Chennai Court September 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.
In Re: Chinnathambi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1941
Reported in: (1942)2MLJ579
ORDERHorwill, J.1. The petitioners were convicted by the Stationary Sub-Magistrate of Gudiyattam in C.C. No. 817 of 1941. They appealed to the Joint Magistrate of Tirupathur, who released them on bail pending the appeal. On the date to which the appeal was posted for hearing neither the petitioners nor their counsel were present. The Joint Magistrate thereupon delivered what he described as a judgment. After saying that they had been convicted under certain sections and had been sentenced to certain terms of imprisonment, he proceeded:Both the appellants are absent when called. Their vakil too is absent and has not even submitted an application for adjournment. I have carefully perused the case record, and do not find any grounds to interfere with the judgment of the lower Court. The appeal is dismissed.The above order would have been unexceptionable if the appeal had been dismissed in limine under Section 421 of the Criminal Procedure Code; but it is clear that the appeal was not dism...
MA.Si. Muthuveeran Chettiar and ors. Vs. Mottayan Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad283; (1942)1MLJ230
ORDERHorwill, J.1. This is an application by the accused in C.C. No. 19 of 1941, on the file of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Musiri to quash the proceedings against them.2. The offence with which they have been charged is under Section 4 (5) of the Indian Companies Act, with being members of an association formed in contravention of Section 4 (2), which requires that no company of more than 20 persons shall be formed unless it is registered. It is admitted that the company was formed in 1922-1923, at a time when Sub-sections (1) and (2) to Section 4 had been enacted, but not Sub-sections (3) to (5), which were enacted only in 1936. Mr. V. T. Rangaswami Aiyangar for the petitioners has raised three contentious. The first is that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was wrong in holding that he could not drop proceedings when once he had initiated them. The second is that Section 4 (5), which was enacted in 1936, has no retrospective effect and cannot affect the petitioners who formed their...
Velagala Sriramareddi and ors. Vs. Karri Sriramareddi, Being Minor by ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad929; (1941)2MLJ855
Horwill, J.1. The question which has been referred is whether Somasundaram Chettiar v. Karuppan Chettiar (1940) 51 L.W. 606 was rightly decided by this Court. The judgment was pronounced by Pandrang Row and Krishnaswami Aiyangar. JJ., sitting as a Divisional Bench. After the judgment had been pronounced an application was made on behalf of the fourth respondent by his mother, who was his guardian for an order under Sections 6, 7 and 8 of the Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act scaling down the debt. The Act had not been pleaded at any stage before the appeal was heard and decided. The reason was that when the suit was dismissed by the trial Court, the Act had not come into force, and the claim was allowed only when it came before this Court on appeal. On the footing that it would be contrary to the spirit of the Agriculturists' Relief Act not to give the judgment-debtor the benefit of the provisions of the Act the learned Judges passed this order:We are therefore of opinion that the appl...
indukuri Suryanarayana Raju (Died) and ors. Vs. Indukuri Viswanadharaj ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad249; (1941)2MLJ1047
ORDERHorwill, J.1. In a dispute between one Suryanarayana Raju, who originally filed this criminal revision petition, and a large number of counter-petitioners, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Bhimavaram passed an order that certain items of property should be retained in the possession of the counter-petitioners, and the petitioner was prohibited from interfering with their enjoyment. After the filing of this petition, Suryanarayana Raju died; and his wife and sister were brought on record as his legal representatives. Mr. Jayarama Aiyar for the petitioners argues that the order of the lower Court is not only a travesty of justice but also a gross abuse of the powers of the Court. In particular, he says that none of the facts stated by the counter-petitioners was satisfactorily proved and that in any event the Magistrate did not give a finding as to possession on the date of the preliminary order.2. A preliminary objection was raised by Mr. V.V. Srinivasa Aiyangar that this Court had...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sm. Ar. Vr. Annamalai Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-1941
Reported in: (1941)2MLJ890
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The assessee is a Nattukottai Chettiar who deals in stocks and shares at Devakottah and carries on a money-lending business in Penang. Between the 26th April, 1937 and the 20th November, 1937, the assessee remitted to British India the sum of Rs. 13,900 which represented profits which he had made in his money-lending business at Penang. These remittances have been included by the Income-tax authorities in the profits made by the assessee during the year of account ' 1937--1938. The assessee says that in the last quarter of the year of account he suffered heavy losses in Penang and that these losses were greater than the profits which he had made in the earlier year. On this basis he contends that the Income-tax authorities cannot in law treat the remittances as being remittances of profits. The Income-tax Officer refused, to accept this contention, but on appeal the assessee persuaded the Assistant Commissioner to accept it. The Commissioner of Income-...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. K.M.S. Lakshmanier
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad924; (1941)2MLJ891
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The assessee is a partner in two firms trading under the styles of K. M. S. Lakshmanier & Sons and Lakshmanier Sons and Company respectively. In the former firm he possesses a one-fifth share, the remaining four fifths being owned by his sons, three of whom are minors. In the firm of Lakshmanier Sons and Company he possesses a one-twentieth share, the remaining nineteen-twentieths being owned by his sons and his daughters, who are also minors. The family became divided several years ago, since when the assessee has been assessed as an individual on his total income, including his share of the profits in these two firms. In respect of the year of account 1939-40 the Income-tax Officer held that to the assessee's income should be added the partnership profits which were allocated in that year to his children. In adopting this course the Income-tax Officer relied on the provisions of Section 16 (3) (a) (ii), this section having been inserted in the Act by...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. P. Ramaswamy Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad922; (1941)2MLJ900
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The question referred must be answered against the assessee and in the manner indicated by the Commissioner in his statement of the case. There is overwhelming authority for the opinion expressed by the Department.2. The assessee is a shareholder in the Lakshmi Mills Company, Limited, which carries on a spinning business at Coimbatore. For the year of assessment (1940-1941) the assessee returned an income of Rs. 11,213-14-0 which included a sum of Rs. 10,000 said to be a dividend received from the Lakshmi Mills Company, Limited. The Income-tax Officer discovered that the Rs. 10,000 had not been paid to the assessee in cash, but represented the nominal value of certain bonus shares which had been allotted to the assessee in accordance with a resolution passed at a general meeting of the company held on the 11th July, 1939. During the year ending the 31st March, 1939, the company had made a profit of Rs. 4,51,946-8-1. In the previous year a profit of Rs....
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. the Maharajah of Pithapuram
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad191; (1942)1MLJ16
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. By four deeds, all dated the 5th April, 1983 and referred to in these proceedings as 'deeds of trust and settlement' the assessee settled immovable properties on each of his four daughters. The properties were to be held by the assessee as trustee during his lifetime. The deeds also provided that after his death his eldest son was to be the trustee. The assessee reserved to himself powers to revoke the settlements or to make fresh dispositions just as he deemed fit. In view of the provisions of Section 16 (1) (c) of the Indian Income-tax Act, a clause which was inserted by the Amendment Act of 1939, the Income-tax Officer held that the assessee was liable, to be taxed in respect of the income received by his daughters from the settled properties during the year of account, (1938-1939). The assessee objected. He contended that the Income-tax Officer was wrong in giving what he called retrospective effect to the latter part of Section 16 (1)(c). Accordin...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras Vs. P Ramaswamy Chettiar.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-1941
Reported in: [1941]9ITR656(Mad)
LEACH, C.J. The question referred must be answered against the assessee and in the manner indicated by the Commissioner in his statement of the case. There is overwhelming authority for the opinion expressed by the Department.The assessee is a shareholder in the Lakshmi Mills Company Limited, which carries on a spinning business at Coimbatore. For the year of assessment (1940-1941) the assessee returned an income of Rs. 11,213-14-0 which included a sum of Rs. 10,000 said to be a dividend received from the Lakshmi Mills Company Limited. The Income-tax Officer discovered that the Rs. 10,000 had not been paid to the assessee in cash, but represented the nominal value of certain bonus shares which had been allotted to the assessee in accordance with a resolution passed at a general meeting of the company held on July 11, 1939. During the year ending March 31, 1939 the company had made a profit of Rs. 4,51,946-8-1. In the previous year a profit of Rs. 5,320-8-11 had been earned, but had not...
Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras Vs. K M S Lakshmanier.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-1941
Reported in: [1941]9ITR668(Mad)
LEACH, C.J. - The assessee is a partner in two firms trading under the styles of K. M. S. Lakshmanier & Sons and Lakshmanier Sons and Company respectively. In the former firm he possesses a one-fifth share, the remaining four-fifths being owned by his sons, three of whom are minors. In the firm of Lakshmanier Sons and Company he possesses a one-twentieth share, the remaining nineteen-twentieths being owned by his sons and his daughters, how are also minors. The family became divided several years ago, since when the assessee has been assessed as an individual on his total income, including his share of the profits in these two firms. In respect of the year of account 1939-40 the Income-tax Officer held that to the assessees income should be added the partnership profits which were allocated in that year to his children. In adopting this course the Income-tax Officer relied on the provisions of Section 16(3)(a)(ii), this section having been inserted in the Act by the amending Act of 193...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »