Chennai Court March 1939 Judgments
Ramaswami Chettiar and ors. Vs. Meyyappan Servai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Mad740; (1939)2MLJ353
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The appellants are the legal representatives of a person who purchased property at a sale held in execution of a decree. The sale was set aside on the ground of irregularity in its conduct. The amount for which the property had been sold was paid into Court and was withdrawn by the decree-holder. The auction-purchaser died before the sale was set aside and the appellants are his legal representatives. They applied for the refund of the money and obtained an order for repayment from the District Munsif in whose Court the execution proceedings had been instituted. The question which we have to consider is whether the District Munsif's order can be made the subject-matter of an appeal.2. The sale took place on the 24th June, 1922, and was confirmed on the 25th of the next month. The auction-purchaser then paid into Court the money and it was drawn out by the decree holder immediately. As the result of the application of the judgment-debtor in that behalf ...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Voora Sreeramulu Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1939
Reported in: (1939)2MLJ667
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This is an application for a certificate permitting an appeal to His Majesty in Council from an order of this Court in an income-tax matter. The respondent has taken the preliminary objection that this Court has no power to grant a certificate in this case.2. The respondent applied to the Commissioner of Income-tax to state a case on a question arising under Section 25(3) of the Income-tax Act. The Commissioner, relying on the decision of this Court in Venkatachalam v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras (1934) 68 M.L.J. 227 : I.L.R. 58 Mad. 367 , refused to state a case on the ground that the order was not prejudicial within the meaning of Section 66(2) read with Section 33. In Venkatachalam v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras (1934) 68 M.L.J. 227 : I.L.R. 58 Mad. 357 , an application was filed in the office of the Income-tax Officer for a refund of income-tax under the provisions of Section 48 of the Act. The application was rejected and the Commiss...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras Vs. Voora Sreeramulu Chetty. [No. 2 ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Mad903; [1939]7ITR566(Mad)
LEACH, C.J. - This is an application for a certificate permitting an appeal to His Majesty in Council from an order of this court in an Income-tax matter. The respondent has taken the preliminary objection that this Court has no power to grant a certificate in this case.The respondent applied to the Commissioner of Income-tax to state a case on a question arising under Section 25(3) of the Income-tax Act. The Commissioner, relying on the decision of this Court in N. A. S. V. Venkatachalam Chettiar v. The Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras, refused to state a case on the ground that the order was not prejudicial within the meaning of Section 66(2) read with Section 33. In Venkatachalams Case an application was filed in the office of the Income-tax officer for a refund of income-tax under the provisions of Section 48 of the Act. The application was rejected and the Commissioner refused to interfere by an order under Section 33. The applicant then applied to the Court under Section 66(3)....
Tag this Judgment!Kolachala Kutumba Sastri Vs. Lakkaraju Bala Tripura Sundaramma and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Mad462; (1939)1MLJ702
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The question which the Court is called upon to consider in this case is whether in a suit for the cancellation of a deed of conveyance and for possession of the property the plaintiff should value his relief in accordance with the provisions of Section 7(iv)(a) or those of Section 7(v) of the Court-Fees Act. The plaintiff in this case filed a suit in the Court of the District Munsif of Tenali for a decree setting-aside a conveyance which he had executed and for possession of the land covered by the deed, pleading that he had been induced to sign the instrument as the result of undue influence and fraud. On the basis that the plaint fell for the purpose of valuation within para, (v) of the section he affixed a stamp fee of the value of Rs. 34-13-0. The District Munsiff considered that para. (iv)(a) applied, which meant a court-fee of Rs. 119-15-0. Para. (v), as amended by the Madras Act of 1922, requires that in a suit for the possession of land the rel...
Tag this Judgment!Anumala Ankamma Vs. Komaravolu Venkata Subbayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Mad517; (1939)2MLJ1
Alferd Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The question which falls for decision in this appeal is whether Section 146 and Section 147 of the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908, are intended to have retrospective effect. Before considering the provisions of the Act I will state how this question arises. The appellant is a ryot in possession of a piece of land known as Survey No. 191/1. The land forms part of a holding granted by the Rajah of Venkatagiri. There are five lots bearing survey numbers in this holding, the other four being in the possession of one Venkata Subbayya, the pattadar. Venkata Subbayya is the son of one Vobayya, who in 1903 sold to the appellant and two others the land described as Survey No. 191/1. The appellant's co-owners eventually gave up their interests in the land and he alone cultivated it. Venkata Subbayya failed to pay to his landlord the rent due by him for the years 1919, 1920 and 1921 in respect of Survey Nos. 246, 445, 679 and 305 which comprised the remainder of t...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Vyapuri Kavandan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Mad574; (1939)2MLJ109
Lakshmana Rao, J.1. The petitioner was a toddy renter before the introduction of Prohibition and he has been convicted under Section 4(1)(a) and (g) of the Madras Prohibition Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two months and a fine of Rs. 50 under each sub-clause. The evidence of P.W. 1 the Sub-Inspector shows that on his way to the house of the petitioner with a search warrant the petitioner emptied a pot of arrack into his well and on search M.O. 3 the pot containing fermented wash, M.O. 4 the bottle containing some drops of illicitly distilled arrack, M.O. 5 the basket of jaggery and M.O. 6 the pot containing velvelan bark and cocoanut flowers, were found in the house. P.W. 2 the search witness corroborates P.W. 1 and the denial of the petitioner is worthless. The conviction of the petitioner under Section 4, Clause (1)(a) and (g) is therefore correct but a distiller of arrack will necessarily possess the arrack and separate sentences are not called for. The sentence of ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›