Chennai Court March 1941 Judgments
V. Ranga Rao Vs. the Collector of Trichinopoly
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad863; (1941)2MLJ428
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. The question for decision in this appeal is whether the order of the Collector of Trichinopoly removing the appellant from the office of the Village Munsif of Bikshandar Koil is valid. The relevant facts are few and not in dispute. On 3rd November, 1937 an application was made to the Judge of the Court of Small Causes, Trichinopoly, for a transfer of Suit 1 of 1937 on the file of the Bikshandar Koil Village Court filed by Mookka Nadar against Lakshmayi Ammal. The application for transfer was made by Lakshmayi Ammal and she obtained a stay order on 4th November, 1937 directing the Village Munsif not to proceed with the trial of the suit which was posted for 5th November, 1937. In Spite of the stay order which is alleged to have been communicated to him on the 5th, the appellant went on with the suit and decreed it. Thereupon an application was made for revision of the decree and the learned Judge of the Court of Small Causes, Trichinopoly, set aside the decree of...
Tag this Judgment!Vedurumudi Ramarao Vs. the National Assurance Co. Ltd., Represented by ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1941
Reported in: (1942)1MLJ180
1. This is an appeal from the order of the Subordinate Judge of Vizagapatam, dated 16th December, 1939, dismissing a petition for taking security presented by the appellant under Section 280 of the Indian Companies Act. A preliminary objection has been taken to this appeal on the ground that no appeal lies from an order of this kind. We think this objection is well founded. Section 202 of the Indian Companies Act which is relied upon has. no application because this is not an order passed in the matter of winding up of the company and indeed the Subordinate Judge has no jurisdiction whatever to order winding up. So far as the Civil Procedure Code is concerned, obviously no appeal would lie from an order of this kind. We therefore uphold the preliminary objection and dismiss the appeal as incompetent. The appellant will have to pay the costs of the respondent in this appeal....
Tag this Judgment!Chidambaram Pandaram Vs. Lakshminarayana Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad652; (1941)2MLJ109
Pandrang Row, J.1. This is an appeal from the order of the Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore dismissing an application to set aside a sale under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil Procedure Code, on the ground that the security required to be furnished by his order made a few days earlier, had not been furnished. The only ground taken in this appeal is that the order of the Subordinate Judge requiring security to be furnished is itself without jurisdiction and therefore the order dismissing the petition to set aside the sale on the ground that the security has not been furnished is wrong.2. There is no doubt that in this case the learned Subordinate Judge did not bear in mind that under Order 21, Rule 90 the Court could demand security only before admitting the application and not afterwards. In this case it is clear from the endorsements made on the petitions that notice was ordered in both the petitions, that is the petition to set aside the sale and also the petition to dispense with security a...
Tag this Judgment!Mathrukovil Kizhakkappat Matathil Ramalinga Aiyar Vs. Thavanur Matathi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1941
Reported in: (1941)2MLJ68
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This appeal raises a question of international law. It arises out of execution proceedings instituted in the Court of the District Munsif of Cannanore. The appellant had obtained a decree against the respondent in the District Court of Trichur, which is in the State of Cochin. For the purpose of execution the appellant caused the decree to be transferred to the District Court of Tellicherry. The District Judge, however, sent the decree to the Court of the District Munsif of Cannanore in order that he might hear and decide the application for execution. When the application came on for hearing, the respondent challenged the right of the Court to execute the decree. He claimed that he was a British subject with a residence outside the Cochin State and therefore the decree could not be enforced against him in a British Indian Court.2. The respondent is a British subject because he was born in British India, but his parents were subjects of the State of Co...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. the National Cycle Importing Compan ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad673; (1941)2MLJ152
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The real question which arises in this reference is whether it can be said that a firm which has been dissolved 'cannot be found' within the meaning of the proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 26 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, notwithstanding that all the members of the firm are alive and can be found.2. The assessee is the proprietor of a business carried on under the style of the National Cycle Importing Company. Upto the end of the Samvat year, 1994, that is, upto the 23rd October, 1938, this business was owned by the assessee in partnership with two others, Vanamalai Premchand Shaw, and Fulchand Bhaichand Shaw. On the 24th October, 1938, the first day of the Samvat year 1995, the assessee took over the entire business and the partnership was dissolved as from that date. In the Samvat year 1995 the Income-tax Officer assessed the total income of the business for the year 1994 at Rs. 16,500. The assessee's share of this amount was Rs. 7,425 and...
Tag this Judgment!Al.Ct. Alagappa Chettiar, Through His Authorised Agent Ranganatha Aiya ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1941
Reported in: (1941)2MLJ493
King, J.1. The appellant here is the assignee of the decree in O.S. No. 70 of 1916 of the Ramnad Sub-Court. His assignor had attached a decree in O.S. No. 53 of 1910, and as assignee he applied in March, 1935, to execute that attached decree as against certain of the defendants. Those defendants were ordered by the decree, as amended in appeal in 1928, to pay back the amounts which they had drawn from Court out of the late Raja's allowance money with interest. In withdrawing the money from Court they had offered the security of immoveable property. This application of 1935 by the appellant is to sell the property which they thus offered as security. The appellant relied upon certain previous applications, one of which was filed in November, 1928, seven months after the appellate decree, and two of which were filed in 1931 and 1932 respectively. These later applications were not filed by himself but by another attaching decree-holder. It was held by the learned Additional Subordinate Ju...
Tag this Judgment!O.M.P.L. Palaniappa Chettiar and anr. Vs. N.V.E.N.N. Nachiappa Chettia ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad841; (1941)2MLJ558
Gentle, J.1. The parties to this suit belong to the Nattukottai Chetti community. The first plaintiff married the sister of the defendant and the second plaintiff is their minor daughter who is now represented by her husband as next friend, this marriage having taken place in 1939. The first plaintiff's wife died in 1939. Her father was S. A. A. Adaikalavan Chetti who died in the year 1926.2. In the plaint it is alleged that two sums, Rs. 2,045-2-0 and Rs. 417-3-3, were deposited with the defendant at interest according to the Madras nadappu rate, on 22nd May, 1919 and 16th July, 1921 respectively. These amounts were credited to the first plaintiff in the defendant's books of account. According to the custom and usage prevailing in the community these deposits were repayable on demand, which, it is alleged, was made on 17th May, 1938. In the plaint claim is made for a sum of Rs. 2,462-5-3 as principal and Rs. 7,539-5-3, interest at the date of suit, totalling Rs. 10,001-10-6 to which s...
Tag this Judgment!Al.Ct. Alagappa Chettiar Through Agent Ranganatha Ayyangar Vs. Ramakri ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad858
King, J.1. The appellant here is the assignee of the decree in O.S. No 70 of 1916 of the Eamnad Sub Court. His assignor had attached a decree in O.S. No. S3 of 1910, and as assignee he applied in March 1935 to execute that attached decree as against certain of the defendants. Those defendants were ordered by the decree, as amended in appeal in 1928 to pay back the amounts which they had drawn from Court out of the late Eajah's allowance money with interest. In withdrawing the money from Court they had offered the security of immovable property. This application of 1935 by the appellant is to sell the property which they thus offered as security. The appellant relied upon certain previous applications, one of which was filed in November 1928 seven months after the appellate decree, and two of which were filed in 1931 and 1932 respectively. These later applications were not filed by himself but by another attaching decree-holder. It was held by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge of...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras Vs. National Cycle Importing Compan ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1941
Reported in: [1941]9ITR502(Mad)
The real question which arises in this reference is whether it can be said that a firm which has been dissolved 'cannot be found' within the meaning of the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 26 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, notwithstanding that all the members of the firm are alive and can be found.The assessee is the proprietor of a business carried on under the style of the National Cycle Importing Company. Up to the end of the Samvat year 1994, that is, up to October 23, 1938, this business was owned by the assessee in partnership with two others, Vanamali Premchand Shah, and Fulchand Bhaichand Shaw. On October 24, 1938, the first day of the Samvat year 1995, the assessee took over the entire business and the partnership was dissolved as from that date. In the Samvat year 1995 the Income-tax Officer assessed the total income of the business for the year 1994 at Rs. 16,500. The assessees share of this amount was Rs. 7,427 and Fulchand Bhaichand Shaws share Rs. 4,950, and the...
Tag this Judgment!Kancherla Veeraswami Vs. Paramkusam Nammayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad751(2); (1941)2MLJ121
Pandrang Row, J.1. This appeal raises a question of limitation and it is unfortunate that the respondents do not appear. The Court below has held that the application for refund of poundage and interest on the purchase-money is barred by limitation. The application was by the auction-purchaser under Order 21, Rule 93 of the Code of Civil Procedure for refund of the poundage and interest on the, purchase-money, the actual purchase-money having been recovered by him through the Court on an earlier occasion. Apparently the lower Court was of opinion that Article 181 applied and that the starting point of limitation was the date on which the sale was set aside by the first Court, even though the decision of the first Court setting aside the sale was carried up to the High Court in appeal by not only the auction-purchaser but also by others, and the appeals were disposed of only on 6th October, 1937, though the original order of the first Court setting aside the sale was on 15th November, 1...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »