Chennai Court January 1940 Judgments
Ramaswami Reddi Vs. Alagayammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Mad421; (1940)1MLJ534
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. The question for determination in this Revision Petition relates to the construction of Section 4(h) of the Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act, 1938. The petitioner claiming to be an 'agriculturist' applied under the provisions of the Act for the scaling down of the debt due by him under a decree obtained by the respondent. It was not denied that the petitioner was an agriculturist within the meaning of the Act, but the respondent being a woman claimed the benefit of the exemption under Section 4(h) of the Act and the question is whether, on a proper construction of that provision, her claim is sustainable.2. It is not in dispute that, besides the decree-debt now sought to be scaled down, the respondent is entitled to a half share in a mortgage debt due from another person but has no other property, and that the principal amount of these debts both of which were due on the 1st October, 1937, did not exceed Rs. 3,000. On these facts it is argued for the petitioner'...
Tag this Judgment!A. M. K. Firm Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1940
Reported in: [1940]8ITR474(Mad)
(The Judgment of the Court was delivered by the Honble the Chief Justice).The Court required the Commissioner of Income-tax to refer the following question for decision under the provisions of Section 66 (3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 :-'Whether there was any material on which the Commissioner could hold that the three sums Rs. 20,784-6-0, Rs. 13,646-6-0 and Rs. 27,188-5-0 were remittances of foreign business profits taxable under section 4 (2) of the Income-tax Act.'When the application was made to the Court for an order directing the reference to be made it appeared to the Court that the Commissioner had been impressed by the fact that these moneys had been utilised by the assessee firm in its own business and pointed out that the mere investment of trust moneys in the business here would not change their character. In the case which the Commissioner has stated as the result of the Courts order the facts are fully set out and it is abundantly clear that there was ample materi...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Manikyam Kondayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-26-1940
Reported in: (1940)1MLJ775
Pandrang Row, J.1. The appellants have been convicted after a trial with the aid of assessors by the Sessions Judge of East Godavari on various charges and sentenced to undergo various terms of imprisonment which are to run concurrently.2. The charge against them was that they formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with the common object of causing hurt to the village munsif of Anur, to which place the appellants belong, and in prosecution of that common object, one of the accused, namely, the first accused, caused grievous hurt to the village munsif with a knife. The other accused were charged' under the same section, namely, Section 326, Indian Penal Code, under the provisions of Section 149, Indian Penal Code. There was also a further charge against the first accused under Section 23(1) of the Criminal Tribes Act. There is some doubt as to whether this charge was justified or not, as he was not a member of the criminal tribe at the time of his conviction though he was a member ...
Tag this Judgment!V.G. Manicka Mudaliar Vs. Andalammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Mad573; (1940)1MLJ356
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the respondent on the Original Side of this Court for a declaration that a piece of land conveyed to the appellant under a deed dated the 30th October, 1925, is her property and that she is also entitled to the house built thereon. The respondent's case is that she acquired the site and built the house out of the proceeds of a milk business belonging to her. The appellant claimed that the milk business belonged to him and that the property was his. The suit was tried by Venkataramana Rao, J., who held that the property belonged to both of them in equal shares. Consequently, the learned Judge granted a decree for partition and the delivery to the respondent of her half share with mesne profits. The respondent has not appealed, and the main question which the Court is called upon to consider is whether the appellant is entitled to the share allotted to the respondent; in other words whether he is absolute owner o...
Tag this Judgment!Penubala Muni Krishnayya Vs. Penubala Akilamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1940
Reported in: (1940)1MLJ868
ORDERBurn, J.1. This is an application to revise the order passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Chandragiri on the 29th October, 1939, on an application made to him on the 28th October, 1939, on behalf of the petitioner. The petitioner is the husband of a woman named Akkulamma in whose favour the learned Joint Magistrate passed an order in M.C. No. 104 of 1938 on the 7th February, 1939, directing this petitioner to pay his wife Rs. 3-8-0 per mensem as maintenance under Section 488, Criminal Procedure Code. The petitioner did not pay in accordance with that order. Before she could enforce the order, the petitioner filed a suit O.S. No. 128 of 1939 in the Court of the District Munsif of Tirupati and obtained an interim injunction restraining his wife from enforcing the order for maintenance. The injunction was in force until 21st July, 1939. On that date, the interim injunction was vacated and the petitioner's wife on the 24th July, 1939, applied to the joint Magistrate to ...
Tag this Judgment!Subbu Pandaram Vs. Lakshminarayana Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Mad435; (1940)1MLJ300
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the order of the Court below directing that the debt should be scaled down only so far as the appellant was concerned and also with reference only to the item of agricultural land included in the mortgage, is wrong. I agree with this contention. The decree debt sought to be scaled down is a debt due by the joint family of the third defendant, petitioner herein, and Section 19 of the Act makes it clear that in respect of a joint family debt any member of the family can apply to have the decree debt scaled down according to the provisions of the Act. And it is equally clear that in such cases it is the debt of the family as a whole that is to be scaled down provided, of course, the joint family is proved to be an agriculturist within the meaning of the Act. There is nothing in the Act to suggest that the benefit of scaling down in such cases is to be restricted to the member of the family who makes the applicatio...
Tag this Judgment!Madura, Etc., Devasthanam Through Its Executive Officer R.S. Naidu Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Mad422; (1940)1MLJ369
Abdur Rahman, J.1. The whole village of Bodinaikenpatti was granted to Devasthanams at Madura as a sarva inam by the Carnatic Rulers, This was a major inam; but at the time when this inam was brought into existence certain minor inams had already been granted in this village. One of these minor inams was purchased by the defendants' predecessors in title. A suit was instituted on behalf of the devasthanams against the defendants for the recovery of certain water charges, land cess, etc., the former of which were claimed on the ground that the water had been taken by the defendants for the second crop which they were not entitled to use without paying for it and the latter for what the plaintiff was alleged to have paid to the Government on behalf of the defendants. It is unnecessary to decide in this case whether the claim was made in respect of a tort committed by the defendants or as held by my learned brother Mr. Justice Somayya in Sree Mullapudi Venkatarayudu v. The President, Dist...
Tag this Judgment!Vythinatha Padayachi Vs. Ammalu Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-16-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Mad610; (1940)1MLJ595
King, J.1. The question involved in this appeal is the interpretation of the expression 'in accordance with law' in Article 182(5) of the Limitation Act. The appellant is the transferee of the decree in O.S. No. 1239 of 1926 and in February, 1936, applied to execute it. He had previously applied in November, 1934 and the learned District Judge of South Arcot has held that that previous application was not in accordance with law and accordingly dismissed the present application as barred by limitation. The reason given by the learned District Judge is that in 1934 appellant had no right to apply in execution as the deed of transfer which he then filed was unregistered and incapable therefore of effecting any transfer. Against this decision appellant appeals.2. The decree in question was a mortgage decree and it is not, of course, contended for the appellant that in 1934 he did in fact possess any legal title to his ownership. The argument in appeal is that the requirements of Order 21, ...
Tag this Judgment!The Official Assignee Vs. the Secretary, M. and S.M. Ry. Employees' Co ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-16-1940
Reported in: (1941)1MLJ703
Somayya, J.1. This application has been taken out by the Official Assignee under Section 7 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act for an order directing the Secretary, the Madras and Southern Mahratta Railway Employees' Co-operative Urban Bank, Ltd., to refund to him all sums recovered by the said Bank by way of deduction from the salary of the first insolvent towards refund of the loan taken by the said insolvent from the Bank. 2. The facts are briefly as follows: The first insolvent, who was employed as a charge-man in the Madras and Southern Mahratta Railway, Workshops, Perambur, was adjudicated on 29th April, 1936. He was at that time drawing a salary of Rs. 202-8-0. Sometime prior to his adjudication that is on 19th October, 1935, he obtained a loan of Rs. 1,500 from the bank during the pendency of a prior insolvency proceeding. The insolvent undertook to repay the loan in thirty-six monthly instalments of Rs. 41-10-0 each out of his salary and authorized and requested the Madras ...
Tag this Judgment!Official Assignee Vs. Secretary M. and S.M. Railway Employee's Co-oper ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-16-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad297
ORDERSomayya, J.1. This application has been taken out by the Official Assignee under Section 7, Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, for an order directing the Secretary, the M. & S.M. Railway Employees Co-operative Urban Bank, Ltd., to refund to him all sums recovered by the said Bank by way of deduction from the salary of the first insolvent towards refund of the loan taken by the said insolvent from, the bank. The facts are briefly as follows:The first insolvent who was employed as a chargeman in the M. & S.M. Railway workshops, Perambur, was adjudicated on 29th April 1936. He was at that time drawing a salary of Rs. 202-8-0. Some time prior to his adjudication, i.e., on 19th October 1935 he obtained a loan of Rs. 1500 from the bank during the pendency of a prior insolvency proceeding. The insolvent undertook to repay the loan in 36 monthly instalments of Rs. 41-10-0 each out of his salary and authorized and requested the M. & S.M. Railway Co., to pay the said instalments to the bank o...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »