Chennai Court October 1943 Judgments
In Re: B.K. Rajagopal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1943
Reported in: (1943)2MLJ634
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. On the 11th February, 1943, in Ordinance Case No. I of 1942, the appellants were convicted by the Special Judge of Madura on charges which will be indicated presently and sentenced to terms of imprisonment The Special Judge was appointed under the provisions of the Special Criminal Courts Ordinance, 1942. On the 5th June, 1943, that Ordinance was cancelled by the Special Criminal Courts (Repeal) Ordinance, 1943, but Section 3 of the repealing Ordinance provided that a sentence already passed under the repealed Ordinance should continue to have effect as if the trial had been held in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Code and gave a right of appeal. These appeals have been filed under Section 3 of the later Ordinance, and have been placed before a Bench of three Judges as important questions under the Indian Evidence Act arise2. On the evening of Friday, the 23rd October, 1942, Rao Sahib Viswanathan Nayar, Circle Inspector of Police in Madura, visi...
Tag this Judgment!Neroth Puthenpura Kunhikannan Vs. Pulappati Achu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad226
Horwill, J.1. A landlord to whom rent was due transferred his right to the rent by Ex. B. The question that arises in this second appeal is whether the assignee can enforce the rent as a charge on the interest of the tenant in the land. It is not denied that if the respondent had been a landlord his suit would have been in time, because of the charge referred to in Section 41, Malabar Tenancy Act. The question is whether the assignee has an equal right. Section 41 reads:. . . arrears of michavaram or rent due to the landlord together with interest, if any, payable on the same shall be a charge on the interest of the person from whom they are due in the holding. . . .It would seem from this section that the charge attached itself to the land as soon as the rent was due. If that is so, then a transfer of the right to collect rent would transfer the charge also. It is difficult to see how, when once the charge has attached itself to the land, it becomes disattached because the landlord su...
Tag this Judgment!Bhavadesan Nambudiripad Vs. Narayanan Nambudiripad
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad174
Kuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. These appeals arise out of a suit filed by a landlord for ejecting his tenant who was holding the properties on kanom tenure. Under the terms of the Malabar Tenancy Act, the kanom tenant filed a petition for a renewal being granted in respect of the kanom as it was found that the jenmi did not bona fide retire the land for his cultivation. The suit was O.S. No. 98 of 1941 on the file of the District Munsif on Walluvanad, and I.A. No. 2146 of 1941 was the petition filed by the tenant praying for the execution of a renewal deed in respect of the kanom. A Commissioner was appointed to ascertain the renewal fee payable by the tenant and he submitted a report fixing it. There was no objection to the amount fixed by him and on the basis of his report the District Munsif passed an order calling upon the tenant to pay the renewal fee with interest thereon at twelve per cent. from 1st December 1930, the date on which the Malabar Tenancy Act came into force, and he also or...
Tag this Judgment!T. Manavedan Tirumalpad, Rajah of Nilambur Vs. Amirchand Doss Dwarakad ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad431
Kunhi Raman, J.1. This appeal is from the decision of the City Civil Court, Madras, in O.S. No. 3104 of 1939. Defendant 2 is the appellant. The facts are interesting and may be briefly stated. Defendants 2 to 7 are the directors of defendant 1 company which was floated by them and which has now ceased to exist. The plaintiff applied for 250 shares in the newly formed company on seeing the prospectus published in a newspaper in Madras. As required by the rules, he paid Rs. 500 in cash along with his application. The shares applied for were allotted to him. He filed the suit from which this appeal arises for recission of his contract with defendant 1 company known as the Cochin Furniture Co. Ltd., and for Rs. 500 which he claimed as damages from defendants 2 to 7 the directors of the company on the ground that in the prospectus that was published there were misleading or untrue representations which deceived him and made him part with cash. In the course of the trial, the suit was withdr...
Tag this Judgment!V. Ramaswami Ayyangar and K.R. Subramania Ayyar, Receivers to the Esta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-22-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad154; (1943)2MLJ563
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. One RM. AR. AR. RM. Arunachalam Chettiar died on the 23rd February, 1938, leaving a will. He had assets in British India, Ceylon, Federated Malay States and Cochin China. The will was proved in British India and letters of administration were obtained in Colombo. Under the laws of Ceylon, Federated Malay States and Cochin China the executors were called upon to pay death duties. For the year of assessment 1939-40 the executors sought to deduct from the income of the estate for the year of account the expenses incurred in obtaining probate and letters of administration and also the amount which they had been compelled to pay in death duties. The Income-tax authorities held that these amounts were not deductible and the decision was upheld by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Calcutta Bench. The estate is now in the hands of receivers appointed by the Subordinate Court of Devakottah and at the request of the Receivers the Tribunal has referred to this C...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. V. Ramaswami Iyengar and K.B. Subra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-22-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad155; (1943)2MLJ582
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. In The Commissioner of Income-tax, v. Reid I.L.R.(1930) 55 Bom. 312 which was decided on the 3rd October, 1930, the Bombay High Court held that the Indian Income-tax Act contained no provision under Which the estate of a deceased person could be taxed. The definition of 'assessee' under Section 2(2) of the Act only applied to a living person. In Maharajadhiraj of Dharbanga v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bihar and Orissa which related to an assessment made in the year 1929-30, the Privy Council held that Section 26(2) applied to a person who succeeded to the business of a deceased person and therefore the successor could be taxed in respect of the income obtained from the business in the year of succession. On the 11th September, 1933, the Legislature inserted Section 24-B. Stated broadly, the question which arises here is whether Section 24-B overrides Section 26(2) and requires, in the case of a person dying leaving a business, the assessment to be ma...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Duruvasula Venkatasubba Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-22-1943
Reported in: (1943)2MLJ658
ORDERKuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. His is a petition to revise the order of the Sessions Judge of East Godavari confirming the conviction and sentence passed upon the petitioner for an offence punishable under Section 5(b) read with Section 7(1) of Ordinance. XI of 1941 read with Explanation 2 to Section 5 of the Amending Ordinance XXVI of 1942. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 300.2. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Public Prosecutor in East Godavari. In the course of his duties he had to conduct the prosecution of political offences. On the 18th November, 1942, he sent in his resignation which runs thus:I Hereby resign my post as A.P.P. grade No. 2 partly as a protest against the repressive policy of the Government against Mahatma Gandhi and the Congress organisation, secondly to signify my heartfelt approval of the Bombay resolution of the A.I.C.C. dated 8th August, 1942, thirdly to take active part in the civil disobedience movement, t...
Tag this Judgment!V. Ramaswamy Ayyangar and Another Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-22-1943
Reported in: [1943]11ITR597(Mad)
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by the Honourable the Chief Justice).One RM.AR.AR.RM. Arunachalam Chettiar died on the February 23, 1938 leaving in will. He had assets in British India, Ceylon, Federated Malay States and Cochin China. The will was proved in British India and letters of administration were obtained in Colombo. Under the laws of Ceylon, Federated Malay States and Cochin China the executors were called upon to pay death duties. For the year of assessment 1939-40 the executors sought to deduct from the income of the estate for the year of account the expenses incurred in obtaining probate and letter so administration and also the amount which they had been compelled to pay in death duties. The Income-tax authorities held that these amounts were not deductible and the decision was up-held by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Calcutta Bench. The estate is now in the hands of receivers appointed by the Subordinate Court of Devakotta and at the request of the receivers t...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras Vs. V. Ramaswamy Iyengar and Anothe ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-22-1943
Reported in: [1943]11ITR610(Mad)
LEACH, C.J. - In Commissioner of Income-tax v. Reid, which was decided on the October 3, 1930, the Bombay High Court held that the Indian Income-tax Act contained no provision under which the estate of a deceased person could be taxed. The definition of 'assessee' under Section 2(2) of the Act only applied to a living person. In Maharajadhiraj Of Darbhanga v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bihar and Orissa which related to an assessment made in the year 1929-30, the Privy Council held that Section 26(2) applied to a person who succeeded to the business of a deceased person and therefore the successor could be taxed in respect of the income obtained from the business in the year of succession. On the September 11, 1933, the Legislature inserted Section 24-B. Stated broadly, the question which arises here is whether Section 24-B overrides Section 26(2) and requires, in the case of a person dying leaving a business, the assessment to be made on his executor, administrator or other legal repr...
Tag this Judgment!Madhava Pillai Vs. Subramaniya Udayar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad152; (1943)2MLJ556
Byers, J.1. The short facts leading to this revision petition under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act are that a promissory note was executed by the defendants' paternal grandmother as their de facto guardian for a sum due by their deceased father on a previous obligation. The plaintiff brought the suit on the promissory note only against the minors and it was summarily dismissed by the learned District Munsiff on the authority of Chennappa v. Onkarappa : AIR1940Mad38 . There is a clear distinction to be drawn between the facts of the present case and the facts in the case cited, where the promissory note had been executed not by the grandmother as de facto guardian but by the deceased father himself and payments had subsequently been made by the paternal grandmother. It was held by the Full Bench that the grandmother in her capacity as de facto guardian was not an ' agent duly authorised in this behalf' within the meaning of Section 21(1) of the Indian Limitation Act...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »