Chennai Court September 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.
Annasami Aiyangar Alias Ramaswami Aiyangar and ors. Vs. Nithiyapadi Ad ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-26-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad81; (1940)2MLJ990
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This appeal came in the first instance before Venkataramana Rao, J, but as the, learned Judge was of the, opinion that its decision involved the consideration of the judgments of this Court in two cases which seemingly were in conflict he adjourned the hearing in order that the appeal might be placed before a Bench. The two decisions referred to by the learned Judge were decisions of Division Benches and in consequence it was deemed advisable that the appeal should be decided by a Full Bench. The two cases referred to by the learned Judge are Ponnu Nadar v. Kumaru Reddiar : (1935)69MLJ739 and Appa Rao v. Secretary of State for India in Council : AIR1938Mad193 . They will be referred to in detail presently, but as it appears to us that this appeal involves the consideration of facts which are not common to the other two cases it is necessary to set out in Some detail what the fasts are.2. The suit out of which this appeal arises was fried by the first r...
Machinari Lakshmi Amma Vs. Thundikandiyil Parkum Natukandiyil Koyithat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-26-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad940(2); (1941)2MLJ254
ORDERLakshmana Rao, J.1. The marriage was not disputed and the evidence does not warrant the conclusion that it was dissolved before the Madras Marumakkathayam Act of 1932 came into force. The marriage has therefore to be deemed to be a legal marriage and on the finding of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate that the income of the tavazhi properties of the petitioner is very little, the infant son is also entitled to maintenance. The order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate is therefore set aside and the petition is remanded to him for fixing the appropriate rate of maintenance for the petitioner and her infant son and passing the order under Section 488, Criminal Procedure Code....
Commissioner, Dindigul Municipality Vs. V. Rajamani Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-26-1940
Reported in: AIR1942Mad279
ORDERLakshmana Rao, J.1. The executive authority declined to renew the license and the acquittal of the accused on the ground that the order of refusal is not valid is unsustainable. The order of acquittal is therefore set aside and there will be a retrial in accordance with law by the District Magistrate or such other Magistrate as he may direct....
C. Gopalachariar Vs. Deepchand Sowcar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-25-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad207; (1940)2MLJ782
Pandrang Row, J.1. In these connected Civil Revision Petitions from the orders of the District Judge of Chingleput in appeals which were heard together, only one point arises for determination, namely, whether the commuted portion of the pension due to the petitioner by the Government is liable to attachment at the instance of creditors of his in view of Section 11 of the Pensions Act (XXIII of 1871). The petitioner is a retired postal official, and a portion of his pension was commuted sometime in March, 1939, or thereabouts and the commuted portion of the pension amounted to Rs. 3,500 and odd, and a payment order for this amount was forwarded to the postmaster, Conjeevaram, for delivery to the petitioner. As the learned District Judge observes, the only act remaining to be done by the petitioner is to take delivery of the payment order and to cash it at the local treasury. Before he could do so attachments were made at the instance of certain money-lenders. On objection by the petiti...
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. S.M.S. Karuppiah Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-25-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad255; (1941)1MLJ120
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The main question raised in this reference is whether a partner who continues the partnership business after the dissolution of the partnership succeeds to the business within the meaning of Section 26(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. On the 16th September, 1935, the assessee and one Venkatarama Aiyar entered into a partnership for the production and exhibition of a cinema film called 'Pathi Bhakthi'. .The partnership continued until the month of May of the following year, when Venkatarama Aiyar retired from the partnership and was paid the amount of the profits which represented his share, namely, the sum of Rs. 9,524. Thereafter the film was exhibited by the assessee for his own benefit. For the assessment year 1937-38 the Income-tax authorities assessed Venkatarama Aiyar in respect of this sum of Rs. 9,524 and he paid the tax, but later the Income-tax authorities considered that they were wrong in so doing, and to have the question settled, th...
Al. Vr. St. Veerappa Chettiar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-25-1940
Reported in: (1941)1MLJ262
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The petitioner is the managing member of an undivided Hindu family and as such he has been assessed to income-tax for the year 1937-38. The family belongs to the Nattukottai Chettiar community and carries on a money-lending business. In the year, 1913, the petitioner's father advanced Rs. 2,15,000 to Bangaru Ammal, the Zamindarini of Thevaram, on the security of the Zamindari. The loan was not repaid and in 1925 the petitioner was compelled to file a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Dindigul to enforce payment of the amount then due. Accumulations of interest, it was said, had brought the figure up to Rs. 5,49,683 but this was denied. A compromise was eventually agreed upon and a decree was passed by the Subordinate Judge embodying the terms of settlement. Under this decree the debtor was to pay to the petitioner a sum of Rs. 3,75,000 in full settlement of all claims on or before the 31st July, 1931. In the meantime this sum was not to car...
Al. Vr. St. Veerappa Chettiar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-25-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad246; [1941]9ITR56(Mad)
(The judgment of the Court was delivered by the Honble the Chief Justice).The petitioner is the managing member of an undivided Hindu family and as such he has been assessed to income-tax for the year 1937-38. The family belongs to the Nattukottai Chettiar community and carries on a money-lending business. In the year 1913 the petitioners father advanced Rs. 2,15,000 to Bangaru Ammal, the Zamindarini of Thevaram, on the security of the Zamindari. The loan was not repaid and in 1925 the petitioner was compelled to file a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Dindigul to enforce payment of the amount then due. Accumulations of interest, it was said, had brought the figure up to Rs. 5,49,683 but this was denied. A compromise was eventually agreed upon and a decree was passed by the Subordinate Judge embodying the terms of settlement. Under this decree the debtor was to pay to the petitioner a sum of Rs. 3,75,000 in full settlement of all claims on or before July 31, 1931. In the m...
S. M. S. Karuppiah Pillai Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-25-1940
Reported in: [1941]9ITR1(Mad)
LEACH, C.J. - The main question raised in this reference is whether a partner who continues the partnership business after the dissolution of the partnership succeeds to the business within the meaning of Section 26(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. On September 16, 1935 the assessee and one Venkatarama Ayyar entered into a partnership for the production and exhibition of a cinema film called 'Pathi Bhakthi'. The partnership continued until the month of May of the following year, when Venkatarama Ayyar retired from the partnership and was paid the amount of the profits which represented his share, namely the sum of Rs. 9,524. Thereafter the film was exhibited by the assessee for his own benefit. For the assessment year 1937-38 the Income-tax authorities assessed Venkatarama Ayyar in respect of this sum of Rs. 9,524 and he paid the tax, but later the income-tax authorities considered that they were wrong in so doing, and to have the question settled, the Commissioner of Income-tax ...
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. A.V.P. Mr. M. Lakshmanan Chettiar, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Mad942; (1940)2MLJ834
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This reference, which the Commissioner of Income-tax has made suo motu under the provisions of Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, raises an interesting question of law. The assessee is a Nattukottai Chettiar and he was assessed to income-tax hy0the Income-tax Officer, Karaikudi, I Circle, on an income of Rs. 65,865 for the year 1938-39. If this assessment is to be regarded as being on the assessee as an individual he will be required to pay supertax, but if the assessment is on him as the representative of a joint Hindu family super-tax will not be payable, because, in the case of an undivided Hindu family, super-tax is not leviable until the income exceeds Rs. 75,000. The assessee was joint with his father Murugappa Chettiar until the father's death on the 18th January, 1938. The only surviving members of the family are the assessee and his step-mother. The question referred is this:Whether on the facts stated the assessment should be made on...
Ganthakoru Mangamma and ors. Vs. Dulla Paidayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad393; (1941)1MLJ174
Pandrang Row, J.1. This is an appeal from the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Chicacole dated the 19th November 1936 reversing on appeal the decree of the District Munsif of Vizagapatam dated the 10th November, 1932 in O.S. No. 175 of 1932. The reversal was based on a single ground namely, that the plaintiff had failed to show that she or her vendors had possession of the suit property at any time within 12 years prior to the suit and that therefore the suit was barred by limitation. The other points which arose in the case and which had been decided in favour of the plaintiff were not considered by the lower appellate Court and indeed the main complaint by the appellant has been that the judgment of the lower appellate Court does not satisfy the legal requirements of a judgment.2. This is a case in which by a curious irony, the Subordinate Judge who decided the case was an officer junior in rank to the District Munsif who decided the case as the trial Judge. This is accounted for b...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »