Chennai Court December 1941 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.
Sreekakulam Seshamma by Power of Attorney Agent Gunda Elliah Vs. the D ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad405; (1942)1MLJ370
ORDERAlfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. On the llth June, 1941, the respondent Board granted to the second, third and fourth respondents a certificate under Section 18 of the Madras Debt Conciliation Act, 1936, to the effect that the petitioner in the present proceedings had refused a reasonable offer by his debtors. The petitioner asks for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing this order. He says that the petition which the second, third and fourth respondents filed for the settlement of their debts did not lie as a previous application had been dismissed, but that in any event the Board had no power to grant the certificate, because more than twelve months had elapsed after the date of the filing of the application. When the facts are investigated it is quite clear that the petitioner is not entitled to the order which he seeks.2. The application before the Board was for the settlement of the debts of the joint family of which the second, third and fourth respondents were members...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Papammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad556; (1942)2MLJ158
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The assessee is the widow of the late Raja Ramanatha Reddiar, and is the administratrix of his estate. Chidambaram Reddiar, the father of Raja Ramanatha Reddiar, founded a business in Rangoon and this was carried on by his son after his death. The late Raja died in Rangoon in 1932, possessed of large assets some of which were in Burma and some in the Madras Presidency. The assets in the Madras Presidency included immovable property in the Trichinopoly District. Raja Ramanatha Reddiar had previously married One Parvathi Ammal, who in 1915, purchased a house in Srirangam. This house has been regarded as ancestral property and is reserved for the occupation of the assessee during her occasional visits to the Presidency. She stayed there in 1934, 1936 and again 1937, each time making a stay of more than three months. For the year of assessment 1939-40 the assessee made a return of the ' income of the estate to the Income-tax Officer, Salem, and in this she...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras Vs. Papammal.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1941
Reported in: [1942]10ITR349(Mad)
.The assessee is the widow of the late Raja Ramanatha Reddiar, and is the administratirx of his estate. Chidambaram Reddiar, the father of Raja Ramanathan Reddir, founded a business in Rangoon and this was carried on by his ons after his death. The late Raja died in Rangoon in 1932, possessed of large assets some of which were in Burma and some in the Madras Presidency. The assets in the Madras Presidency included immpoveable property in the Trichnopoly District. Raja Ramanatha Reddiar lad previously married one Parvathi Ammal, who in 1915 purchased a house in Srirangam. This house has been regarded as during her occasional visitis to the Presidency. She stayed there in 1934, 1936 and agai 1937, each time making a stay of more than three months. For the year of assessment 1939-40 the assessee made a return of the income of the estate to the Income-tax Officer, Salem, and in this she showed an income of Rs. 65,276 from money-lending in British India and Rs. 14,950 as remittance of profi...
Barkat Ali and ors. Vs. Official Liquidators of Travancore National
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1941
Reported in: AIR1943Mad111
ORDERVenkataramana Rao, J.1. Application No. 2964 of 1939 is by S. RM. CT. S. Sabarathnam Chettiar under Section 184, Companies Act, to rectify the share register by removing his name and putting the name of Messrs. Kothari & Sons in his stead alleging that they and not he should be included in the list of contributories as a contributory for twenty shares numbered 89153 to 89172. His case is that in April 1938 he sold and delivered the said shares to Messrs. Kothari & Sons and received the price therefor and that from that day Kothari & Sons were the legal owners of the scares. In the affidavit filed by him he states that he under-stands from Kothari & Sons that the Travancore National and Quilon Bank Ltd., purchased the said shares in which case the bank would have no right in law to proceed against him with reference to these shares and that his liability to pay the uncalled share capital had ceased to exist. On behalf of Kothari & Sons an affidavit has been filed that they put thro...
Kizhakkiniyakath Kunhi Koyamutty Naha Haji Vs. Veeran and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad364; (1942)1MLJ219
Somayya, J.1. The question in this case is whether the appellant's suit for recovery of possession of the suit properties is barred under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. The appellant is the purchaser of the rights of defendants 1, 3, 4 and 7 who are respondents 1, 3, 4 and 7. The four vendors of the plaintiff along with some others were the heirs-at-law of one Marakkarkutti, who died before 1910 leaving considerable properties. In 1910 all except one daughter of his entered into a partition evidenced by Ex. II. The daughter who was then left out filed O.S. No. 10 of 1915 for a partition and a final decree Ex. G-was passed in that suit. Defendants 1, 3, 4 and 7 in this suit who are the vendors of the plaintiff were also defendants in the partition action. These defendants had to pay some sums to the plaintiff in the partition action under the final decree. Partly for raising the money payable by them under the partition decree to the plaintiff in that suit and partly for s...
The Public Prosecutor Vs. Linga Balija Devamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad513; (1942)1MLJ382
Horwill, J.1. The accused gave a complaint to the Village Magistrate alleging that somebody had, entered her house and stolen jewels worth Rs. 429. In due course, the Village Magistrate sent the usual reports to the police and to the Sub-Magistrate; and on the receipt of the report of the Village Magistrate, the police took cognizance of the matter and reported the case as false. The police subsequently filed a charge-sheet purporting to be under Section 211, I.P.C.; but the Sub-Divisional Magistrate found that the offence committed was one punishable under Section 182, I. P.C. He considered on the evidence that the case had been amply proved and convicted and sentenced the accused. In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge, without considering the case on its merits, came to the conclusion on a preliminary objection raised by the accused, that the charge-sheet by the police did not amount to a valid complaint such as is required under Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code.2. A number...
Venugopala Naidu Vs. Valambal Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad588; (1942)1MLJ580
Somayya, J.1. The appellant filed the suit out of which this appeal arises for the administration of the estate of one Narayana Aiyar, who died in 1934, leaving a widow, the first respondent. Soon after the death of Narayana Aiyar, the first respondent executed a trust deed in favour of one Srinivasa Aiyar, an advocate of Trichinopoly town constituting him a trustee to sell the properties and to clear the debts of the deceased. Respondents 2 to 6 and 11 are some of the alienees either from the trustee or from the widow direct. These alienations are attacked as being nominal and fraudulent transactions and the suit is for the administration of 'the entire estate by the Court. Both the Courts found that all the alienations complained of were properly effected for a proper price in order to discharge the debts of the husband Narayana Aiyar. Both the Courts therefore held that all the alienations are valid and binding on the estate of the deceased Narayana Aiyar. There is no reason to diff...
The Malabar District Board, Through the Collector of Malabar Vs. the U ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-03-1941
Reported in: (1942)1MLJ203
Kunhi Raman, J.1. The defendant Board is the petitioner. The suit was for recovering two-thirds of the licence fee paid by the plaintiff-company in respect of a motor bus that was plying within the limits of the petitioner-District Board. The trial Court has decreed the suit and from that decision this civil revision petition is filed.2. To appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner, it is necessary to set forth briefly the facts of the case. The plaintiff-company owning a number of motor buses plying in the Coimbatore District and also in the neighbouring District of Malabar used a motor bus on the roads of the, Malabar District in the 1st quarter of 1937 without obtaining a licence for such use from the District Board of Malabar. This was detected and the plaintiff was prosecuted under the Local Boards Act of 1930, then in force. When notice of the prosecution was served on the plaintiff-company, they started negotiations with the object of compounding the prosecut...
Gottimakkula Chetti Venkatraju Vs. Gottemakkula Ramabhaddirraju and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-03-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad403; (1942)1MLJ245
ORDERWadsworth, J.1. This is an application to excuse the delay in filing and re-presenting a memorandum of cross-objections. The facts are that the memorandum of appeal was presented and admitted at the end of April, 1941. There was a stay application which was heard by the Vacation Court after notice to the respondent in which application the respondent was represented by his advocate. Stay was ordered and special arrangements were made to expedite the preparation of the appeal. Formal notice of the appeal was served, not on the respondent's advocate, but upon the clerk of that advocate. The clerk failed to communicate the fact of the service of this notice to the advocate himself. The advocate states on oath that he heard of the notice of the appeal only on the 8th October, 1941, he at once communicated with his client and on the 16th October, 1941, he filed the memorandum of cross-objections with a petition to excuse the delay. There was a delay of one month and twenty-two days in ...
Malabar District Board, Through Collector as Special Officer of the Ma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-03-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad319
ORDERKunhi Raman, J.1. The defendant Board is the petitioner. The suit was for recovering two thirds of the license fee paid by the plaintiff-company in respect of a motor bus that was plying within the limits of the petitioner-District Board. The trial Court has decreed the suit and from that decision this civil revision petition is filed. To appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner, it is necessary, to set forth briefly the facts of the case. The plaintiff-company owning a number of motor buses plying in the Coimbatore District and also in the neighbouring District of Malabar used a motor buson the roads of the Malabar District in the first quarter of,1937 without obtaining a license for such use from the District Board of Malabar. This was detected and the plaintiff was prosecuted under the Local Board's Act of 1930 then in force. When notion of the prosecution was served on the plaintiff-company, they started negotiations with the object of compounding the pros...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »