Chennai Court November 1938 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.
P.S. Tulajarama Rao Vs. Sir James Taylor, Governor of Reserve Bank of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1938
Reported in: (1939)2MLJ639
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The petitioner in this case applies for the committal of Sir James Taylor, the Governor of the Reserve Bank of India, Mr. M.M. Bhargava, the Manager of the Madras Branch of that Bank, and Mr. G.A. Johnson, the acting Editor of the 'Madras Mail' for alleged contempt of Court. The action of the first respondent complained of is that he procured the publication of a letter dated 22nd July, 1938, written by him to the Prime Minister of the Madras Government with reference to a petition then before this Court for the compulsory winding up of the Travancore National and Quilon Bank, Limited. The letter was published in the lopal press on the 9th August at the request of the first respondent conveyed in a letter by the second respondent to the Secretary for the Government of Madras, Development Department. The complaint against the acting Editor of the 'Madras Mail' is that he published the letter and also published a leading article commenting on a scheme fo...
Subramania Gurukkal Vs. Abhinava Poornapriya A. Srinivasa Rao Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1938
Reported in: AIR1940Mad617
Wadsworth, J.1. The appellant who was the defendant in trial Court is an arehaka in possession of lands alleged to belong to a temple in a village situated within the Ami estate. On 27th January 1932 the Court of Wards which was then in charge of the estate dismissed the defendant from his office of arehaka on the ground that he had failed to render service and had failed to give any explanation to the charges connected with his default. After the dismissal the suit was filed by the Jagirdar represented by his next friend the manager of the estate under the Court of Wards as trustee of the temple to recover possession of the lands connected with the arehaka service. Certain dates are of importance. The late jagirdar of Arni died on 25th June 1931. The order of dismissal of the defendant was passed on 27th January 1932. The suit was filed on 22nd April 1932; and on 23rd November 1932 after the suit had been filed but before it was decreed there was a notification making the new jagirdar...
P.S. Sathappa Chettiar and anr. Vs. N.K. Pr. S. Pr. Chockalingam Chett ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1938
Reported in: AIR1940Mad615
Varadachariar, J.1. This appeal arises out of a mortgagee's suit for sale. The only question for determination in the appeal is whether the lower Court was right in exonerating item 3 from liability to the plaintiff's claim. This item was purchased by defendant 2 on 26th January 1933 in execution of the decree which he had obtained against the mortgagors in O.S. No 406 of 1926 on the file of the District Munsif's Court of Kumbakonam. During the pendency of that suit he had attached this item before judgment on 5th October 1926 and the mortgage in plaintiff's favour was executed only on 28th October 1926; The decree in O.S. No. 406 of 1926 was passed on 20th September 1927. If matters had not been complicated by what happened in connexion with one of the execution applications in the money suit, defendant 2's title would of course have prevailed against the mortgage in the plaintiff's favour. It has however been contended on behalf of the plaintiff that by reason of an order passed by t...
C.S. Nataraja Pillai and anr. Vs. C.S. Subbaroya Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Mad693; (1939)1MLJ499
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. In this appeal the Court is called upon to decide the question whether a foreign judgment declaring the respondent to be the adopted son of a Hindu widow is binding on the Court in a suit relating to immovable property. On the 26th April, 1891, one Calve Sadasiva Chetti, a French citizen, died in Pondicherry leaving a widow, but no issue. The deceased was a man of considerable wealth and had immovable properties in Pondicherry and in the Madras Presidency. By a will and a codicil dated the 25th July, 1889 and 20th May 1891, respectively, the deceased directed that the bulk of his estate should be devoted to charitable purposes and he appointed five executors and trustees. The will and the codicil were proved both in Pondicherry and in this Court by four of the trustees, but one of them, Calve Krishnaswami Chetti, refused to join in, and in 1892 instituted proceedings in Pondicherry for the removal of the trustees who had proved the will. As the result ...
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. P.R.A.L.M. Muthukaruppan Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1938
Reported in: (1939)1MLJ482
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The assessee carries on business as a money-lender at Paganeri in the Ramnad District and at various places outside British India. Until the month of February, 1936, the assessee was a partner in the firm of P.R.A.M. carrying-on business at Singapore. In that month the partnership was dissolved and the assessee took over the business. On the 23rd March, 1931, the P.R.A.M. firm advanced Rs. 1,00,000 to the S.P.K.A. firm of Zigon, Burma. On the 10th February, 1934, the S.P.K.A. firm repaid the loan with the interest then due, in all Rs. 1,22,659. The loan was discharged by payment of the amount to the assessee through the S.P.K.A.A.M. firm of Rangoon. The assessee retained the money in Rangoon, it being held on his behalf by the S.P.K.A.A.M. firm. The repayment of the loan to the P.R.A.M. firm was effected by the debiting of the assessee's personal account in that firm and crediting the Zigon firm with the amount. This was done on the 12th April, 1935. T...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras Vs. P. R. A. L. M. Muthukaruppan Ch ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Mad376; [1939]7ITR29(Mad)
LEACH, C.J. - The assessee carried on business as a money lender at Paganeri in the Ramnad District and at various places outside British India. Until the month of February 1936 the assessee was a partner in the firm of P.R.A.M. carrying on business at Singapore. In that month the partnership was dissolved and the assessee took over the business. On the 23rd March 1931 the P.R.A.M. Firm advanced Rs. 1,00,000 to the S.P. K.A. Firm of Zigon, Burma. On the 10th February 1934 the S.P.K.A. Firm repaid the loan with the interest then due, in all Rs. 1,22,659. The loan was discharged by payment of the amount to the assessee through the S.P.K.A.A.M. Firm of Rangoon. The assessee retained the money in Rangoon, it being held on his behalf by the S.P.K.A.A.M. Firm. The repayment of the loan to the P.R.A.M. Firm was effected by the debiting of the assessees personal account in that firm and crediting the Zigon firm with the amount. This was done on the 12th April 1935. The amount debited to the as...
Voora Sreeramulu Chetty Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-1938
Reported in: (1939)2MLJ68
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The question which has been referred is whether the case of N.A.S.V. Venkatachalam Chettiar v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras (1934) 68 M.L.J. 227 : I.L.R. 58 Mad. 367 : 8 I.T.C. 74 (F.B.) was rightly decided. The answer depends on the meaning to be given to the word 'prejudicial' in Section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act. Section 66(2) states that within sixty days of the date on which he is served with notice of an order under Section 33 enhancing an assessment or otherwise prejudicial to him the assessee may require the Commissioner of Income-tax to refer to the High Court any question of law arising out of the order. Section 33 authorises the Commissioner of Income-tax of his own motion to call for the record of a proceeding under the Act which has been taken by an authority subordinate to him or by himself when exercising the power of an Assistant Commissioner under Sub-section (4) of Section 5, and having called for the record he is empow...
Yerlagadda Mahalakshmi Vs. Midde Somaraju and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Mad393; (1939)2MLJ72
Varadachariar, J.1. The appellant sued to recover money due under a mortgage deed for Rs. 3,000 executed in his favour by defendants 1 to 3 and their father on 13th March, 1917. The seventh defendant was the principal contesting defendant. His defence was in the main founded upon certain events that happened in 1918 and 1920.2. In August, 1918, a third party who had a money claim against the mortgagors attached some of the mortgaged items, before judgment, pending his money suit against them. On 2nd October, 1918, the mortgagors purported to sell the mortgaged items to the plaintiff under the original of Ex. I partly for the mortgage amount and partly for a further consideration of Rs. 441. When the money decree-holder attempted to bring the properties to sale on the basis of the attachment already made, the plaintiff filed a claim petition (Ex. G) on 29th September, 1920. In this petition she claimed one of two reliefs: she set up her sale and asked that the property should be release...
Voora Sreeramulu Chetty Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Mad709; [1939]7ITR263(Mad)
ORDER OF REFERENCE TO FULL BENCHLeach, C.J. - A preliminary objection has been taken on behalf of the Commissioner of Income-tax. It is said that the application for reference is incompetemt and relience is placed on the decision of this Court in N. A. S. V. Venltachalam Chettiar v. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Madras, where it was held that the words otherwise prejudicial apperaing in Section 66 (2) of the Income-tax Act ment an order made by the Commessioner altering the position of the assessee or applicant to that persons prejidice. If the order of Income-tax Commissioner merely confirmed an order, this would not amount to passing an order prejudicial to the petitioner or applicant under this Section. It seems to us that this question is open to further argument and must be reffered to a Full Bench to five judges. The question referred will be in these words :-'Was N. A. S. V. Venkatachakam Chettiar v. The Commissioner of Income -tax, Madras rightly decided ?'The case was accordingl...
In Re: Kasireddi Appanna and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1938
Reported in: AIR1940Mad144
ORDERLakshmana Rao, J.1. The case against the petitioners was that they prevented the complainant from opening a sluice which had been closed about a fortnight before the date of occurrence and as rightly conceded, this would not amount to an offence under Section 430, Penal Code. The conviction of the petitioners under Section 430, Penal Code, is therefore set aside and the fines if levied will be refunded....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »