Chennai Court February 1940 Judgments
Pitchai Pillai Vs. T.R. Ramaswami Aiyangar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1940
Reported in: (1940)1MLJ655a
ORDERLakshmana Rao, J.1. The petitioner is a Bill Collector and he went to the complainant to collect the amount due by him. The complainant stated that he would pay in a week and during the discussion that followed the petitioner shouted 'shameless fellow. I will shoe you'. This does not amount to an offence under Section 504, Indian Penal Code, and the conviction of the petitioner under that section is unsustainable. It is therefore set aside and the fine if levied will be refunded....
Tag this Judgment!Chikkanna Chettiar Alias V.S. Nanjappa Chettiar Vs. V.S. Perumal Chett ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Mad474; (1940)1MLJ732
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This revision petition raises the question whether an appeal lies from the decision of a Subordinate Judge appointed by the Provincial Government under Section 3(d) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, to decide a dispute referred by the Collector under Section 30 of the Act. That section empowers the Collector to refer to 'the Court' a dispute as to the apportionment of the amount of compensation settled under Section 11 or as to the persons to whom the compensation is payable. Section 3(d) defines the word 'Court' as meaning a principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction, unless the Provincial Government has appointed (as it is empowered to do) a special judicial officer to perform the functions of the Court. In this case the Government of Madras appointed the Subordinate Judge of Salem to perform the functions of the Court under the Act. The petitioner was dissatisfied with the decision of the Subordinate Judge and filed an appeal to the District Ju...
Tag this Judgment!S. Gopalachariar Vs. Nallayya Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1940
Reported in: (1940)1MLJ911
King, J.1. The notice which is the subject-matter of these two appeals has already come before a Bench of this Court of which I was a member in C.C.C.A. No. 10 of 1934 and it was there held that it was inoperative to effect any division of status. Appellant's learned advocate has been unable to show me any judicial pronouncement to the effect that a person disqualified from claiming a share in joint family property may nevertheless sever his legal connection with that family by issuing a notice; and he has not seriously challenged the conclusions of the lower appellate Court based upon Girja Bai v. Sadashiv Dhundiraj (1916) 31 M.L.J. 455: L.R. 43 IndAp 151 : I.L.R. 43. Cal. 1031. The case in Venkateswara Pattar v. Mankayammal (1934) 69 M.L.J. 410 was one where a father of an insane son separated himself from him by a formal notice and is therefore dealing with facts essentially different. I must follow the earlier Bench decision with reference to this notice and dismiss these appeals w...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. V. Nadimuthu Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Mad593; (1940)2MLJ217
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The assessee derives income from immovable property, trade in cloth, money-lending h and other sources existing within the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer, Tanjore Circle. He is also the owner of considerable house property in Saigon in Indo China. For some years he has kept an account with the Saigon branch of the Banque Franco-Chinoise and has the' right to overdraw it to the limit of $50,000. On 1st April, 1935, his overdraft amounted to $20,149. It is unnecessary to embark on an inquiry into the purposes for which the $20,149 was used, but it is common ground that it was used in part for paying for repairs to the assessee's properties in Saigon and meeting taxes levied thereon. The period of account was the year from the 1st April, 1935, to the 31st March, 1936, and the assessee's net income from his Saigon properties during that year was $18,414. As the result of payments into his account of the income from these properties he had reduced h...
Tag this Judgment!Bhavanasi Virupakshayya Vs. Vinayakam Chinna Subbarayudu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Mad609
ORDERWadsworth, J.1. This revision petition is preferred against the decree passed in appeal against the dismissal of a suit to recover a sum of Rs. 679-8-0 due on a promissory note executed by defendant 1 (who is the petitioner here) in favour of defendant 2 who is the brother of the plaintiff. Plaintiff's claim was based on an allegation that, in a partition of the family, this pro-missiory note had fallen to his share. The suit underwent various vicissitudes and was finally dismissed by the trial Court. The plaintiff appealed, impleading only his bro-ther, defendant 2. In hearing the appeal, the learned District Judge appears to have lost sight of the fact that the promisor had not been made a party to the appeal, and, coming to the conclusion that the promissory note had not been discharged as alleged by the promisor in the trial Court, he exonerated defendant 2, that is to say, the plaintiff's brother, except as regards costs and gave a decree against defendant 1, the promisor, wh...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras Vs. Nadimuthu Pillai.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1940
Reported in: [1940]8ITR249(Mad)
Leach, C.J. - The assessee derives income from immoveable property, trade in cloth, money-lending and other sources existing within the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer, Tanjore circle. He is also the owner of considerable house property in Saigon in Indo-China. For some years he has kept an account with the Saigon branch of the Banque Franco-Chinoise and has the right to overdraw it to the limit of 50,000. On 1st April 1935 his overdraft amounted to $ 20,149. It is unnecessary to embark on an inquiry into the purposes for which the $ 20,149 was used, but it is common ground that it was used in part for paying for repairs to the assessees properties in Saigon and meeting taxes levied thereon. The period of account was the year from the 1st April 1935 to the 31st March 1936 and the assessees net income from his Saigon properties during that year was $ 18,414. As the result of payment into his account of the income from these properties he had reduced his overdraft to $ 12,165 by t...
Tag this Judgment!President, Panchayat Board Vs. Surappu Veeranna
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1940
Reported in: (1940)1MLJ599
ORDERLakshmana Rao, J.1. The accused was prosecuted for failure to remove an encroachment in a public street and he has been acquitted on the ground thatthe question of establishing the panchayat Board's title or claim to the alleged encroachment is purely of a civil nature.2. This is obviously erroneous and the Magistrate has to decide the legality or otherwise of the notice under Section 159(1) of the Madras Local Boards Act. The order of acquittal is therefore set aside and there will be a retrial in accordance with law....
Tag this Judgment!N. Gopalaswamy Rao, License Inspector Vs. Chinna Ponnuswamy Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Mad608; (1940)1MLJ598
ORDERLakshmana Rao, J.1. The accused was prosecuted for failure to comply with a requisi ion under Section 164 Clause 2 of the Madras Local Boards Act and he has been acquitted on the ground that the Local Board should establish its title and possession of the land in the Civil Court before invoking the provisions of the Madras Local Boards Act. This is obviously erroneous and it in incumbent on the Magistrate to decide the legality or otherwise of the requisition. The order of acquittal is therefore set aside and there will be a retrial in accordance with law....
Tag this Judgment!Kallumatam Gurubasayya Vs. Sanna Setra Siddalingappa
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Mad677; (1940)1MLJ689
ORDERLakshmana Rao, J.1. The complaint is founded on an allegation in a plaint in a suit for partition and recovery of the share of the vendor of the accused in the family properties and if the allegation is false the offence would be one under Section 193, Indian Penal Code. A complaint by the Court is necessary for a prosecution for an offence under Section 193, Indian Penal Code and the parties cannot be permitted to evade that provision of law by filing a complaint of defamation. In this view it is unnecessary to consider whether a prosecution at this stage is not an abuse of the process of Court and the charge is quashed....
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Perumal Konan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad71a
ORDERLakshmana Rao, J.1. The temples were broken into and the idols were removed for celebrating a festival and the taking was not dishonest. The conviction under Sections 457 and 380, I.P.C., is therefore unsustainable but the petitioners would be guilty under Section 147, I.P.C., as their common object was to enforce a right by means of criminal force, and violence was used in prosecution of the common object. The conviction under Sections 457 and 380, I.P.C., is therefore set aside and the conviction under Section 147, I.P.C., will stand. But the consequences were not serious and the case was taken up on a private complaint. Under the circumstances the sentences already undergone are sufficient and the sentence of the petitioners under Section 147, I.P.C., is reduced to the period already undergone....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »