Chennai Court March 1940 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.
The Public Prosecutor Vs. Ramaswami Nadar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Mad745; (1940)2MLJ92
Burn, J.1. This is an appeal by the Provincial Government from the decision of the learned Sessions Judge of Ramnad in S.C. No. 83 of 1939. The respondent Ramaswami Nadar was tried on a charge of murder. The learned Sessions Judge convicted him under Section 326, Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for five years. The learned Public Prosecutor contends that the facts established constitute the offence of murder.2. The respondent did not appeal from his conviction under Section 326, Indian Penal Code and the learned Counsel who has appeared for him in this Court has not attempted to show that the learned Sessions Judge's findings of fact are wrong. The evidence recorded by the learned Sessions Judge showed that there was some enmity between the respondent and one Periana Nadar, arising partly out of gambling with cards and partly out of the association of Periana Nadar with the respondent's wife. On the 5th August, 1939, about 11-30 A.M. the respondent attacked ...
E.P. Kumaravel Nadar Vs. T.P. Shanmuga Nadar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Mad465; (1940)1MLJ719
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. Three matters have been placed before this Full Bench and they can be dealt with conveniently in the same judgment as they all involve the same question. The first case arises out of a suit which was tried by the Subordinate Judge of Tinnevelly. The plaintiff contended that a post card which had been put in evidence by the first and second defendants on the allegation that it had been written by the third defendant to the second defendant was a false document. Subsequently the plaintiff filed an application asking the Court to prosecute the three defendants under the provisions of Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for offences alleged to have been committed under Sections 463, 464, 471, 473 and 476 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court dismissed the application and the Subordinate Judge's decision was upheld by the judgment of the District Judge on appeal. The plaintiff has now asked this Court to revise the order of the District Judge under ...
Vattipalle Eswariah Vs. Vattipalle Rameswarayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Mad483; (1940)1MLJ857
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This second appeal has been placed before this Full Bench as it raises the important question whether the Court in dealing with an appeal under Order 41, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure can direct that it be admitted in part only. The appeal arises out of a suit filed in the Court of the District Munsif of Nandalur for the partition of 72 items of property held in common by eight people. The first respondent in the appeal was the plaintiff. A decree for partition was granted by the District Munsif who gave his decision on the claims of the parties to the various items of property. The appellant and the third respondent appealed to the Subordinate Judge of Cuddapah. The Subordinate Judge set aside the allotments, of the District Munsif and made fresh allotments. The appellant was dissatisfied with the Subordinate Judge's decision in so far as it related to items Nos. 29, 30, 31, 33, 37 and 38 of the properties and he filed the present appeal, whi...
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Harveys, Limited
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Mad602; (1940)2MLJ95
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The assessee company is a private company having been incorporated in British India in May 1933. The capital is Rs. 5,00,000 divided into 5,000 shares of Rs. 100 each and all the shares have been issued. The shareholders and their holdings are as follows : (i) the firm of A, and F. Harvey, 3,998 shares; (ii) the Madura Mills Company, Limited, 1,000 shares and the Comorin Investment and Trading Company, Limited, 2 shares. For the sake of brevity I will refer to the assessee company as 'the Company', to the firm of A and F. Harvey as 'the firm' and to the Madura Mills Company, Limited, as the 'Madura Mills'. The firm consists of three partners, namely, Mr. A. Harvey, Mr. J.C. Harvey and the Tuticorin Company, Limited, the shareholders of which are mostly certain employees of the firm. Mr. A. Harvey and Mr. J.C. Harvey are brothers. The profits of the firm are divisible between the partners in the following proportions : Mr. A. Harvey 63/128; Mr. J.C. Har...
Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras Vs. Messrs. Harveys Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1940
Reported in: [1940]8ITR307(Mad)
LEACH, C.J. - The assessee company is a private company having been incorporated in British India in May 1933. The capital is Rs. 5,00,000 divided into 5,000 shares of Rs. 100 each and all the shares have been issued. The shareholders and their holdings are as follows :-(i) The firm of A & F Harvey, 3,998 shares;(ii) The Madura Mills Company Limited, 1,000 shares and the Comorin Investment and Trading Company Limited, 2 shares. For the sake of brevity I will refer to the assessee company as 'the company', to the firm of A & F Harvey as 'the firm' and to the Madura Mills Company Limited as the 'Madura Mills'. The firm consists of three partners, namely, Mr. A. Harvey; Mr. J. C. Harvey and the Tuticorin Company Limited, the shareholders of which are mostly certain employees of the firm. Mr. A. Harvey and Mr. J. C. Harvey are brothers. The profits of the firm are divisible between the partners in the following proportions : Mr. A. Harvey 63/128; Mr. J. C. Harvey 63/128 and the Tuticorin C...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›