Chennai Court September 1942 Judgments
In Re: Bajee Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad519
ORDERByers, J.1. So far as the procedure before the learned Magistrate is concerned, I am unable to see any room for interference. The petitioner had already been given time to produce the missing accused. This he did not do and was then called upon at the next hearing for his explanation. His explanation was that the missing accused had joined the army and disappeared without his knowledge. Admittedly, he was not given an adjournment for the purpose of showing cause why the penalty should not be paid but Section 514, Criminal P.C., does not entitle him to an adjournment for the purpose. It is sufficient that he was given an opportunity of showing cause. Regarding the merits, the petitioner's learned advocate relies on the decision in In re Vijayaraghavalu Naidu A.I.R. 1915 Mad. 114 but that was the case of an accused person who committed suicide, while he was on bail and the learned Judges held in that case that the fact that the sureties did not take steps to prevent the accused from...
Tag this Judgment!S.V.M. Mahomed Jamaluddeen and Brothers Vs. the Commissioner of Income ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad736; (1942)2MLJ620
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question to this Court:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the applicant firm was 'resident' in British India under Section 4-A (6) of the Income-tax Act.2. The Tribunal has expressed the opinion that the applicant firm was resident in British India and we have no hesitation in concurring in that opinion.3. The firm commenced carrying on business in Colombo in 1932. In the year 1937 it opened a branch at Kilakarai in British India. Business was carried on there and it was managed by a partner of the firm, who was resident at Kilakarai. There were four partners, all of whom belonged to Kilakarai.4. Section 4-A (b) says that a firm is resident in British India unless the control and management of its affairs is situated wholly without British India. It has been found as a fact--and the finding is conclusive--that the business in Kilakarai was managed by a partner there. ...
Tag this Judgment!S. Pattammal Vs. the Corporation of Madras and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad138; (1942)2MLJ789
King, J.1. The petition arises from the sale of a house by the Corporation of Madras for arrears of property tax due upon it, in the enforcement of the first charge given to the Corporation by Section 103 of the Madras City Municipalities Act. After the arrears of tax had been met, there remained a surplus of Rs. 1,250. The petitioner before me is the auction-purchaser who made a claim in the City Civil Court for the refund of this money to her on the allegation that the house had been mortgaged to her. The original defaulter is dead; two of his legal representatives supported the petitioner's claim, one of them (3rd defendant in the suit) contested it on the ground that the alleged mortgages in the petitioner's favour were nominal. The learned Additional City Civil Judge dismissed the claim on the ground that by the purchase petitioner's mortgages had ceased to exist, and therefore she had no locus standi to ask for the money. Other matters in issue were left undecided.2. In the prese...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. the Madras Provincial Co-operative ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad152; (1943)1MLJ46
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The first question referred involves the construction of Section 8 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, as amended in 1939. The first clause of the section states that the tax shall be payable by an assessee under the head 'Interest on securities' in respect of the interest receivable by him on any security of the Central Government or of a Provincial Government, or on debentures or other securities for money issued by or on behalf of a local authority of a company. Then follow three provisos. The first proviso allows the assessee to deduct the interest payable by him on money borrowed for the purpose of investment in securities. In other words, the tax is only payable on the amount of interest received, less the interest which the assessee has to pay as the result of having borrowed to make the investment. The second proviso says that no income-4 tax shall be payable on the interest receivable on a security of the Central Government issued or declared ...
Tag this Judgment!Messre S V M Mohamed Jamaluddeen and Bros Vs. Commissioner of Income-t ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-1942
Reported in: [1942]10ITR484(Mad)
.(The Judgment of the Court was delivered by the Honourable the Chief Justice.)The Income-tax Appellate tribunal has referred the following question to this Court :-'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the applicant firm was resident in British India under Section 4-A (b) of the Income-tax Act.'The Tribunal has expressed the opinion that the applicant firm was resident in British India and we have no hesitation in concurring in that opinion. The firm commenced carrying on business in Colombo in 1932. In the year 1937 it opened a branch at Kilakarai in British India. Business was carried on there and it was managed by the partner of the firm, who was resident at Kilakarai. there were four partners, all of whom belonged to Kilakarai.Section 4-A (b) says that a firm is resident in British India unless the control and management of its affair is situated wholly without British India. It has been found as a fact-and the finding is conclusive-that the business in Kila...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. the Madras Provincial.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-1942
Reported in: [1942]10ITR490(Mad)
.(The Judgment of the Court was delivered by the Honble the Chief Justice.)The first question referred involves the construction of Section 8 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, as amended in 1939. The first clause of the section states that the tax shall be payable by an assessee under the head 'Intererst of securities'in respect of the interest receivable by him on any security of the Central Government or of a Provincial Government, or on debentures or other securities for money issued by or on behalf of local authority or a Company. Then follow three provisos. The first proviso allows the assessee to deduct the interest payable by him on money borrowed for the purpose of investment in securities. In other words, the tax is only payable on the amount of interest received, less the interest which the assessee has to pay as the result of having borrowed to make the investment. The second proviso says that no income -tax shall be payable on the interest receivable on a security of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Thatiparthi Krishna Reddi and ors. Vs. Ambarkhana Jayarama Rao and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-25-1942
Reported in: (1942)2MLJ736
Krishnaswami Ayyangar, J.1. The only point that arises for consideration in the appeal is whether the learned Judge in the Court below was right in dismissing the execution petition E.P. No. 7 of 1939 as barred by limitation. The suit was on a mortgage in which the preliminary decree was passed on 11th December, 1928. There was an appeal preferred to this Court from that decree in A.S. No. 212 of 1929, but the appeal was dismissed and the decree of the Court below was confirmed on 11th November, 1932. In the meanwhile, a final decree had been passed on 19th August, 1932, by the lower Court. Even before that date, however, the original plaintiff Venkatasubba Reddi died and in his place his sons were brought on the record as legal representatives. His sons were four in number of whom the elder two were majors and the younger two were minors and the decree was in favour of all of them, the minors being represented by the eldest son as next friend. The first execution petition was filed on...
Tag this Judgment!S. Srirama Raja and ors. Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Counc ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-25-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad85; (1942)2MLJ800
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The appellants are the shrotriemdars of Pudupakkam in the Chingleput district. Their binds are watered from a tank at Padur. Padur is a Government village and shares with Pudupakkam the water of this tank. In other words, the tank is owned jointly by the appellants and by the Government. In 1913 the tank was in need of repair and the Collector caused an estimate to be prepared. The shrotriem ayacut watered by this tank measures 454.10 acres and the Government ayacut measures 554.94 acres. The total cost, according to the estimate, was Rs. 3,630, and the appellants' share came to Rs. 1,633-9-10. On the 20th November, 1913, the Collector wrote to the appellants stating that the proportionate share payable by them in- respect of the cost of the repairs to the tank was Rs. 1,633-9-10, and a copy of the estimate was sent to them. They were requested to pay the amount in the treasury and if they had any objections to offer to state those objections within a ...
Tag this Judgment!Muthu K.A.R. Annamalai Chettiar Vs. N.V. Sundaresa Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-25-1942
Reported in: (1943)2MLJ444
Kuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. This appeal arises out of a petition to enforce a security bond against the sureties to whom the judgment debtor's properties were entrusted when they were attached in execution of the decree in O S. No. 191 of 1933 on the file of the Devakottai Sub-Court. The security bond was given on 13th August, 1934- The execution petition during the pendency of which the security bond was given was struck off on 24th November, 1934 as the sureties failed to produce the Articles on 19th November, 1934, at the sale held in execution of the decree. This petition to enforce the security bond was filed on 12th December, 1938. In the meantime an execution petition which had been filed against the properties of the judgment-debtor on 8th July, 1935, was struck off on 13th December, 1935. The learned District Munsiff dismissed the petition on the ground that it was barred by limitation as it was filed more than three years after the date on which the sureties failed to produce the ...
Tag this Judgment!S. Kadir HussaIn Rowther and ors. Vs. Jamila Bi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad242; (1942)2MLJ587
King, J.1. This petition arises out of an appeal, A.S. No. 8 of 1942, filed before the learned District Judge of Madura from the decree in a suit filed by one of the heirs of a deceased Mahomedan. It is admitted that although the primary object of the suit is for the plaintiff to obtain her own share of the deceased's estate, the suit must be regarded as a suit for the administration of that estate. It is further conceded that the value of the estate is Rs. 41,000 or more and that the plaintiff's share will come to less than Rs. 5,000. The question which was raised as a preliminary point before the learned District Judge was whether he had jurisdiction to hear the appeal or whether the appeal should be filed in this Court. The learned Judge after discussing various cases held that there was no direct authority of the Madras High Court on this matter and decided to follow an authority of the Rangoon High Court which held that the subject-matter of the suit for purposes of jurisdiction w...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »