv) On 12th September, 1928, Kunjunni Nair...
S.A.S.S. Chellappa Chettiar Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-15-1937
Reported in: [1937]5ITR97(Mad)
The assessee is the manager of a Hindu undivided family carrying on money-lending business in India, Burma and the federated Malay States with borrowed capital. The findings of fact are not very clear but before us the argument has proceeded on the following basis : Owing to certain clients in Burma being unable to meet their obligations, the assessee was compelled to receive in repayment of loans made by him, agricultural lands in Burma. The money which had been lent had originally been borrowed by the assessee for the purpose of his money lending business, that is to say, that he borrowed and in his turn lent the some money no doubt at a higher rate of interest. It was conceded by Mr. Patanjali Sastri that the assessee was carrying on one business for the year of assessment 1934-1935. It has not been contended before us that the assessee was retaining and cultivating these lands of his own inclination, but owing to the fall in agricultural lands he was involuntarily in possession and...
In Re: D.M. Venkatanarayana Ayyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-15-1937
Reported in: 168Ind.Cas.291
ORDERPandrang Row, J.1. The petitioner in this case is a coffee hotel-keeper at Trichinopoly, who has been convicted of an offence punishable under Section 5(I) of the Madras Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1918. The offence is said to have been committed in respect of the sale of milk on June 27, 1935 by a servant boy employed in the coffee hotel and not by the petitioner himself, though, according to the prosecution, the petitioner was present when the milk was served to the Sanitary Inspector. One of the main defences in both the Courts below was that the servant boy sold the milk contrary to his master's orders and without his consent. In support of this defence he made an application under Section 6, Sub-section 2 of the Act which provides that where an employer is charged with an offence under the Act, he shall be entitled on application duly made by him to have any other person whom he charges as the actual offender brought before the Court at the time appointed for hearing...
In Re: Sundara Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-14-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad535; (1937)1MLJ473
ORDERPandrang Row, J.1. The petitioners, eight in number, were charged and convicted by the Second Class Magistrate, Mudukalathur, of an offence punishable under the second part of Section 188, Indian Penal Code. The case against them was that they took part in a procession in Abiraman village on 9th August, 1935, at 9-45 P.M., without taking a license as required by an order promulgated by the District Superintendent of Police, Ramnad, under Section 30(2) of the Indian Police Act early in May 1935. The main defence of the petitioners was that they had no knowledge of this order of the District Superintendent of Police and they examined a number of defence witnesses to the effect that they also-the defence witnesses-had no knowledge of the order. The trying Magistrate did not however definitely find whether the petitioners had or had not knowledge of the order in question, but merely remarked that the defence witnesses were interested. In appeal, the Joint Magistrate of Ramnad was of o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »