Chennai Court March 1943 Judgments
Govinda Reddi Vs. Gorla Rami Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Mad725; (1943)2MLJ195
Happell, J.1. During the pendency of a suit which the appellant filed to recover a sum of Rs. 264-8-0 due on a simple mortgage from the respondent, the respondent applied to the Debt Conciliation Board for the settlement of his debts and the trial of the civil suit was accordingly stayed. The result of the proceedings before the Debt Conciliation Board was that the respondent's debt to the appellant was deemed to have been fully discharged for all purposes and for all occasions under the provisions of Section 10(2) of the Debt Conciliation Act because of the failure of the appellant to file a statement as required under Section 10(1). After this order had been passed by the Debt Conciliation Board, the suit was taken up for hearing by the District Munsiff of Penukonda; and it was decided on the additional issue framed, namely, 'what is the effect of the order of the Debt Conciliation Board dated 29th July, 1940?' The District Munsiff was of opinion that the effect of the order was that...
Tag this Judgment!Sogmal Chatrabhanjee Vs. Tharachand Chatrabhanjee and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Mad662; (1943)2MLJ105
Horwill, J.1. The present petition is against a very short order of the District Judge of Nellore dismissing the petitioner's application to appeal in forma pauperis.2. The facts as represented by Mr. Umamaheswaram are that the petitioner's suit was to set aside a partition of property belonging to the petitioner and his brothers and to re-partition the property. During the pendency of the suit the petitioner became an insolvent and the Official Receiver was added as a supplementary plaintiff. The suit was subsequently dismissed. As the Official Receiver refused to appeal, the petitioner sought to do so in forma pauperis. Thereupon, the District Judge passed this short order, ' The insolvent cannot be permitted to appeal by himself in forma pauperis. No notice is necessary on this. Dismissed.3. Mr. Umamaheswaram contends that the learned District Judge erroneously assumed that no insolvent can appeal. He contends that what vests in the Official Receiver is merely the property of the in...
Tag this Judgment!The South Indian Railway Company Ltd. Through Its Agent and General Ma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Mad733; (1943)2MLJ307
Kunhi Raman, J.1. An interesting question of law is raised in this second appeal to appreciate which the facts must be briefly stated. The South Indian Railway Co. Ltd., who are the appellants own properties at Mandapam. These were situated within the territorial limits of a local authority which until 1930 was known as the Pamban Union and for some time subsequently as the Pamban Panchayat Board. This Board comprised the revenue' villages of Pamban and Mandapam. By a notification published by the Madras Government in accordance with law on the 6th September, 1935, the revenue village of Pamban was excluded from the limits of this local body which was renamed Mandapam Panchayat Board. In effect there was then a bifurcation of what used to be known as the Pamban Panchayat Board into the Mandapam Panchayat Board and the Pamban Panchayat Board. There is no doubt that the properties owned by the appellant Railway Company and with which the present case is concerned are situated within the ...
Tag this Judgment!Kalisetti Penchalu Setti Vs. Potireddi Subbareddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Mad520; (1943)2MLJ671
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. On the 27th September, 1939, the respondent obtained an ex parte decree against the petitioner in a small cause suit. On the 31st December 1941, the respondent, in proceedings instituted by him for the execution of his decree, obtained an order attaching fifteen head of cattle belonging to the petitioner. It is the petitioner's case that he only came to know of the decree which had been passed against him when his cattle were seized. They were released on security being furnished for their production when called upon.2. Article 164 of the Limitation Act provides that the period of limitation for an application to set aside a decree passed ex parte shall be thirty days from the date of the decree, or, where the summons was not duly served, when the applicant has knowledge of the decree. Section 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act states that an applicant for an order to set aside a decree passed ex parte shall at the time of presenting his appli...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras Vs. Ct. Rm. N. Narayanan Chettiar.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1943
Reported in: [1943]11ITR470(Mad)
JUDGMENT OF APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "This appeal refers to the assessment year 1939-40 and is in respect of an item of Rs. 21,153. The appellant claims that out of the total income of Rs. 28,396 assessed by the Income-tax Officer and confirmed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner a sum of Rs. 21,153 should be deducted on the ground that this item is not income. 2. The facts are that the appellants father had a share in M. S. M. M. firm at Ipoh and Sithiwan. The firms property included certain lands known as Chengkat Meranti Estate at Sithiwan and Hill Rise Estate at Batukajah. The appellants father died in 1921 and on his death the partnership came to an end. It is said that a Panchayat was set up in 1928 which appears to have determined the amount to be paid to the appellant and his brother on account of their fathers share of capital, surplus capital and profits in the firm. The award is not available to us nor any proceedings of the said Panchayat. The Income-tax Officer however exami...
Tag this Judgment!Mask and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1943
Reported in: [1943]11ITR454(Mad)
JUDGMENT OF APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "This is an appeal preferred by the Income-tax Officer, Cuddalore, praying that the amount of Rs. 6,203 allowed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner as business expense to the respondent may be disallowed. The question arose in the following circumstances :- 2. The respondent was assessed on an income of Rs. 28,971 from various sources and a sum of Rs. 6,203 was claimed by the respondent on account of court and damages which he had to pay to one Salai Mohammad Haji Ibrahim Sait. The respondent and three others, has entered into an agreement in 1933 in connection with business in crackeras to sell several kinds of cracker at the rates given in the Schedual thereto. The respondent did not abide by the terms of this agreement and sold his crackers at rates lower than those given in the schedu le, where upon Salia Mohammad Haji Ibrahim Sait filed a suit for damages of Rs. 5,000 aginst the respondent. The High Court of Judicature at Madras on its original s...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Thavamani
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Mad571; (1943)2MLJ13
King, J.1. The appellant here was the second accused prosecuted before the learned Sessions Judge of Ramnad for the murder of a woman named Meenakshi Achi on the evening of the 26th September last. The deceased was admittedly murdered in her flower garden about 1/1/2 furlongs away from the village. Her dead body was found on the 27th September in a well in the garden. Two persons were prosecuted for the murder. The first accused who was eventually acquitted, was the gardener employed in the garden. The second accused was an acquaintance of his, who was in need of money at the time. There is no direct evidence of the offence and there is no direct evidence from the post mortem certificate or the testimony of the doctor as to the cause of death. The body when found had marks of three punctured wounds upon the head; but those wounds by themselves according to the doctor would not be sufficient to cause death.2. The principal evidence upon which the second accused was convicted comes from ...
Tag this Judgment!Nalluru Kotayya (Died) by His Legal Representatives Vs. Kolli Narayana
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad60; (1943)2MLJ450
Horwill, J.1. An application, E.A. No. 145 of 1938, was filed by the respondent, the auction purchaser, on 2nd February, 1938, for the delivery of the present petitioner 's property which had been sold to him in execution of a decree against the present 'petitioner. Delivery was ordered; but on obstruction by the petitioner the application for delivery was struck off. The respondent took seme steps in 1940 but they came to nothing; and on 11th February, 1941, he filed the petition with which we are directly concerned, E.A. No. 143 of 1941, another application for delivery, praying at the same time for removal of the obstruction that had been offered by the judgment-debtor. Prima facie this application was badly out of time. An application for removal of obstruction has to be filed, according to Article 167 of the Limitation Act, within thirty days from the date of obstruction; and an application for delivery has to be made within three years of the final order confirming the sale. The ...
Tag this Judgment!K. Balireddi Vs. K. Lakshmamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Mad728; (1943)2MLJ350
Horwill, J.1. This is an appeal from an order of the District Judge of Anantapur dismissing in limine an application purporting to be under Order 9, Rule 9, Civil Procedure Code, praying that an ex parte dismissal of a suit be set aside.2. The admitted facts of the case are that the plaintiff engaged three vakils to appear for him and that on the date of hearing, all of them were absent. One Mr, Krishna Sastri, however, appeared on behalf of one of the three, Mr. Venkata Reddi, and requested an adjournment or that the case might be passed over for some time. The case was passed over and when called again, Mr. Krishna Sastri reported no instructions on behalf of Mr. Venkata Reddi. The suit was thereupon dismissed. The question is whether it was dismissed under Order 17, Rule 2 or under Order 17, Rule 3.3. It has been held repeatedly that when a vakil comes to Court merely to ask for an adjournment and upon that being refused reports no instructions, the pleader fails to appear; and it h...
Tag this Judgment!Vasu Vs. Viswanathan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Mad721; (1943)2MLJ303
Krishnaswami Ayyangar, J.1. This is an appeal from the final decree passed by the Subordinate Judge of South Malabar, Palghat, in O.S. No. 21 of 1938 on the file of his Court. That was a suit for partition of the family properties instituted by the respondent against his brother, the appellant. On 26th December, 1939, the Subordinate Judge passed a preliminary decree declaring the respondent to be entitled to one half of the properties referred to in paragraph I of the decree. He also declared that the respondent ' is entitled to mesne profits from the date of the registered notice, namely, 19th December, 1937.' The decree also contains the usual direction for the appointment of a Commissioner for effecting a partition by metes and bounds and for the ascertainment of the mesne profits as from the date mentioned. Against that decree the defendant appealed to this Court in A.S. No. 35 of 1940 but it ended in its being dismissed by this Court.2. A Commissioner was appointed in pursuance o...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »