Chennai Court October 1939 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.
Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras Vs. Gelli Krishnamurthy and Others.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-1939
Reported in: [1940]8ITR121(Mad)
(The judgment of the Court was delivered by the Honble the Chief Justice).The assessees are a firm of merchants carrying on business at Bezwada. The firm had been registered under the Indian Income-tax Rules, 1922, and as such were entitled to the benefits accruing to a registered firm under the Act. Rule 2 of the Statutory Rules requires a firm constituted under an instrument of partnership to register with the Income-tax Officer the particulars contained in the instrument. An application of this nature must be made by the partners or one of them. The application is required to be made in the form prescribed in the rules, and must be accompanied by the original instrument of partnership under with the firm is constituted, provided that for some sufficient reason the Income-tax Officer is satisfied that the original cannot be conveniently produced. When a certificate of Registration has been granted, it remains in effect up to the end of that financial year, but under Rule 6 is renewab...
Ramasubramanya Pattar Vs. Karimbil Pati and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad124; (1940)1MLJ54
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. In 1926 the respondents filed a suit in the Court of the District Munsif of Kasargod for the recovery of possession of several items of immovable property and for the payment of mesne profits. By a decree dated 2nd December, 1927, the District Munsif dismissed the suit. An appeal was then filed to the Court of the District Judge of South Kanara. The District Judge held that the respondents were entitled to recover possession of one of the items of property. In respect of that item he directed the trial Court to hold an inquiry as to past and future mesne profits and to pass a decree accordingly. The order of the District Judge was on the 6th November, 1930. On the 30lh March, 1934, the respondents applied to the trial Court to ascertain the mesne profits form 31st October, 1925, the date on which the appellant became possessed of the property, to 23rd May, 1932, when he surrendered possession to the respondents in pursuance of the decree of the Distric...
Narayanaswami Naidu and anr. Vs. Rajamanickam Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad419; (1940)1MLJ225
Horwill, J.1. The respondent brought a suit on a mortgage bond against the petitioner; and a compromise decree was obtained on 17th October, 1936. A final decree was passed on 14th August, 1937 and three days later, on 17th August, 1937, the petitioner paid Rs. 1,400 in part discharge of the debt. On 14th December, 1937, the respondent filed E.P. No. 77 of 1938 in which he stated that he had appropriated Rs. 1,400 first towards interest and costs and the balance towards principal. The petitioner has since put in an application to scale down the debt under Section 8 of the Madras Act IV of 1938; and the only; question that arises in this petition is whether the respondent can be allowed to appropriate that sum of Rs. 1,400 first towards costs and interest and afterwards towards principal. Both the Courts below have held that he could.2. The argument of the petitioner is that the appropriation took place only on 14th December, 1937, the date on which E. P. No. 77 of 1938 was filed; but i...
Sri Sri Narasimha Pattamahadevi Alias Padmavathi Pattamahadevi Garu Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad624; (1940)1MLJ350
Mockett, J.1. In execution of a decree a sale was ordered on the 15th of March, 1937. On the 10th of April, 1937, the judgment-debtor petitioned the Court to set aside the sale under Order 21, Rule 90. Notice went to the decree-holder and on the 1st of May, 1937, he put in a counter-affidavit in which he prayed that the judgment-debtor should deposit security. On the same day the Court ordered the judgment-debtor to deposit security by the 15th of June, 1937. On the 14th of June, 1937, he put in a petition to the Court saying that the Court had no power to order the deposit because the order to furnish security was made after the petition to set aside the sale was admitted. On the 28th of June, 1937, that petition was dismissed. Time was extended to 2nd July, 1937. On that day the judgment-debtor stated he was unable to make the necessary deposit and his petition was dismissed. He appealed and the learned Subordinate Judge of Chicacole decided in his favour that the Court should not or...
Viswanadhula Gurayya and anr. Vs. Danturthi Venkataratnam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-1939
Reported in: (1940)1MLJ223
Horwill, J.1. The respondent to this petition brought a suit for rent. Certain objections were taken and issues framed. The matter was then brought up to this Court in revision and the then learned Chief Justice allowed the revision petition in part and remanded the suit to the lower Court for fresh disposal.2. After remand, the defendants put in an application to file an additional written statement to the effect that the Court had no jurisdiction by virtue of the passing of Act XVIII of 1936 by the provisions of which the petitioners became ryots of land situated within an estate, within the meaning of the Madras Estates Land Act, and that therefore a suit for rent would lie only in a Revenue Court. That petition was dismissed on the ground that the plea had been raised too late.3. It seems to have been admitted even in the lower Court - and it certainly has been here - that the rent is payable on land lying within an 'estate'. That being so, the Court having jurisdiction would be a ...
P. R. M. Abdul Rahman and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-1939
Reported in: [1939]7ITR662(Mad)
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by the Honourable the Chief Justice).The assessee are a firm registered under the provisions of Section 26-A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. There are two partners and the partnership deed is dated 27th February 1936. It appears, however, that the partnership was constituted on the 20th of March 1934. The senior partner advanced to the firm in his own name and the name of his wife a total sum of Rs. 31,141-0-4 and the junior partner a sum of Rs. 5,973-2-5. The partnership deed provides that 'the net profits of the business after deducting all working expenses and interest paid or payable on capital whether belonging to the partners or depositors or others from whom moneys might have been borrowed shall be divided between the parties hereto in the proportion of :3, either share going to the party of the first part and three shares going to the party of the second part.' For the year of assessment, 1936-37, the assessee claimed to be entitled to d...
K. T. M. T. M. Abdul Kayum Sahib HussaIn Sahib Vs. Commissioner of Inc ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-1939
Reported in: [1939]7ITR652(Mad)
(The Judgment of the Court was delivered by the Honourable the Chief Justice).On the 19th November 1931 the assessee acquired from the Rajah of Ramnad the exclusive right to collect conch shells from certain conch beds belonging to him. The period for which the concession was granted was three years and seven months from 1st December 1931 to 30th June 1935 and the consideration was the sum of Rs. 10,500 payable in instalments. The assessee at or about the same time acquired a similar right from the Zamindar of Sivaganga. The concession obtained from the Zamindar was a much smaller one and the consideration here was only Rs. 350. The question which the Court is called upon to decide is whether the assessee is entitled in law to deduct the two sums of Rs. 10,500 and Rs. 350 for the purpose of arriving at his assessable income for the year 1936-37. The Income-tax authorities have treated these sums as being in the nature of capital expenditure and have refused to allow the amounts to be d...
Alagananda Mudaliar Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-1939
Reported in: [1940]8ITR69(Mad)
Leach, C.J. - The assessee was a creditor of C.K.N. & Son, a firm which carried on a very large business in groundnuts in Madras. In February 1929 C.K.N. & Sons were adjudicated insolvents. The insolvency was one of the biggest insolvencies of recent as in Madras. The firm was indebted to the assessee in the sum of Rs. 26,330 which he wrote off as a bad debt in the year of account 1935-36. The Income-tax Officer considered that he should have written off the debt to the extent of at least 14 annas in the rupee at the time of the adjudication and therefore only allowed a deduction of Rs. 3,291. The Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras, has, as the result of direction by this Court under Section 66 (3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, stated a case and referred the following question of decision :-'Was there material before the Income-tax Officer to justify his refusal to allow the assessee to write off Rs. 23,039 in the year of account ?'C.K.N. & Sons had large assets but the schedule showed...
Pichakkari Alias Pukkutty Janaki (Dead) and ors. Vs. Sivagnana Nachiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad497; (1940)1MLJ175
Horwill, J.1. The defendants obtained a portion of the estate registered in the name of the plaintiff; and the plaintiff and the defendants put in a joint application to the Collector (Ex. A) for an apportionment of the peishkush payable on the two portions of the estate. According to that agreement they prayed the Collector to fix the amount payable by the defendants at Rs. 145. The Collector separately registered the portion of the estate belonging to the defendants, but at the time of riling the suit he had not apportioned the assessment. In order to fix the assessment some inquiry is necessary, and although the plaintiff contended that the Collector had apportioned the assessment, the lower Court held that there was no evidence to that effect. The plaintiff brought this suit on Ex. A praying for contribution of peishkush from the defendants. He was obliged to bring this suit now because otherwise the suit for the suit faslis would have been barred by limitation.2. In revision it is...
Kannomkot Kelu Kurup Vs. Cheriyath Manayil Paru Amma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad686; (1940)1MLJ693
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. The main question for decision in this appeal is a short one and it arises on a few undisputed facts. The appellant as the successor in interest of the mortgagor sued the respondent in whom the mortgage right has become vested for redemption of an usufructuary mortgage of Kuzhikhanam rights in the suit paramba. The mortgage, marked Ex. A in the case, was executed on 25th January, 1894 and it provided that out of the rents and profits of the paramba, the purapad (rent) payable to the jenmi should be paid every year and the balan6e should be appropriated in lieu of interest on the principal money. The mortgagee not having paid the rents due to the jenmi according to the stipulation in the deed, the latter brought a suit in 1909 against the predecessors-in-interest both of the appellant and of the respondent herein and obtained a decree for possession of the property with the rents due. This decree, however, was not duly executed and has now become unenforceable owi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »