Chennai Court March 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras Vs. M Jamal Mohamad Sahib.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1941
Reported in: [1941]9ITR375(Mad)
LEACH, C.J. - The assessee in this case is the Muthavalli of a Wakf called Allajanathud Deeniya, which was created by one Jamal Mohideen Sahib by a deed dated December 21, 1923. The deed directs that half of the annual net income shall be utilized for the expenses of maintenance, education, marriage, funeral and other necessities of such members of the donors family in the male line as in the opinion of the Muthavalli are in poor and needy circumstances. The Muthavalli himself is allowed to benefit from this portion of the net annual income if he also happens to be in poor and needy circumstances. The other half of the annual net income is to be utilised for such charitable purposes as (a) helping new converts to Islam by giving them religious instruction, (b) giving help to Muslim orphans, (c) giving secular, especially industrial and technical, education to Muslims, (d) helping poor and needy Muslims of the Sunni sect, (e) spreading knowledge of the Islamic religion, (f) giving contr...
S. S. S. Chockalingam Chettiar and Sons Vs. the Commissioner of Income ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1941
Reported in: [1941]9ITR278(Mad)
LEACH, C.J. - The assessee was a partner in a money-lending firm carrying on business in Rangoon. The firm was dissolved and as his share of the assets the assessee was allotted two debts due by a customer of the firm. These debts were secured on mortgages of immoveable properties. In the first case the customer was given an advance of Rs. 40,000 and in respect of this sum a first mortgage of the properties was created. Later he was given a further advance of Rs. 10,850 which was secured by a second mortgage of the same properties. As the result of the arrangement entered into on the dissolution of the partnership the assessee became the lender of the two sums and entitled to realize the security which had been given. He filed a suit against the debtor, but as he considered that the properties were not worth more than Rs. 50,000 he limited his claim to this amount. With interest the amount due on the first mortgage was Rs. 71,220. He waived Rs. 21,220 of the interest due and asked for ...
A.R.A.N.T. Narayanan Chettiar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1941
Reported in: [1941]9ITR509(Mad)
LEACH, C.J. This reference will be answered in accordance with the opinion expressed by the Commissioner of Income-tax in his statement of the case. The assessee was a partner in a firm carrying on a money-lending business at Kedah in the Federated Malay States under the vilasam of A.K.R.M.M.K. The senior partner was one Meyyappa Chettiar, who was also a partner in a firm of money-lenders doing business at Rangoon under the same vilasam, but the assessee had no interest in the Rangoon firm. The Kedah business resulted in considerable profits being made and it is accepted that in 1931 the assessees share of these profits amounted to at least Rs. 30,000. In that year a sum of Rs. 30,000 was remitted from Kedah to Meyyappas firm is Rangoon and placed in a suspense account. On April 12, 1932, Meyyappa caused the money to be transferred to the credit of the assessees account in the books of the Rangoon firm and then utilised it in discharge of the assessees indebtedness to the Rangoon firm....
In Re: Adilakshmi Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad533; (1941)2MLJ41
ORDERAlfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. These three petitions all raise the question whether Section 4(1)(a) of the Madras Prohibition Act, 1937 is ultra vires the Provincial Legislature in so far as it relates to dangerous drugs. Section 4(1)(a) states that whoever imports, exports, transports or possesses liquor or any intoxicating drug shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. To the sub-section there is a proviso which says that nothing contained in the sub-section shall apply to any act done under, and in accordance with, the provisions of the Act or the terms of any rule, notification, order, licence or permit issued thereunder, but so far as dangerous drugs are concerned, the total prohibition imposed by the sub-section has been left unaffected.2. The petitioners reside in the North Arcot district of the Madras Presidency and have been convicted on charges framed under this sub-section of...
Maddimsetti Ramayya Vs. the Liquidator of Bollanka Co-operative Credit ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad739; (1941)2MLJ72
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. The question for decision in this second appeal is whether the plaintiff's suit is barred by Section 48 of the Madras Co-operative Societies Act. Both the lower Courts have dismissed the suit on the ground that it is so barred.2. The question is whether this view is tenable. The facts briefly are as follows. The first defendant co-operative society obtained a decree against the second defendant in claim No. 2235 of 1932-33 for Rs. 604-13-4 and in execution of the same brought the properties to sale. The plaintiff preferred a claim under Rule 22 (17) (a) of the Rules made under the Madras Co-operative Societies Act on the ground that he was a purchaser of the property under a registered sale deed dated 7th February, 1922. But the said claim was dismissed by the sale officer on 29th June, 1938. The plaintiff thereupon filed the present suit on 16th November, 1938, within six months of the said order to set aside the said sale and to establish his right to the prop...
Palani Kangaya Gounder Alias Palaniswami Gounder Vs. Muthuswami Gounde ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1941
Reported in: (1941)2MLJ344
Burn, J.1. This appeal is from the order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore in which he dismissed on a preliminary ground the appellant's objection to execution of the decree in O.S. No. 118 of 1931. The appellant was the second defendant in the suit which was filed upon a mortgage, A preliminary decree was passed in the suit on a date of which we have not been made aware and a final decree is said to have followed in due course for the sale of the hypotheca. Neither the preliminary nor the final decree has been produced before us. The appellant objected to execution and he alleged that before even the preliminary decree had been passed in the suit he and the plaintiff had entered into an agreement which was as follows:The petitioner should not press his defence and allow the matter to proceed ex parte. The first respondent will get a decree for the sum as claimed. After getting a decree the first respondent was to proceed and execute the decree against S. Nos. 391-A, 394, ...
Mr. Mittinti Narasimhamurti and anr. Vs. Pandiri Satyanandam (Judgment ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad794; (1941)2MLJ386
Pandrang Row, J.1. The appellants are the decree-holders in O.S. No. 12 of 1934 on the file of the District Court, East Godavari. That was a suit instituted under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Section 6 of Act XIV of 1920. After removing the judgment-debtor from his office of trustee, the Court directed him to pay a certain amount with interest and also directed that all his property both movable and immovable should be charged for the amount due. In execution of that decree the appellants want to enforce the charge given by the decree in respect of some money lying in Court to the credit of the judgment-debtor in another suit. The claim is opposed by some rival decree-holders who, it appears, were instrumental in getting this money into Court in execution of the decrees obtained by them. The main ground of objection has been that the charge was not enforceable in execution because the property charged was not specific. It is on this ground that the lower Court, althoug...
T. Srinivasa Rao and anr. Vs. Annadhanam Seshacharlu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad106; (1941)2MLJ406
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit for a declaration that the sale of a house and lands (Ex. X) executed by defendants 1 and 2 in favour of the 3rd defendant is not binding on the plaintiffs beyond the lifetime of the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant is the daughter of one Tirupati Ramarao who died without any male issue leaving him surviving his widow Janaki Bai and his daughter the 1st defendant. The case for the plaintiffs is that the suit properties belonged to Ramarao and devolved on Janaki Bai by right of inheritance and on her death, on the plaintiffs and that the said alienation by the 1st defendant was not for any legal necessity. The case for the defendants is that the property was the absolute property of Janaki Bai, that she gifted it to the 1st defendant in or about 1904, that ever since the said date she had been in absolute possession and enjoyment of the property and acquired title thereto by adverse possession. The 1st defendant also pleade...
M. Ramalinga Aiyar Vs. T.K. Jayalakshmi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1941
Reported in: (1941)1MLJ784
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The question which is involved in this petition is whether the Subordinate Judge of South Malabar sitting at Palghat was right in holding that he had jurisdiction to try a suit instituted by the first respondent against the petitioner and the second respondent. The petitioner is the husband of the first respondent and the son of the second respondent. The petitioner and his father are members of a joint Hindu family. The petitioner married the first respondent at Negapatam in the month of June, 1929. It is the first respondent's case that at the time of her marriage she entrusted her stridhanam property to the second respondent, who was to re-deliver it to her on demand. She alleges that the property entrusted to him consisted of Rs. 1,750 in cash and jewels, furniture and household utensils of the value of Rs. 3,352. The first respondent alleges that, while she was living with her husband at Vellore, where they went to reside after leaving Negapatam, ...
M. Ramalinga Iyer Vs. T.K. Jayalakshmi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad695
Leach, C.J.1. The question which is involved in this petition is whether the Subordinate Judge of South Malabar sitting at Palghat was right in holding that he had jurisdiction to try a suit instituted by respondent 1 against the petitioner and respondent 2. The petitioner is the husband of respondent 1 and the son of respondent 2. The petitioner and his father are members of a joint Hindu family. The petitioner married respondent 1 at Negapatam in the month of June 1929. It is respondent 1'a case that at the time of her marriage she entrusted her stridhanam property to respondent 2, who was to re-deliver it to her on demand. She alleges that the property entrusted to him consisted of Rs. 1750 in cash and jewels, furniture and household utensils of the value of Rs. 3352. Respondent 1 alleges that, while she was living with her husband at Vellore, where they went to reside after leaving Negapatam, his treatment of her was so cruel that she was compelled to leave him and return to her fa...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »