Chennai Court November 1941 Judgments
Tulabandu Ademma Vs. Sreemath Satyadhyana Thirtha Swamivaru Represente ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-1941
Reported in: AIR1943Mad187; (1943)2MLJ289
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the appellant to recover possession of certain lands situate in the Guntur District On the 16th May of 1916 the first respondent, who is the head of a math, granted to one Nagamma a lease for ten years of the lands described in schedule A of the plaint. These lands were held on behalf of the deity of the math under an inam said to have been granted in 1763. For many years they had been cultivated by Nagamma's husband, who was dead when the lease to her was granted. During the pendency of the lease Nagamma adopted Bapanayya, the husband of the appellant. Nagamma died before the lease expired and on her death Bapanayya took possession of the lands. He had no issue and on his death in 1924 the appellant, who was then a minor, entered into possession as his heir. She remained in possession after the expiration of the lease and was regarded by the first respondent as a tenant holding over.2. On the 24th January, 193...
Tag this Judgment!The Public Prosecutor Vs. Poongavana Goundan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad530; (1942)2MLJ37
Horwill, J.1. The accused in this case was convicted by the Stationary Sub-Magistrate of Pennagaram under Section 4(1)(a) and (g) of the Madras Prohibition Act and sentenced to four months rigorous imprisonment. In appeal, the conviction and sentence were set aside on the ground that the prosecution had not satisfactorily proved that the accused was in possession. The Crown has preferred this appeal against the order of acquittal.2. A pot containing 4 1/2 gallons of fermented wash, a bottle containing four drams of illicit distilled arrack, and a number of vessels used for illicit distillation were found in a hut owned by the accused and his three younger brothers. The accused and his brothers also owned a house in the village. His brothers were tried and convicted; but the present accused has been tried since because he was then absconding. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate acquitted the accused on the ground that he had a house in the village and was admittedly not present when the artic...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Subbiah thevan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-1941
Reported in: (1942)1MLJ490
ORDERHorwill, J.1. This petition was admitted on the question whether the order passed under Section 106, Criminal Procedure Code was proper in the absence of reasons given by the trial Magistrate for passing such an order and the absence of any reference to the order in the judgment of the Sessions Judge.2. The trial Magistrate has expressed an opinion that because of the facts noted in the judgment he was of opinion that an order under Section 106, Criminal Procedure Code was necessary. It has been argued on the authority of Muhammad Rahim v. Emperor : AIR1926All144 and Jai Singh v. King-Emperor A.I.R. 1927 Pat. 37 decisions of single Judges, that something more is necessary. I do not think that even those cases lay down any general rule that a trial Magistrate must give reasons for his opinion. However, that may be, the decisions of this Court are clear on this point. Spencer, J., in Ramaswami Thevan, In re : (1923)44MLJ485 says,I do not think it is necessary that the lower Court sh...
Tag this Judgment!The Public Prosecutor Vs. the Coimbatore National Bank Ltd. Represente ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-1941
Reported in: (1943)1MLJ119
Horwill, J.1. The Assistant Registrar of Joint Stock Companies, Coimbatore, preferred a complaint against the Coimbatore National Bank, Limited, of that town for not complying with a requirement of Section 87 (2) of the Indian Companies Act that particulars of any change in the directorships held by any of its directors should be reported to the Registrar within fourteen days of the change. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Coimbatore who tried the case, found that a director by name Ponniah Goundar had ceased to be the director of another company and that this fact had not been reported. He nevertheless acquitted the Bank, saying that he was unable to understand how a company is to know of such a change unless the director concerned intimates the change to the company. He held that as there was no evidence to show that the company was aware of the change, the company was not guilty of the offence with which it was charged. The Grown has appealed.2. I pointed out in The Public Prosecuto...
Tag this Judgment!M.K. Mahomed Ibrahim and anr. Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad266; (1942)1MLJ158
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The case for the income-tax authorities set out in the reference by the Commissioner of Income-tax cannot be accepted. The facts are very simple. In the year 1936-37 one Muhammad Ibrahim was the agent of the Standard Oil Company in Trichinopoly. There were two agencies for the Burmah Shell Company in that district, on(r) being conducted by Ramakrishna Chettiar and the other by G. Srinivasalu Naidu respectively. They had agencies in other places in South India and there was an agreement between them that Ramakrishna was to have the profits of the business done in the town of Trichinopoly. There was a further arrangement between Ibrahim and Ramakrishna. This was to the effect that they were to carry on business jointly without competition between themselves and to divide the profits made by them in the ratio of 48 :52. The Income-tax Officer attempted to assess these three persons as a firm, but they objected and their objection prevailed. The consequenc...
Tag this Judgment!M K Muhammad Ibrahim and Others Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-1941
Reported in: [1942]10ITR64(Mad)
LEACH, C. J.-The case for the Income-tax authorities set out in the reference by the Commissioner of Income tax cannot be accepted. The facts are very simple. In the year 1936-37 one Muhammad Ibrahim was the agent of the Standard Oil Company in Trichinopoly. There were two agencies for the Bumah Shell Company in that district, one being conducted by Ramakrishna Chettirar and the other by G. Srubuvasalu Naidu respectively. They had agencies in other places in South India and there was an agreement between them that Ramakrishna was to have the profits of the business done in the town of Trichinopoly. There was a further arrangement between Ibrahim and RamaKrishna. This was to the effect that they were to carry on business jointly without competition between themselves and to divide the profits made by them in the ratio of 48 : 52. The Income-tax Officer attempted to assess these three persons as a firm, but they objected and their objection prevailed. the consequence was that for that ye...
Tag this Judgment!United Motors (Coimbatore), Limited, by Its Managing Agent Mr. G.D. Na ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1941
Reported in: (1942)2MLJ472
Happell, J.1. The appellant, the United Motors (Coimbatore), Ltd., was the plaintiff in O.S. No. 37 of 1937, in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Palghat. The suit was for the recovery of Rs. 10,000 as damages for wrongful attachment of a bus and was brought in these circumstances. The appellant Company owned a number of buses, which plied between Palghat and Coimbatore and back again. The Company had a garage in Palghat and, it would appear, waiting rooms and other conveniences for passengers adjoining the garage. Up to the latter part of 1936, the buses started from the garage where passengers got on to them and returned to the garage where the passengers alighted. This was the position until the end of 1936. Under Rule 27(D) of the Motor Vehicles Rules the Commissioner of Police in the-City of Madras and the District Superintendent of Police, elsewhere may fix starting places and termini between which motor buses shall be permitted to ply for hire within their respective jurisdi...
Tag this Judgment!Rm.N.S. Sinnaswami Pillai Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad268; (1942)1MLJ164
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. For the year 1939-40, the assessee returned an income of Rs. 1,604-0-6 which had been arrived at after taking into account an alleged loss of Rs. 176-10-6 in respect of his money-lending business. In arriving at the figure of Rs. 176-10-6. the assessee deducted two sums, Rs. 511-12-6 and Rs. 808-4-6, said to have been paid to his two wives, Srirangammal and Kaveri Ammal, respectively. The Income-tax Officer allowed a deduction in respect of the amount paid to Srirangammal, but refused to allow a deduction in respect of Rs. 808-4-6 paid to Kaveri Animal. the senior wife. The assessee married Kaveri Ammal some years before 1922, when an account in her name was opened in the assessee's books. From time to time moneys were paid into this account and interest was allowed on the balance in her favour. Section 16 (3) (a) (iii) provides that in computing the total income of an individual for the purpose of assessment there shall be included so much of the inco...
Tag this Judgment!Venkatasubba Bagavathar as Secretary to the Tirukkurungudi Chatram Ryo ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad462; (1942)1MLJ416
Wadsworth, J.1. The petitioner here has filed this civil revision petition as Secretary to the Tirukkurungudi Chatram Ryots' Association on behalf of the ryots. This association 4s, I am informed, an unregistered association and clearly the petitioner cannot without some special procedure represent the members of that association. He is, however, one of the ryots affected by the order under revision. In so far as he personally is concerned, the revision petition may be treated as in proper form. The order out of which this revision petition arises deals with the question whether, sales under Section 112 of the Madras Estates Land Act can proceed in view of the fact that the ryots are claiming to be agriculturists entitled to the benefits of Act IV of 1938. The order is a comprehensive one governing a large number of cases, but I am concerned with it only in so far as it relates to the liability of the present petitioner. The landholder to whom the rent is payable is the Tinnevelly Dist...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Oomayan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad452
ORDERHorwill, J.1. The Stationary Sub-Magistrate of Trichinopoly convicted the appellant under Sections 342 and 451, Penal Code and sentenced him to two months' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 25 on each count. There is some evidence that the accused was on bad terms with the butler of the complainant's house. The only other evidence against the accused is that of a head constable, who has made a special study of footprints. He came to the conclusion that a footprint found in the compound of the complainant's house was that of the accused. Experts in footprints are not recognised by the Evidence Act; but there can be no doubt that a Magistrate is entitled to take into consideration the evidence of a person who has seen a footprint and taken the footprints of the accused and found that they are very similar. That evidence is not however sufficient to bring home the offence to the accused in the absence of further knowledge regarding the differences between one foot and an...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »