Chennai Court October 1939 Judgments
In Re: Ayancheri Kovilagath Sankara Varma Rajah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1939
Reported in: (1940)1MLJ272
ORDERLakshmana Rao, J.1. The petitioner was the first defendant in O.S. No. 12 of 1937 on the file of the Sub-Court of Telficherry and on the application of the plaintiff an order was passed by the Subordinate Judge on 15th October, 1938, directing the defendants to produce certain records by 21st October, 1938, or file an affidavit if they were not available. The order was not complied with, and the Subordinate Judge closed the application with the following order:It is to be regretted that the defendants have not complied with the order and the plaintiff may take such steps as he may find necessary.2. An application under Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was made to the Subordinate Judge on 8th November to file a complaint against the defendants for an offence under Section 175, Indian Penal Code, and some documents were filed by the petitioner on 18th November with an application to excuse his failure to produce them earlier. The documents were ordered to be received on...
Tag this Judgment!Nunna Gopalan Vs. Vuppuluri Lakshminarasamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad631
Leach, C.J.1. On 10th December 1933 the respondent executed a promissory note in favour of one Maddipati Tattabayi, alias Tata, defendant 2 in the suit out of which this petition arises. The respondent saya that she paid the amount due on the promissory note two days later, but the instrument was left in the hands of the payee, who the next day endorsed it to the petitioner. The petitioner instituted a suit on the promissory note in the Court of the District Munsif of Kovvur. The District Munsif passed a decree against the respondent and the payee. The respondent then appealed to the Subordinate Judge of Ellore, who confirmed the decree so far as it affected the payee, but dismissed the suit so far as it concerned the respondent. The Subordinate Judge held that the petitioner was a holder in due course, but inasmuoh as the respondent; had paid the amount due on the promissory note to the payee he was not entitled to recover from the respondent. The petitioner filed a second appeal, but...
Tag this Judgment!The Madura Kallalagar Devasthanam Through Its Trustee, K.N. Radhakrish ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad455; (1940)1MLJ160
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The appellant is a landlord and supplies water to his tenants from his own tank. The respondent is one of the tenants, and previous to fasli 1343 he took sufficient water from the tank for the cultivation of one crop on his holding. In faslis 1343 and 1344 and 1345 without his landlord's permission he took water for the raising of a second crop. As the result, the appellant filed a suit in the Court of the Deputy Collector, Melur, for the recovery of water rate on the basis of the two crops which the respondent had raised in each of the years mentioned. The Deputy Collector decreed the suit. An appeal then followed to the District Judge of Madura who reversed the Deputy Collector's decision in so far as it related to the additional charge claimed as the result of the tenant using water for the raising of second crops. Throughout it has been common ground that the water in the appellant's tank was augmented by water which Government allowed to flow into...
Tag this Judgment!Vennavilli Lakshminarasimha Rao Vs. Garapati Muneyya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad825; (1940)2MLJ234
Horwill, J.1. This is a petition against the order of the District Munsif of Kovvur dismissing an application under Section 20 of Madras Act IV of 1938 praying, for stay of delivery of property in execution of a decree.2. A simple money decree had been passed against the petitioner and in execution of that decree certain property of his was brought to sale and the sale was confirmed. A petition was put in for delivery of the property and at the time when this application under Section 20 was made, no orders had been passed on the delivery petition. The District Munsif, without giving any reasons for his opinion, stated that no execution petition was pending and dismissed the petition.3. There would be a very serious hiatus in Madras Act IV of 1938, if there was no provision to stay delivery pending an application under Sections 19 and 23 of the Act; but I am satisfied that no such hiatus exists. The terms of Section 20 are wide enough to cover a case of this sort. Delivery of property ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Perumal Kudumban
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad562
Stodart, J.1. The appellant has been convicted and sentenced to death by the learned Sessions Judge of Ramnad for the murder of his wife by cutting her throat with a razor in the early hours of the morning of 13th March last. He was also convicted of having at the same time and place attempted to commit suicide, an offence under Section 309, I.P.C. The facts of the case, that is to say, the circumstances of the crime, are not in dispute. The parties are Pallas by caste and of an humble station in life earning their life by agricultural-labour. The appellant is aged 24 or 25. His-wife was aged 20. On the night of the 12th the appellant and his wife lay down to sleep in the house of the appellant's mother P.W. 6. About 4-30 in the early morning P.W. 6 heard a gurgling sound and went into the room where the appellant and his wife had gone to bed. She saw that the deceased was dead from a great wound in her throat and the appellant was lying beside her with a wound in his throat and unable...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bosotto Brothers, Limited
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-1939
Reported in: (1940)1MLJ319
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The assessee is a company-carrying on a hotel business. It was formed in 1928 and took over a hotel in Madras. Subsequently, the assessee built a hotel in Ootacamund and carried on a hotel business there until 1934. These facts do not appear in the statement of the case, but they have been mentioned in argument, and the are not in dispute. The assessee found that its business in Ootacamund was not profitable, and in 1934, leased the premises and its furniture and fittings to a firm named Davis and Company for the purpose, to quote from the order of the Income-tax Officer, 'of running a hotel'. Messrs. Davis and Company have, since then carried on this hotel business. For the assessment year, 1937-38, the assessee desired to deduct from its income the sum of Rs. 2,450 as a depreciation on the building and furniture at the Ootacamund hotel, the assessee company's contention being that it was entitled to this deduction under the provisions of Section 10(2...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. S.Km.Sp. Meyyappa Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-1939
Reported in: (1940)1MLJ543
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The assessee is a Nattukottai Chettiar whose headquarters are in Karaikudi. He is a partner with two other Chettiars in a money-lending business carried in Teluk Anson and at Kambar in the Federated Malay States. The Kambar business had resulted in considerable profits before the Teluk Anson business was started on the 12th December, 1936. On the 14th December, 1936, the partners borrowed from another Chettiar firm doing business in Teluk Anson the sum of Rs. 27,500. This money was divided between the partners and the assessee received as his share, Rs. 7,500, which' his agent in Teluk Anson then remitted to Karaikudi. To pay off the lender, the assessee and his partners transferred profits from the Kambar branch to the Teluk branch, and out of the remittance of profits, they fully discharged the loan. In the circumstances the Income-tax authorities have treated this remittance of Rs. 7,500 by the assessee as a remittance of profits in respect of the y...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras Vs. Abdul Aziz Sahib.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-1939
Reported in: [1939]7ITR647(Mad)
(The Judgment of the Court was delivered by the Honourable Chief Justice.)The Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras, referred for decision of this Court under the provisions of Section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, the following question :'Whether there was any material before the Assistant Commissioner to justify his conclusion that the petitioners business profits could not properly be deduced from the accounts maintained by him.'It is abundantly clear from the orders of the Income-tax Officer and the Assistant Commissioner on appeal that there were ample materials before the Income-tax Officer to justify the order which he made. The assessee is the largest manufacturer and dealer in cigars and beedies in Vellore. He returned an income of Rs. 14,988 for the year of assessment, 1936-37. On an examination of the books, the Income-tax Officer found they were entirely unreliable and they could not be made the basis for any method of accounting. The Income-tax Officer has set out...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras Vs. S. Km. Sp. Meyyappa Chettiar Ka ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad416; [1940]8ITR20(Mad)
(The Judgment of the Court was delivered by the Honourable the Chief Justice.)The assessee is a Nattukottai Chettiar whose headquarters are in Karaikudi. He is a partner with two other Chettiars in a money-lending business carried on in Teluk Anson and at Kambar in the Federated Malay States. The Kambar business had resulted in considerable profits before the Teluk Anson business was started on the 12th December 1936. On the 14th December 1936, the partners borrowed from another Chettiar firm doing business in Teluk Anson the sum of Rs. 27,500. This money was divided between the partners and the assessee received as his share, Rs. 7,500, which his agent in Teluk Anson then remitted to Karaikudi. To pay off the lender, the assessee and his partners transferred profits from the Kambar branch to Teluk Anson branch and out of the remittance of profits, they fully discharged the loan. In the circumstances the Income-tax authorities have treated this remittance of Rs. 7,500 by the assessee a...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras Vs. Bosotto Brothers Limited, Madra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-1939
Reported in: [1940]8ITR41(Mad)
Leach, C.J. - The assessee is a company carrying on a hotel business. It was formed in 1928 and took over a hotel in Madras. Subsequently, the assessee built a hotel in Ootacamund and carried on a hotel business there until 1934. There facts do not appear in the statement of the case, but they have been mentioned in argument, and they are not in dispute. The assessee found that its business in Ootacamund was not profitable, and in 1934 leased the premises and its furniture and fittings to a firm named Davis & Company for the purpose, to quote from the order of the Income-tax Officer, 'of running a hotel.' Messrs. Davis & Company have since then carried on this hotel business. For the assessment year 1937-38, the assessee desired to deduct from its income the sum of Rs. 2,450 as a depreciation on the building and furniture at the Ootacamund hotel, the assessee companys contention being that it was entitled to this deduction under the provisions of Section 10 (2) (vi) of the Indian Incom...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »