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.
Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras Vs. Sm. Ar. Vr. Annamalai Chettiar.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad928; [1941]9ITR663(Mad)
LEACH, C.J. - The assessee is a Nattukottai Chettiar who deals in stocks and shares at Devakottah and carries on a money-lending business in Penang. Between April 26, 1937 and November 20, 1937 the assessee remitted to British Indian the sum of Rs. 13,990 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 1937-38. 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-tax agreed with the Income-tax Officer...
Commissioner of Income-tax Madras Vs. Maharajah of Pithapuram.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-1941
Reported in: [1942]10ITR1(Mad)
LEACH C. J. - By four deeds, all dated the 5th April 1933, 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 life time. 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 settlement 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 i respect of the income received by his daughters from the settled properties during the year of account (1938-39) _. The assessee objected. He contended that the Income-tax Officer was wrong in giving t what held called retrospective effect to the latter part of Section 16 (1) (c). Accordingly he appealed t...
Thiruvengadam Pillai and ors. Vs. Koolai Alias Muthuswami Pillai and o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad230; (1941)2MLJ1002
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. The question for decision in this second appeal relates to the validity of a revenue sale. The relevant facts are these. The suit properties belonged to one Ramanarayana Pillai in whose name the patta stood in the revenue registry and the total extent of land sold was about 14 acres. There was default in the payment of arrears of revenue for fasli 1340 amounting to Rs. 11--5--0. On 10th September, 1931 a notice (Ex. III) was issued under Section 25 of the Revenue Recovery Act calling upon the said Ramanarayana Pillai to pay the arrears within ten days. The notice was not personally served on him but was affixed to his house. A copy of the notice was also affixed on the land and published in the District Gazette. In the notice it was stated that the sale would take place on 12th November, 1931. Ramanarayana Pillai died on 27th October, 1931, leaving the plaintiffs his sons who were then minors. The property was sold on 12th November, 1931, and purchased for Rs. 1...
In Re: Ganapathi Sa and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad354; (1942)1MLJ357
Horwill, J.1. At a raid conducted by P.W. 1 at 9-40 P.M. on the 29th July, 1939, at No. 33, Mint Street, on a warrant issued lay the Assistant Commissioner, North Range, on information, furnished that this house was being used as a common gaming house, twenty persons were found therein sitting at a table with paper and pencil and boards and betting slips before them, making calculations with regard to bets laid on a race that had been run that day at Calcutta; and before the accused was found a bag of money containing Rs. 1,290-13-8. The betting slips were for a sum of money exceeding Rs. 5,000. Two persons numbered as accused 2 and 10 were not tried because they could not be found. Accused 19 and 20 were acquitted. The remaining 16 persons, who are the appellants here, were all convicted. Accused 1 and 5 were found guilty under Sections 37 (2) and 45 of the Madras City Police Act and others under Section 45 of the same Act.2. No. 33, Mint Street, having been searched on a warrant prop...
Public Prosecutor Vs. Gopalakrishnan Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad347
Horwill, J.1. This is an appeal against the acquittal of the accused of a charge under Section 199, District Municipalities Act, of raising his wall without the permission of the executive authority of the trichmopoly Municipality. The accused was first convicted by the Town Sub-Magistrate, Trichinopoly; but the conviction was set aside in appeal by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on the technical ground that the provisions of Section 347 had not been properly complied with, in that the Commissioner merely sanctioned the prosecution and did not specifically authorise it. The complaint made by the Municipality was on a printed form in general use. In column 7 are written the particulars of the offence committed and below is to be found the signature of the person who is to conduct the prosecation in this case the Prosecuting Sanitary Inspector. In column 12 are to be found the recommendation of the Health Officer and the order of the Commissioner. In this case the Health Officer recommend...
Crown Prosecutor Vs. Ekambaram and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-1941
Reported in: 1958CriLJ774
ORDERHorwill, J.1. Two persons were charged before a Bench of Honorary Presidency Magistrates under Section 75 of the City Police Act with disorderly behaviour, abusing and assaulting each other and creating a disturbance. Although both the accused pleaded guilty, the learned Magistrates acquitted the second accused because he was injured and the other accused was not. That however is not the strangest part of the order; for the fine imposed on the first accused was ordered to be paid as compensation to the second accused.2. Clearly this order that the fine should be paid as compensation to the other accused is illegal, there being nothing in the Criminal Procedure Code which permits of this. I am fortified in this conclusion by the expression of a similar opinion by my learned brother, Lakshmana Rao J. in Crown Prosecutor, Madras v. Duraiswami Naicker Criminal Revn. Case No. 872 of 1937 : A.I.R. 1958 Mad 281 3. This petition is allowed and the order awarding compensation to the second...
Sri Kallalagar Devasthanam Through Its Trustee K.N. Radhakrishna Aiyar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad741; (1942)2MLJ450
Wadsworth, J.1. This appeal arises out of an application under Section 23 of Madras Act IV of 1938. The sale in question was in execution of a decree under the Madras Estates Land Act and the principal contention of the appellant in the trial Court was that Section 23 does not apply to sales under the Estates Land Act. That question has been settled in Polisetti Venkataratnam v. Dhulipudi Surya Rao : AIR1941Mad500 . and it must now be held that Section 23 applies to sales under any decree of Court. Before going into the merits of the appellant's case, it has to be decided whether this Court can, on this appeal, go into the question of the correctness of the trial Court's order. The trial Court's order was taken up in appeal to the District Judge. The District Judge, without considering the competence of the appeal,. dismissed the appeal on the merits and it is argued that this decision gives rise to a right of second appeal. It is well-established that when a lower appellate Court ente...
In Re: Kumaraswamy Kalinga Bayar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad221
ORDERHorwill, J.1. The transfer of the case to another Magistrate without notice to the petitioners was not illegal. The petitioners had no right to have witnesses re-called. The Magistrate gave reasons for not wishing to do so. The petition is dismissed....
Muttapukuntla Chinnapareddi Vs. Masineni Venkataramanappa and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad209; (1941)2MLJ695
Somayya, J.1. The appellant sold some properties to respondents 2 and 3. The sale was, however, set aside at the instance of two persons who claimed to be the real owners thereof. Their claim was upheld and the sale by the appellant in favour of respondents 2 and 3 was declared invalid. Thereafter respondents 2 and 3 assigned their right to get the purchase money from the appellant to the first respondent (plaintiff) under Ex. A dated the 9th of February, 1937. The first respondent then filed this suit for recovery of the purchase money from the appellant on the strength of Ex. A the deed of assignment in his favour. The sole question in the second appeal is whether Ex. A is a valid assignment.2. It was urged for the appellant who was the first and the contesting defendant that the right of respondents 2 and 3 which accrued to them as a result of the sale in their favour being set aside, was a right to sue for damages and that being a bare right to sue, it was not assignable at law bei...
Vedangi Veera Raghava Rao Vs. Vedangi Gopalarao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1941
Reported in: (1941)2MLJ707
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant against a decree directing his ejectment from the suit property and the delivery thereof to the respondent. The appellant and the respondent are two out of five brothers who originally formed a joint Hindu family. Two of the brothers separated in June, 1930, and the appellant and the respondent and one Subba Rao continued joint till 20th May, 1932, on which date the properties held by them jointly till then were divided between them under the document marked as Ex. A. The respondent's case was that the property in suit was among the properties allotted to his share under this document and that the appellant unlawfully trespassed upon it shortly before the suit.2. The document which is described as 'list of shares of immovable property equally divided on 20th May, 1932, among these three individuals, namely, etc.', recites:We, namely, our five brothers effected partition previously, that is, on 16th June, 1930, and we were keepin...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »