Chennai Court February 1940 Judgments
R.M.S. Firm Consisting of Partners Raman Chettiar and ors. Vs. S.L.M. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad188; (1940)2MLJ803
Pandrang Row, J.1. This is an appeal from the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Tiruvarur dated 24th August, 1936 in O.S. No. 39 of 1935 on his file, a suit to set aside the order made on a claim petition on the 11th October, 1933, in favour of the defendant. The subject-matter of the dispute is about 47 acres of land situated in two villages which were under Ex I dated June 25th, 1927, dedicated for certain purposes connected with the tomb of the defendant's father Chinnayya Odayar and the well-known annual Roman Catholic Festival at Velanganni.2. The principal facts of the case are that the defendant is the head of a family which possessed considerable landed property and also engaged in trade on a fairly large scale in several places. The landed property of the family was as much as 200 velies, a veli being equal to about 6 1/2 acres. The defendant was assisted in the business by his three sons and the defendant and his sons executed Ex. I which is styled a partition deed on 25th J...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Kodiyala Chandriah and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad445; (1941)1MLJ362
ORDERLakshmana Rao, J.1. The offence under Section 341, Indian Penal Code, is involved in the offence of unlawful assembly and the separate sentence of fine under Section 341, Indian Penal Code, is not called for. The sentence of fine under Section 341, Indian Penal Code, is therefore set aside and otherwise this petition is dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Pakkiri Muhammad Tharaganar Vs. U.T. Syed Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Mad418; (1940)1MLJ422
1. Mr. S. Ramaswami Aiyar for the respondent raises a preliminary objection that no appeal lies in this case. It is true that in the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act no appeal has been provided from orders passed under Section 19. Subsequently (in October, 1939) the Government have issued Rules providing for appeals in such cases, but those Rules have no retrospective effect Chidambaram Chettiar v. Muthukumaraswami Chettiar : AIR1940Mad417 and therefore those rules do not help the appellant. It has been held vide Subbaraidu In re : (1939)2MLJ609 that no appeal lies from an order under Section 19 dismissing the application of a judgment-debtor when no execution petition is pending in any Court. We are asked to say that it follows from this decision that if an execution petition is pending an appeal will lie, but the fallacy involved in that contention is obvious. We have been referred to the decision in C.R.P. No. 224 etc. of 1939 reported in Jami Venkatappadu v. Kannepalli Ramamurti : ...
Tag this Judgment!Muthuvenkatapathy Reddi Vs. Kuppu Reddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-1940
Reported in: (1940)1MLJ629
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. In 1935 the third respondent in this appeal obtained a decree for Rs. 3,575 against the first and second respondents in the Court of the District Munsif of Villupuram. In execution of the decree the third respondent attached and brought to sale fourteen items of immovable properties belonging to the judgment-debtors. One item of property was purchased at the Court auction by the appellant for the sum of Rs. 264. The total amount realised for the fourteen properties was Rs. 2,217. The sale took place on the 2nd December, 1935. On the 2nd January, 1936, the judgment-debtors assigned to the decree-holder a mortgage which had been executed in their favour. The assignment was in part satisfaction of the amount due under the decree. It is admitted that the value of the mortgage assigned was Rs. 2,207 leaving a balance due under the decree of Rs. 10. The Court closed for the Christmas vacation some days before the 25th December, and did not reopen until the 3...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. J.M. Muhammad Ismail Rowther
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-1940
Reported in: (1940)1MLJ639
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The assessee is a resident of Koothanalloor, in the Tanjore District in the Madras Presidency. He derives income from immovable properties which he possesses in British India and in Saigon in Indo-China, and from a business which he carries on in partnership in Saigon. For the year 1937-38 he was assessed to income-tax in this country on a total income of Rs. 62,599. This amount included a sum of Rs. 62,006, which the Income-tax Officer held represented a remittance to British India of profits made in Saigon during the year of account. The assessee objected to the assessment. He contended that he had been over-assessed to the extent of Rs. 60,000. For the two years which ended with 31st March, 1936, the assessee's profits in Saigon amounted to $59,290. Of this he remitted $39,834 during the year of account to the Bank of Mysore, Mysore City, and there purchased Mysore Government bonds of the face value of Rs. 60,000. The actual price paid for these bon...
Tag this Judgment!Narayanan Chettiar Vs. Chidambaram Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Mad585; (1940)1MLJ710
1. The order of the lower Court cannot be upheld. The learned Subordinate Judge had no power to order, pending trial of an application under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure that the applicant should deposit the costs of the suit or furnish security for the decree amount. If he had dealt with the application on its merits and had decided to grant it merely prescribing conditions under Order 9, Rule 13, no appeal would have been entertained. No such order was passed and the learned Subordinate Judge has dismissed the application merely because the security was not furnished. That he could not do. The order dismissing the application is accordingly set aside. The application must be restored to file and disposed of according to law. Costs to abide and follow the result....
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. the Salem District Urban Bank, Limi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Mad612; (1940)2MLJ160
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The assessee is a co-operative central bank registered under the Indian Co-operative Societies Act of 1912. This statute has been replaced, so far as this Presidency is concerned, by the Madras Co-operative Societies Act (VI of 1932), but nothing turns on this. The assessee corporation consists of 671 shareholders. Of the shareholders 138 are persons and 533 co-operative societies. For the year of assessment 1937-38 the Income-tax authorities have held that the assessee had a total income of Rs. 37,445 made up as follows : - Rs. 5,293, interest on taxed securities; Rs. 1,519, interest on tax free securities; Rs. 4,009, interest obtained on deposits and Rs. 26,624, profits made on its transactions. The assessee does hot confine its business to its shareholders but carries on an ordinary banking business as well. By virtue of a notification of the Government of India under Section 60 of the Indian Income-tax Act of 1922 the 'profits' of a co-operative so...
Tag this Judgment!Nunna Satyanarayanamurthy and anr. Vs. Awa Krishnamoorthy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-1940
Reported in: (1940)2MLJ346
Horwill, J.1. This was a suit on a mortgage. Defendants 1 to 9 are mortgagors or their descendants and defendants 10 and 11 are purchasers of the equity of redemption in execution of a small cause decree held by themselves. The suit was allowed and defendants 10 and 11 have appealed.2. The principal contention in the lower Court - as well as in this Court - is that the suit mortgage was discharged by the execution of a contract of sale on the 8th October, 1933. The tenth defendant obtained his decree on 23rd June, 1933; but before he could attach the property in execution of his decree, the contract relied on by defendants 10 and 11 had been executed. It is not now denied that the plaintiff enjoyed the crop raised in fasli 1344. The attachment was on 17th February, 1934, and the tenth defendant took delivery of the land on 23rd November, 1935, while the crop presumably raised by the plaintiff's tenants was still on the ground. That crop was the subject of criminal litigation and, final...
Tag this Judgment!Nunna Satyanarayanamurthy and anr. Vs. Avva Krishnamoorthy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Mad884
Horwill, J.1. This was a suit on a mortgage. Defendants 1 to 9 are mortgagors or their descendants and defendants 10 and 11 are purchasers of the equity of redemption in execution of a small cause decree held by themselves. The suit was allowed and defendants 10 and 11 have appealed. The principal contention in the lower Court - as well as in this Court - is that the suit mortgage was discharged by the execution of a contract of sale on 8th October 1933. Defendant 10 obtained his decree on 23rd June 1933; but before he could attach the property in execution of his decree, the contract relied on by defendants 10 and 11 had been executed. It is not now denied that the plaintiff enjoyed the crop raised in Fasli 1344. The attachment was on 17th February 1934, and defendant 10 took delivery of the land on 23rd November 1935, while the crop presumably raised by the plaintiff's tenants was still on the ground. That crop was the subject of criminal litigation and, finally, the plaintiff succee...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras Vs. Salem District Urban Bank Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-1940
Reported in: [1940]8ITR269(Mad)
LEACH, C.J. - The assessee is a Co-operative Central Bank registered under the India Co-operative Societies Act of 1912. This Statute has been replaced, so far as this Presidency is concerned, by the Madras Co-operative Societies Act VI of 1932, but nothing turns on this. The assessee corporation consists of 671 shareholders. Of the shareholders 138 are persons and 533 co-operative societies. For the year of assessment 1937-38 the Income-tax Authorities have held that the assessee had a total income of Rs. 37,445 made up as follows :- Rs. 5,293 interest on taxed securities; Rs. 1,519 interest on tax-free securities; Rs. 4,009 interest obtained on deposits and Rs. 26,624 profits made on its transactions. The assessee does not confine its business to its shareholders but carries on an ordinary banking business as well. By virtue of a Notification of the Government of India under Section 60 of the Indian Income-tax Act of 1922 the 'profits' of a co-operative society are exempt from Income...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »