Chennai Court April 1937 Judgments
S.P.P.L. Palaniappa Chettiar, Through His Authorised Agent Ramanathan ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad791; 173Ind.Cas.519; (1937)2MLJ427
Pandrang Row, J.1. This petition arises out of an application by the Official Receiver of Madura under Section 54 of the Provincial Insolvency Act to declare as void a certain hypothecation bond dated 21st July, 1931, in favour of the respondent and to annul the same.2. The bond was executed by the insolvent in I.P. No. 48 of 1931 and also on behalf of his minor sons. On the merits it was found by both the Courts below that the alienation was a fraudulent preference and it was accordingly annulled. In this petition no attempt has been made to question the correctness of the concurrent findings to this effect by the two Courts below, and the only point urged is that the transfer can be set aside or annulled only as regards the insolvent's own share in the family properties which were mortgaged and that it cannot be set aside or annulled in respect of the minors' shares in the properties, because it is only the transfer of the insolvent's property that can be set aside under Section 54 o...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Dewan Bahadur S.L. Mathias
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad352; (1937)2MLJ310
Varadachariar, J.1. The question referred to this Court for decision is whether, on the facts set out in the Commissioner's statement, any part of the income derived by the assessee from the produce of his coffee estates in Mysore is exempt from taxation under the 2nd proviso to Clause (2) of Section 4 of the Indian Income-tax Act.2. The assessee who owns coffee plantations in the Mysore State is a resident of British India (Mangalore) ; and the case states that while he maintains an office in the Mysore territory to supervise the cultivation work there, the labour required for the cultivation is recruited in Mangalore, materials required for the estate like manure, tools, spray materials, crop-bags, etc., are purchased at Mangalore, the harvested crops are brought to Mangalore in their raw state to be dried and cleaned there in the factories of Pierce Leslie & Co., and the coffee seeds thus prepared for the market are sold there, by Pierce Leslie & Co., the selling agents of the asses...
Tag this Judgment!Cheerath Nanikutti Amma Vs. Anantha Lakshmiammal, Wife of Narayana Vad ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad804; 175Ind.Cas.925
Varadachariar, J.1. The plaint properties belong in jenm to the K tarwad and were held on kanom by the P tarwad. In 1919 one Velu Nair, a member of the P tarwad, assigned the kanom interest to the plaintiff's uncle Subbarama Iyer and later that uncle assigned the interest to the plaintiff. After the assignment to Subbarama Aiyer by Velu Nair, the K tarwad instituted O.S. No. 335 of 1920 against the karnavan and certain members of the P tarwad for arrears of michavaram and they obtained a decree. In execution of that decree, the K tarwad brought the kanom interest to sale and a member of that tarwad purchased it and afterwards assigned that interest to the present defendant 1. Prior to the assignment by Subbarama Iyer to the plaintiff, one Raman was on the land as a tenant and as the plaintiff suspected that after the Court sale in execution of the decree in O.S. No 335 of 1920 that Raman was colluding with the present defendant 1 and her assignor, she took the precaution of impleading ...
Tag this Judgment!Gangamma Vs. Mahabala Bhatta and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad879
Varadachariar, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaint comprised 3 heads of claim and the Courts below have dismissed the suit in respect of all those claims on grounds of law. It is much to be regretted that the questions of fact arising in the case remain to be investigated hereafter, after the lapse of several years.2. The following are the circumstances that led up to this suit. The plaintiff instituted O.S. No. 90 of 1924 on the file of the Mangalore Sub-Court, for recovery of possession of certain properties with mesne profits and certain alienees were impleaded as parties thereto. The defendants to the present suit were defendants 8 and 9 in the former suit. That suit was referred to arbitrators and an award was passed on 13th September 1926 to the effect that the plaintiff would be entitled to take possession of the properties in the possession of the present defendants on depositing into Court on the next Vishu Shankramana day (middle of April 1927) a ...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Sri Rajah Krishna Chandra Gajapathi Narayana Deo Garu, Rajah of Pa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad874
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery among other things of a sum of Rs. 316 made up of Rs. 300 being the value of two garces of vippa kernel and Rs. 16 being the value of 32 gunnies, which according to him were wrongfully sold by the agents of defendant 1. A few facts may be stated to appreciate the claim put forward by the plaintiff. This forest produce was admittedly collected in the forests of defendant 1. Under the rules framed in virtue of the provisions of the Forest Act to regulate the management of the forest lands in the Parlakimedi Estate, the plaintiff is not entitled to remove the said produce without a permit being obtained from the forest officials of the estate or paying the seigniorage therefor. On 11th October 1927 the plaintiff had this produce loaded in four carts and without obtaining a permit or paying the seigniorage was about to remove the same from the forest. Thereupon the forest officials obstructe...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras Vs. Diwan Bahadur S. L. Mathias.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1937
Reported in: [1937]5ITR435(Mad)
The question referred to this court for decision is whether on the facts set out in the Commissioners statement, any part of the income derived by the assessee from the produce of his coffee estates in Mysore is exempt from taxation under hte second proviso to clause (2) of Sec. 4 of the Indian Income Tax Act.The assessee who owns coffee plantations in the Mysore State is a resident of British India (Mangalore); adn the ccase states that while he maintains an office in the Mysore territory to supervise the cultivation work there, the labour required for the cultivation is recruited in Mangalore, materials required for the estate like manure, tools, spray materials crop-bags etc., are purchased at Mangalore, and the harvested crops are brought to Mangalore in their raw state to be dried and cleaned there in the factories of Pierce Leslie and CO., and sold there by Pierce Lesile & Co., the selling agent of the assessee. As the sale proceeds are received and retained at Mangalore and a se...
Tag this Judgment!V. Kameswara Aiyar and anr. Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Co ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-1937
Reported in: 173Ind.Cas.534; (1937)2MLJ345
Varadachariar, J.1. In view of the decisions,, in Kanniappa Mudaliar v. Secretary of State for India : AIR1936Mad42 and Secretary of State v. Veeranna : AIR1937Mad548 these second appeals must be allowed. The appellant is undoubtedly the owner of ryotwari land registered as wet and on the occasion in question water flowed on to his land only through the sluice through which he is authorised to take water. All that is found is that because there was some obstruction caused by some unknown person to a sluice much lower down, the water banked up in the channel with the result that through the customary sluice of the appellant a greater volume of water than might otherwise have flowed did happen to flow. No serious attempt has been made to connect the appellant with the blocking of the channel at the lower point. On bese facts, the principle of the decisions above referred to is clearly applicable, because the appellant could not be said to have 'used' the water in the sense there explaine...
Tag this Judgment!Thalayur Narayanan Moossad Vs. Mammadissa and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad795
Varadachariar, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit in ejectment by a jenmi. The suit was instituted before the enactment of the Malabar Tenancy Act, as the term of the lease had expired by the date of the suit. As the case had not been disposed of before the Act came into force, the tenant thought fit to file I.A. 521 of 1931 praying for a renewal. Section 23, Tenancy Act provides that when such an application is filed, the landlord shall be asked to state whether he desires to evict the tenant on any of the grounds referred to in Section 20 except ground No. 3, i.e. the ground based on expiry of the term; and if the landlord expresses his intention to do so, the section directs that the application of the tenant shall be dismissed. In this case, the plaintiff when he received notice Under Section 22, amended his plaint by stating that he proposed to rely upon Clauses 2 and 5 of Section 20 relating to acts of waste by the tenant and bona fide requirement of the land by the lan...
Tag this Judgment!Panchayat Board Vs. Narava Ramasami and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad23
ORDERBeasley, C.J.1. The suits, the subject of these civil revision petitions, were for a refund by the petitioner Panchayat Board of profession tax illegally collected from the respondents. The points for consideration are common to all the petitions and in the lower Court were dealt with in one judgment and I propose to do the same. The plaintiffs were all served with notices Under Section 97, Local Boards Act, calling upon them to file returns of their income or profits for the half-year ending 30th September 1934. They duly filed returns, but the President of the Panchayat Board deeming the returns to be incorrect, fixed an assessment himself and served notices on the plaintiffs directing each of them to pay profession tax in respect of their separate assessments. All the plaintiffs appealed to the Board and the appeals appear to have been dismissed as being out of time although from the judgment it is not clear whether all were dismissed on that ground or which, if any of them was...
Tag this Judgment!C.K. Samarapuri Chetty Vs. P. Thangavelu Chetty and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad87
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. The question involved in this second appeal is whether the mortgage in favour of defendant 2 dated 12th May 1927 is entitled to priority over the plaintiff's mortgage dated 10th March 1927. To determine the point in controversy, a few facts may be necessary. Defendant 1 admittedly was a person who became indebted some time prior to 1927 and this is evidenced by the fact that there was a sum of Rs. 2,000 for principal and interest due to one Motichand: vide Ex. Section It is stated that the amount due to Motichand was also secured by an equitable mortgage evidenced by Ex. 8-a. It is the case of defendant 2 that in order to discharge this equitable mortgage, defendant 1 borrowed from him a sum of Rs. 2,000 on 9th March 1927 on a promissory note bearing the said date and as security for repayment thereof executed also an equitable mortgage evidenced by Ex. 2 a, but he was also desiring to take a registered simple mortgage after he got an encumbrance certificate, as...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »