Chennai Court December 1941 Judgments
Rm N S Sinnaswami Pillai Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-24-1941
Reported in: [1942]10ITR71(Mad)
.LEACH, C. J.-For the year 1930-40, 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, Srirnagammal and Kaveri Ammal, respectively. The Income-tax Officer allowed a deduction in respect of the amount paid to Srirangmmal, but refused to allow a deduction in respect of the Rs. 808-4-6 paid to Kaveri Ammal, the senior wife. The assessee married Kaveri Ammal some years before 1922 when an account in her name was opened in the assessees books. From time to time moneys were paid into his 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 income of a wife as arises...
Tag this Judgment!V.P. Kesava Menon Vs. C. Achuthan Nair
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad482; (1942)2MLJ41
Wadsworth, J.1. This civil revision petition arises out of a decree on a promissory note executed by the 1st defendant as karnavan of a Malabar tarwad. The plaintiff sued the 1st defendant as the karnavan of the tarwad and all the defendants as members of the tarwad liable as such for the family debt. The debt has a long history and it goes back to a series of transactions entered into by a previous karnavan on behalf of the tarwad. The 1st defendant has executed only the last two promissory notes, he not being the karnavan at the time of the earlier transactions. The lower Court has scaled down the debt with reference to the original principal of Rs. 400 advanced in 1923 as against the junior members of the tarwad to the extent of their interest in the tarwad properties. He has worked out the liability of the 1st defendant on a different basis, treating him as an individual who became liable for the debt for the first time when he signed the antecedent note Ex. B. of 1933. The debt as...
Tag this Judgment!The Public Prosecutor Vs. K.B. Kalkura
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad404; (1942)1MLJ228
Horwill, J.1. The accused and another were running a lottery which was a gigantic swindle, in that the only substantial prize fell necessarily to the agent who sold the largest number of tickets. The ticket bearing the highest number among those sold by that agent was a number upon which all the other lucky numbers were, based. The holders of those lucky numbers received a small prize of one rupee. The accused were tried by the Joint Magistrate of Coondapur, who found that the appellant was conducting a lottery and was guilty of offences punishable under both parts of Section 294-A, Indian Penal Code. In appeal, the Sessions Judge of South Kanara held that although it was true that the appellant was conducting a lottery and had cheated the public on a large scale, he was not guilty under either part of Section 294-A, Indian Penal Code, because he had not been keeping an office or place for the purpose of drawing a lottery and had not been publishing any proposal to pay any sum ... on a...
Tag this Judgment!Kanagavelu Nadar and ors. Vs. Sooravali Subbier and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad438; (1942)1MLJ353
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of possession of the property comprised in Schedule A by the plaintiff who was a trustee of certain charities under a scheme decree in O.S. No. 13 of 1922, on the file of the Sub-Court, Madura. The said property admittedly belonged to the charity but it was sold on 7th December, 1924, by the first defendant who was then a trustee of the charity for Rs. 2,212, to the second defendant. The second defendant firm was adjudicated insolvent and all its properties and effects including the said property vested in the Official Assignee of Madras, who by a conveyance, dated 7th May, 1929, sold this property among other properties to the firm of Maya Nadar Bros, and on the date of this suit the said property vested in defendants 4 to 6. The fourth defendant died during; the pendency of the litigation and defendants 8 to 10 who are the appellants herein are has legal representatives. The fifth defendant was adjudicated a...
Tag this Judgment!Rangaswami Goundar Vs. the Official Receiver and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1941
Reported in: (1942)1MLJ296
Somayya, J. 1. This is an application for leave to appeal to. His Majesty in Council against the decree and judgment of this Court which reversed the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore.2. Being a reversing judgment the applicant will be entitled to the leave asked for if the value of the subject-matter of the suit and of the subject-matter in dispute in appeal to His Majesty in Council are both of the value of Rs. 10,000 or upwards. In the Court below the suit valuation was Rs. 10,000 and, therefore, the first requisite is satisfied. The only question is whether the second condition is also satisfied. The lower Court gave a decree for a sum of Rs. 4,000 for principal, Rs. 5,625 for interest and Rs. 1,060-3-0 for costs, in all making up Rs. 10,685-3-0, calculated up to 3rd February, 1938. The sixth defendant appealed to this Court. He valued the appeal at Rs. 9,665 made up of Rs, 9,625 decreed for principal and interest up to the 3rd February, 1938 plus Rs. 40 further interes...
Tag this Judgment!Dupagunta Subramaniam Vs. Govinda Petar Satyanadham and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1941
Reported in: (1942)1MLJ292
Kunhi Raman, J. 1. An interesting question of law under Section 60, Civil Procedure Code arises for determination in this civil revision petition. Since the respondent was not represented by advocate, Mr. Krishna Rao was asked to assist the Court by appearing as amicus curicae and he has very kindly placed before the Court all the authorities relevant to the point involved in the case.:2. The question which the Court below had to decide was, whether an arrangement made by an employee of the Bezwada Municipality, who was drawing a salary of Rs. 100 a month, that his creditor who had obtained a decree against him may take Rs. 15 per month out of his salary in satisfaction of the decree, is. enforceable in law. The agreement between the parties was reduced to writing and Ex. A is the document that was relied on in the Court below. It professes to be a salary assignment deed which prima facie is opposed to the provisions of Section 6 of the Transfer of Property Act which prohibits assignme...
Tag this Judgment!The Firm of Bhimaji Motiji Vs. the Official Receiver
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad425; (1942)1MLJ306
King, J. 1. The subject-matter of this appeal is a claim by the Official Receiver under Section 51 of the Provincial Insolvency Act for the payment to him of the amount of the bid of the decree-holder in execution of his decree against the judgment-debtor who was adjudicated insolvent. The learned District Judge of Bellary has passed an order calling upon the decree-holder to pay him the amount of his bid less the costs of the execution, and the decree-holder now appeals.2. It is not seriously disputed at the bearing before us that Section 51 of the Provincial Insolvency Act must govern the decision of this appeal. Nor does the appellant seriously dispute that on the question of the date of the insolvency of the judgment-debtor his rights must give way before those of the Official Receiver. What he does say, however, is that the benefit of the execution does not consist in the bid which he made but consists in his ownership of the property which he purchased, and therefore he is prepar...
Tag this Judgment!R.D.K. Venkatalingama Nayanim Bahadur Varu Vs. Raja Inuganti Rajagopal ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad509; (1942)1MLJ403
King, J.1. The subject-matter of this appeal is a sale in execution of a decree in O.S. No. 86 of 1916 held on the 30th September, 1939. On the 27th October, the appellant applied under Order 21, Rule 90 to have the sale set aside. The learned Judge ordered that he should furnish security under the proviso to Rule 90 and granted him time for one week for this purpose. On the same day (31st October) the appellant filed another application asking for more time for furnishing security, and ' eventually time was extended to the llth November on which day a draft security bond was tendered, to the Court by the appellant. On the 15th November, without passing any orders in regard to the adequacy of the security tendered or to the necessity for furnishing any registered security bond, the Court issued notice to the opposite side; When the respondent appeared he took the objection that the property offered as security was not sufficient and the Court ordered the security to be tested. The resu...
Tag this Judgment!Arunachala Reddy Vs. Sellamuthu Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad594; (1942)1MLJ594
ORDERHorwill, J. 1. The petitioner filed a complaint against a number of persons in which he disclosed an offence punishable under Section 427, Indian Penal Code. The Magistrate recorded his sworn statement; but there was nothing in it at variance with the allegations made in the complaint. The Magistrate, without giving any reasons, ordered the petition to be taken on file for an offence under Section 426, Indian Penal Code. When the accused came before the Court, the complainant was absent; and so the Magistrate passed' an order, purporting to be under Section 247, Criminal Procedure Code, acquitting the accused. As the offence disclosed was one punishable under Section 427, Indian Penal Code, the case was a warrant case. The question is whether the Magistrate could legally pass an order under Section 247, Criminal Procedure Code which does not apply to warrant cases.2. Mr. Narayanaswami for the accused contends, and I think rightly, that it is open to a Magistrate who entertains a c...
Tag this Judgment!Batchu Mallikarjana Rao Vs. the Official Receiver, Kistna and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad423; (1942)1MLJ238
King, J.1. The appellant was the purchaser in December, 1935 of certain properties sold in execution of a decree in O.S. No. 79 of 1932. At that time the judgment-debtor had been adjudicated an insolvent and the sale was held in spite of a protest by the Official Receiver against it. The purchase price and poundage were deposited in accordance with rules by the appellant at the conclusion of the sale. In 1936, upon an application by the Official Receiver, the sale was set aside, and this order was confirmed on appeal by the High Court. Accordingly in 1938 the appellant whose title to the property purchased had now gone applied for the refund of the poundage and for the award of interest upon the purchase money for the period during which it was in deposit. Notice of this application was given to the Official Receiver in February, 1938. -But the Official Receiver, for reasons which it is not necessary now to investigate, remained ex parte; and in July, 1938 the executing Court passed an...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »