Chennai Court October 1943 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.
V. Ramaswamy Ayyangar and anr. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-1943
Reported in: AIR1945Mad122
1. O.P. No. 2 of 1941. As directed by the High Court in the order quoted above, I have the honor to state the following case and refer the question set out in para. 5 below for the decision of the Honourable Judges, of the High Court Under Section 66(3), Income-tax Act, 11 of 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. The petitioners are the receivers to the estate of the late Arunachalam Chettiar who was an assessee on the file of the Income-tax Officer, Devakottah. Their objection is to the supplemental assessment to super-tax made on them Under Section 34 for the year 1936-37 for the purpose of which the status of the assessee was taken to be that of an 'individual.' The facts are as follows: Upto and including the assessment year 1933-34 Arunachalam Chettiar and his son were assessed as constituting a Hindu undivided family. On the death of the son on 9th July 1934, the family consisted of Arunachalam Chettiar, his widowed step mother and the widowed daughter-in-law. As he was th...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras Vs. M. Ahmad Badsha Saheb.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-1943
Reported in: [1943]11ITR590(Mad)
LEACH, C.J. - The assessee is a merchant dealing in hides and he carries on his business in the City of Madras. In the year 1938 one Nawab C. Abdual Hakim died, leaving a large estate. Disputes arose among the heirs with regard to the division of the properties left by the Nawab. The result was that the heirs chose five gentlemen of the same community to act as arbitrators and assist in the distribution of the assets. The assessee was one of the five gentleman, who have been referred to in these proceedings as 'the arbitrators.' The arbitrators did a considerable amount of work in connection with the administration of the estate, and when at a later stage there were proceedings in this Court in regard to the partition, Gentle, J., decided that a sum of Rs. 87,000 (arrived at on a percentage basis should be divided among the five arbitrators. The assessees share came to Rs. 17,400. It was not possible to pay to the arbitrators the full amount at once and they received their shares in in...
V. Ramaswamy Ayyangar and Another Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax Madra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-1943
Reported in: [1944]12ITR29(Mad)
(O. P. No. 2 of 1941).(Judgment of the Court was delivered by the Honble the Chief Justice).We agree with the Commissioner of Income-tax that there are only two points which arise on the question referred namely :-(1) Is the assessee to be classed as an individual or a Hindu undivided family and(2) Are the objections taken to the proceedings under Section 34 of the Act valid ?We also agree with the opinions expressed by the Commissioner in his statement of the case.The assessee died testate on the 23rd February 1938. He was a Nattukottai Chettiar and was joint with his son until the latters death on the 9th July 1934. After the death of the son the joint family consisted of Arunachalam Chettiar, his widowed step-mother and his widowed daughter-in-law. Until the assessment year 1936-37 Arunachalam was assessed to income-tax as the head of an undivided Hindu family. As the result of the decision of the Privy Council in Kalyanji Vithal Das v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bengal the Income-...
Velayudam Servai Vs. Special Officer, Panchayat Board
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-1943
Reported in: (1943)2MLJ595
ORDERKuppuswami Aiyar, J.1. The petitioner was convicted, by the Assistant Tahsildar Magistrate of Ramnad for an offence punishable under Section 207 of the Local Boards Act for having disobeyed a requisition of the Local Board calling upon him to remove an encroachment on a public road and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 75. He was also directed to pay a fine of Rs. 5 per day until the encroachment is removed. On appeal the Joint Magistrate of Ramnad confirmed the conviction and sentence.2. The first contention of the petitioner is that he has obtained a prescriptive right over the plot encroached upon. But under Section 159(2) of the Local Boards Act even if a person had acquired such a prescriptive right he could only claim a reasonable compensation in respect of the damage caused by the removal or alteration of the encroachment. But the payment of compensation is not a condition precedent and this was pointed out by this Court in Narayana Iyer v. Subramania Chetti : AIR1927Mad11...
Jadam Jampur Bai Alias Venkamma Vs. Jinki Siddappa and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad237
Horwill, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was one for redemption. Both the Courts below have held that the plaintiff was entitled to redeem. Defendant 1 opposed the suit on many grounds; but those with which we are concerned are: (1) that the transaction entered into between the plaintiff and defendant 1 was not a mortgage but a sale; (2) that in any event the matter is governed so far as a large portion of the hypotheca was concerned by Section 41, T. P. Act, and otherwise by estoppel, the plaintiff having held out defendant 1 as the ostensible owner of the property and allowed various portions of the property to be alienated, and (3) that the plaintiff is precluded from setting up his claim because he failed to put them forward in O.S. No. 604. I need not repeat the arguments of the learned District Munsif and the learned District Judge in their judgments. Exhibit A, the document in question, has been set out in full. The document is headed 'conditional sale' and not 'sa...
P.C. Kandaswami Pillai Vs. Municipal Commissioner
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad476
ORDERKuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. In all these three petitions the petitioner is the same and he has been prosecuted for having failed to obtain a licence for effecting some additions to three of his buildings and each of these revision petitions relates to One such building. The points urged for the petitioner in all the three petitions are the same. The first point is that he was prosecuted long after the time fixed by the Act for launching a prosecution. The complaint against the petitioner was that he made additions to three of his buildings within the municipal limits of Palghat without a licence. He applied for a licence on 20th April 1942, and Ex. A is an endorsement on his application. In that application it is stated that he proposed to make certain constructions to certain buildings. They were completed according to Exs. G and F on 25th May 1942. The prosecution was launched on 21st December 1942. Under the proviso to Section 347, District Municipalities Act in case of prosecution ...
K.S. Doraiswami Nadar Vs. Sivanupandia Nadar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad181; (1943)2MLJ668
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order passed by Horwill, J., under Section 476 of the Criminal Procedure Code, directing that a complaint be filed against the appellant, charging him with having committed an offence under Section 471, Indian Penal Code.2. The appellant was the organiser of a chit fund and the respondent was a subscriber. The respondent filed a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Tinnevelly to recover from the appellant the sum of Rs. 850, with interest amounting to Rs. 88-8-8, which he alleged was due to him by the appellant in respect of subscriptions paid to the chit fund. It was a small cause suit. The defence was that all moneys due to the respondent had been repaid. On the 4th February, 1939, there was, it was said, due to the plaintiff on balance the sum of Rs. 467-1-4. Of this, Rs. 17-1-4, was remitted and Rs. 130 was adjusted against a promissory note alleged to have been executed by the respondent and another in favour of ...
K. Chunilal Sowcar Vs. M.N. Srinivasa Aiyengar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad276
Horwill, J.1. On 6th April 1914, one Venkatachari mortgaged two items of property in favour of the Kothandaramaswami Devasthanam for Rs. 4750. He died in 1920 and left his property by will to his wife. On 9th October 1924, by. Rxs. E and E-l, defendants 1 and 2, who are the son and widow of Venkatachari, sold the whole of their lands to defendants 8 and 4, the vendees, undertaking to pay off the mortgage on the lands. On 6th April 1927, defendant 2 transferred the property by gift to her son, defendant 1, who on the following day, viz., 7th April 1927, mortgaged to the plaintiff for the sum of Rs. 4000, four items of property, the first of which was also item 1 in the earlier mortgage. In 1931, the Kothandaramaswami Devasthanam brought O.S. No. 35 of 1931 on its mortgage and obtained a decree. In due course, that mortgage was completely satisfied by a payment by defendants 3 and 4 and by the sale of item 1 for Rs. 5001. Meanwhile, on 4th April 1930, items 3 and 4 were sold for arrears ...
Thulasi Ethirajamma and anr. Vs. Chunduru Kannayya Gupta and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad165; (1943)2MLJ594
Horwill, J.1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 4 of 1942 on the file of the. District Judge of Nellore prayed for a declaration that the suit property belonged to her mortgagors, defendants 6 to 9, and not to defendants 1 to 5, who were claiming title. During the course of this suit the decree obtained on the mortgage was executed and the present respondent purchased the property in court-auction. The plaintiff thereby lost all interest in the property and the respondent, haviiig acquired the property, sought to be brought on record as the plaintiff in the suit in the place of the existing plaintiff. His application was allowed.2. The application was made under Order 1, Rule 10 and Order 22, Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code. I agree with Mr. Satyanarayana Rao that Order 1, Rule 10 does not apply; but I cannot agree that Order 22, Rule 10 does not permit of his being added as a party. Mr. Satyanarayana Rao's argument with regard to the applicability of Order 22; Rule 10 is that that rule applies ...
Kruttiventi Mallikharjuna Rao and ors. Vs. Vemuri Pardhasaradhirao and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad218; (1943)2MLJ584
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the respondent for specific performance of a contract to sell certain lands or in the alternative for enforcement of a mortgage dated 18th July, 1927, for Rs. 1,500 payable with' compound interest at twelve per cent. per annum. The respondent's case was that the manager of the appellants' family one Ammiraju being otherwise unable to pay the mortgage debt entered into, an oral contract on 18th July, 1934, to sell the lands in question which formed part of the security in full discharge of the mortgage debt which by that time had swelled to Rs. 3,400. As the lands had been leased to a third party who had grown crops thereon, it was agreed that they should be delivered to the respondent as soon as the crops were harvested, and that the rent payable in respect of the lands should in the meanwhile be collected by Ammiraju and paid to the respondent. The respondent alleged that possession was accordingly delivered in 1935 an...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »