Chennai Court December 1943 Judgments
Kotha Govindarajulu Chettiar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad245
Leach, C.J.1. The assessee was the manager of a Joint Hindu family the members of which carried on a money-lending business. On 20th April 1940 a partition was effected, but the erstwhile coparceners decided to continue the business in partnership. A formal deed embodying the terms of separation was executed on 10th May 1940. The joint family consisted of an uncle and two nephews. Although as members of the joint family they had equal shares in the business, it was agreed that the uncle, who had been the managing member, should have a larger share than each of his nephews. The ratio was to be 26:19:19. For the year of account (1939-40) the Income-tax Officer calculated that the income of the family was Rs. 46,127, of which Rs. 44,420 had been derived from the business. By consent the year of account was deemed to commence on 13th April 1939 and to end on 20th April 1940. The extra days were added in order that the end of the financial year should coincide with the date of the partition...
Tag this Judgment!Kailasa Tevar Vs. Kasiviswanathan Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad269
Somayya, J.1. These are applications for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council. Defendant l in the suit and respondent 1 in the appeal is the petitioner. The suits out of which this and the connected petitions arise were filed by certain creditors for recovery of sums due on either mortgage deeds or promissory notes executed by the petitioner. The petitioner was defendant 1 in the trial Court and the other members of his family were impleaded as defendants 2 to 7. Defendant 2 is his brother and defendants 3 to 7 are his paternal uncle's sons.2. In 1895 there was a division between the two branches and it is in evidence that there was also a division between the petitioner and his brother as a result of O.S. No. 36 of 1935. The family business was kept joint and the petitioner was managing the business. The petitioner was ex parte in all the suits. The other defendants contended that they were not liable for the debts incurred by defendant l. The trial Court exonerated some of the d...
Tag this Judgment!P.C. Krishnan Atiyoti Vs. Province of Madras, Represented by Collector ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad284
Kunhi Raman, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant in this second appeal. The suit was for a declaration that the sale under the Madras Revenue Recovery Act of a piece of land measuring 15 acres and 75 cents for Rs. 300 was not valid. The land belongs to the plaintiff's tarwad. The plaintiff is a junior member of the tarwad, but the Courts below have described him as the de facto manager of the properties of the tarwad and the suit has been found to be maintainable. This has not been questioned here. The property was sold because arrears of land revenue had accumulated to the extent of Rs. 20-14-0 and this amount was not paid by the karnavan who is defendant 9. The sale was on 28th May 1935. The assessment on the property sold is Rs. 78-12-0 and the land is situated in the village of Cheravathur in Kasargod taluk of the South Kanara District. Several contentions were urged in the Courts below on behalf of the plaintiff in support of his case that the sale was invalid and must be set asid...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Manavala Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad447
ORDERKuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. Accused 1, 2 and 4 in C.C. No. 455 of 1942 on the file of the Stationary Sub-Magistrate of Trichinopoly seek to have the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Trichinopoly in C.A. No. 11 of 1943 confirming the conviction of these three accused for the offence punishable under Section 8, Madras Gaming Act, and the sentence of Rs. 50 on accused 1 and 2, Rs. 20 on the 4th reversed. They were tried along with another accused. The prosecution case was that accused 1 and 2 were running the gaming house and that accused 3 and 4 were their servants. The game was one of darts. This is how the game was said to have been played. A board with a number of squares in six colours is kept leaning against the wall. On a table near it is placed a board showing the same six colours. If a person places money on any of those colours on the table he will be given three darts. If he throws the darts and strikes the colour on which he has placed his money he will be given twice...
Tag this Judgment!Kotha Govindarajulu Chettiar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1943
Reported in: [1944]12ITR97(Mad)
LEACH, C.J. - The assessee was the manager of a joint Hindu family the members of which carried on a money-lending business. On the 20th April 1940 a partition was effected, but the erstwhile coparceners decided to continue the business in partnership. A formal deed embodying the terms of separation was executed on the 10th May 1940. The joint family consisted of an uncle and two nephews. Although as members of the joint family they had equal shares in the business, it was agreed that the uncle, who had been the managing member, should have a larger share than each of his nephews. The ratio was to be 26 : 19 : 19. For the year of account (1939-40) the Income-tax Officer calculated that the income of the family was Rs. 46,127, of which Rs. 44,420 had been derived from the business. By consent the year of account was deemed to commence on the 13th April 1939 and to end on the 20th April 1940. The extra days were added in order that the end of the financial year should coincide with the d...
Tag this Judgment!Korlam Sitaramaswamy Vs. Korlam Venkatarama Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad370
Horwill, J.1. The appellant and the respondent are step-brothers, being the sons of one K. Adinarayana Patnaik, who had been subscribing to a provident fund according to the rules of the Bengal Nagpur Railway Co., and who, at the time of his death, had a sum of Rs. 7200 odd standing to his credit. He had nominated his first wife under the rules as the person to whom the sum standing to his credit in the provident fund should be paid on his death. She died as early as August 1929; but he made no change in the nomination. Upon his death in 1941, he left a second wife, whom he married after the death of his first wife, and two sons, one by the first wife and the other by the second wife. The latter is the appellant and the former the respondent. The learned advocate for the appellant contends that as the nominee had predeceased her husband, the sum due to Adinarayana Patnaik was a sum belonging to him and undisposed of by will, and therefore belonged equally to his two sons. The responden...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Public Prosecutor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad320
Leach, C.J.1. This is an application by the Provincial Government for an order expunging from the judgment of the Sessions Judge of Chittoor certain remarks made by him in Criminal Application No. 52 of 1943. The appellant was a village shopkeeper. On 9th October 1942, he was discovered to have in his possession nine bags of paddy weighing 18 maunds, and seven bags of rice weighing 17 1/2 maunds. He had no licence. A licence was required for the storage of more than twenty maunds. As he had stored grains in excess of 20 maunds, he was prosecuted under the Food Grains Control Order, which became law on 22nd June 1942. He was fined Rs. 50 and the 16 bags of grains, valued at Rs. 300 were forfeited to the Government. He did not challenge the validity of his conviction; but he appealed against the order of forfeiture. The appeal was allowed because the offence has been committed on 9th October 1942, and the power to forfeit had not been conferred upon Magistrates until 5th February 1943, w...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Guruva Vannan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad385
Horwill, J.1. The appellant has been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge of Trichinopoly of the murder of his daughter-in-law, Sellayi, at about 1 p.m. on 29th June 1943, and sentenced to death. P. Ws. 3 and 4, the brother and sister respectively of the deceased, claim to be eye-witnesses. They say that the appellant had been frequently coming to their house and asking the deceased, their sister, to come and live with him. She had consistently refused to do so. On the day of the offence, at about noon, he twice asked their sister to come to his house; but she again refused. Thereupon, the accused came with a spear and stabbed her on her cheek with such force as to cause the stick to break off. Seizing the spear head with his hand, he stabbed the deceased in the abdomen and other places. She rushed into the street and dropped down dead. P.W. 3 at once went off to fetch P.W. 8, a respectable neighbour, who, upon seeing what had happened, went to the house of the accused, seized him, ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: an Advocate
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad247
Leach, C.J.1. On 20th March 1943, this Court acting under Section 10 (2), Bar Councils Act, directed the District Judge of West Godavari to hold an inquiry into a complaint made against the respondent, who is an advocate practising at Ellore. Rule 1 of the rules relating to the procedure to be followed by tribunals and District Courts in cases referred to them for inquiry under the Act, states that upon receipt of a case referred for inquiry under Section 10 (2), the tribunal or District Court shall forthwith frame a charge or charges on the basis of the complaint, fix a date, hour and place for the inquiry and give notice thereof to the complainant and to the advocate whose conduct is the subject of inquiry, at least 21 days before the date of inquiry and may call upon the complainant to file a list of witnesses and documents relied upon by him. In exceptional cases, the tribunal or Court may, in its discretion, postpone the framing of charge or charges until after the examination and...
Tag this Judgment!R. Manicka Chettiar Vs. Official Assignee
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad333
Kuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. The appellant is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 1794 of 1942 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras. He filed his suit for recovery of money due under a hypothecation deed. Pending the suit he applied for attachment before judgment of the judgment-debtor's moveable properties. They were attached. The preliminary decree was passed but no final decree has yet been passed. Subsequent to the attachment, the defendants were adjudged insolvents and the Official Assignee in whom the properties of the defendants had vested filed a petition purporting to be under Order 22, Rule 10, Civil P. C, for impleading him as a supplemental defendant and also for raising the attachment. When the petition came on for hearing, objection was taken to the Official Assignee clubbing two prayers in one petition. He accordingly did not press the prayer for being impleaded as a party, but prayed for cancellation of the attachment and delivery of the attached properties to him on the ground ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »