Chennai Court March 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.
In Re: Madura
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Mad475; (1943)1MLJ396
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The respondent is a pleader who was practising in Madura. On the 18th November, 1942, he was convicted by the City Magistrate of Madura of an offence under Rule 34 (6) (c) of the Defence of India Rules and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of eight months. Rule 34 (6) defines what is a prejudicial act and Clause (c) says it is a prejudicial act to render a member of His Majesty's forces or a public servant incapable of efficiently performing his duties as such, or to induce a member of His Majesty's forces or a public servant to fail in the performance of his duties as such. Rule 38 (1) (a) says that no person shall, without lawful authority or excuse, do a prejudicial act and Sub-rule (5) says that if a person contravenes any of the provisions of the rule, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years or with fine or with both.2. On the 12th October, 1942, the respondent wrote to the Distr...
In Re: an Advocate, TuticorIn Thayumanasundarathammal Complainant
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Mad493
Leach, C.J.1. The respondent is an advocate of this Court. Seven charges of professional misconduct have been framed against him. They have been investigated by the District Judge of Tinnevelly, who has held that five of them, have not been substantiated but that two of them have been proved. The report of the District Judge now comes up for consideration by this Court. We agree with the District Judge that the five charges which he has decided in favour of the respondent have not been proved, but we disagree with him with his findings on the other two charges. On these charges we consider that the respondent is also entitled to a decision in his favour.2. The petition on which these proceedings were instituted was filed by Thayumanasundarathammal, the widow of one Sankara Gomathi Chettiar, a merchant of Tuticorin. Sankara Gomathi Chettiar died on 28th July 1927 when his wife was 23 years of age. By her he had three children, the eldest of whom was a boy named Muthiah. Sankara Gomathi ...
S. Kr. M. Subramanyam Chettiar Vs. Meyyammai Achi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Mad522; (1943)2MLJ15
Happell, J.1. The appellant was the first defendant in a suit in which the first respondent was the second plaintiff having been added as the legal representative of the first plaintiff after his death, for an injunction restraining the appellant from interfering with the right of way over a lane and for a direction that the appellant should demolish a dust bin which he had put up in the lane at his own cost. The right of way, it was alleged was conveyed to the first respondent under the dead Ex. C, for a consideration of Rs. 175. Ex. C is an unregistered document and it was contended by the appellant that it required registration and was accordingly inadmissible in evidence. The lower Courts, following the decisions in Bhagwan Sahai v. Narasingh Sahai I.L.R. (1909) All. 612 and in Satyanarayanamurti v. Lakshmayya (1928) 57 MLJ. 46 held that the deed Ex. C did not require registration. Substantially the only question in this-second appeal is whether Ex. C did or did not require to be r...
M. Ar. Rm. V.R. Viswanathan Chettiar Vs. Appa Naicken and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Mad672; (1943)2MLJ168
Horwill, J.1. The first respondent filed an application under Sections 4 and 68 of the Provincial Insolvency Act to set aside a sale held by the Official Receiver. That petition was dismissed and the matter was carried in appeal to the District Judge. In that Court both sides made endorsements on the appeal memo that the sale might be set aside on certain terms. The Judge thereupon set aside the sale on the conditions endorsed on the memo of appeal. The ground for revision to this Court is that the advocate for the petitioner had no authority to enter into this agreement.2. A preliminary objection has been taken that no revision lies; because under the Civil Procedure Code no appeal lies against a decree passed on a compromise; and by analogous reasoning a revision would not lie. The fallacy of that argument is that it is alleged by the petitioner that no legal compromise was in fact entered into. If not, he would be entitled to appeal if the alleged compromise had been in an ordinary ...
Kottapalli Narasamma Vs. Vadula Venkateswararao, Son of Ramakrishnamma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Mad667; (1943)2MLJ277
Krishnaswami Ayyangar, J.1. This is an appeal from an order of the Subordinate Judge of Ellore, confirming the decision of the District Munsiff of Kovur in E.P. No. 473 of 1937. That execution petition was filed for the purpose of recovering certain mesne profits decreed to the appellant in O.S. No. 5 of 1931 on the file of the Sub-Court of Ellore. The appellant obtained the decree now sought to be executed in the said suit which she had instituted for the purpose of setting aside a certain alienation made by her mother as her guardian. With regard to two items reliefs were granted to her. The decree contains the following directions:(1) It is ordered and decreed that the alienation under Ex. XVI of item 2 of the property in the A schedule hereto attached be and the same hereby is set aside and the plaintiff do recover from the defendants 1 to 10 the said item 2 of the A schedule property with the past profits at the rate of Rs. 60 a year, for the years 1926, 1927 and 1928 and subseque...
Adapa Venkatachalam and ors. Vs. Vemalepathi Venkateswara Rao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad33; (1943)2MLJ610
Kuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. Defendants 2 to 6, 8 and 9 in O.S. No. ,38 of 1933 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court of Masulipatam are the appellants in this second appeal, and the appeal arises out of a suit filed by the first respondent plaintiff for recovery of money due on a hypothecation deed for Rs. 2,000 executed by one the late Subbarayadu and his sons defendants I and 2 and the late Venkayya, the father of defendants 3 and 4. Defendants 5 and 6 are the undivided sons of the first defendant and 7 to 9 the undivided sons of the second defendant. Defendants ,10 and 11 are subsequent alienees and the 12th defendant is said to be the cousin of the plaintiff. The plaintiff's case was that the hypothecation deed was executed in favour of his grandfather and that in the partition in his family this outstanding fell to his share. A payment of Rs. 747-1-0 on 22nd January, 1921, endorsed on the document with the signature of the first defendant who was said to be in management of the ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mohanmal Chordia, Proprietor, Sha Agarc ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Mad648
Leach, C.J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, has at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras, made this reference. It concerns the assessment of four money-lending businesses. The Commissioner of Income-tax says that these businesses are really businesses of a joint Hindu family and the profits should be assessed on that basis. The tribunal has held that they are separate businesses and the profits should be assessed separately. The first and most important business is carried on in the name of Sha Agarchand Manmal and the three other businesses under the styles of M. Ratanchand, M. Parasmal and Bai Naini Kuar respectively. The question which has been referred reads as follows:Whether in the circumstances of the case the income of the business in the names of Ratanchand, Parasmal and Naini Kuer, sons and wife of the respondent is assessable as the income of a Hindu undivided family in the hands of the respondent2. In order to understand the position, i...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras Vs. Mohanmal ChordiA.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1943
Reported in: [1943]11ITR352(Mad)
JUDGMENT OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Under Section 33 of the Indian Income-tax Act (XI of 1922) the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Calcutta Bench, consisting of R. P. Varma (Judicial Member) and P. N. S. Ayyar (Accountant Member) delivered the following judgment on April 10, 1942. This appeal has been preferred by the Income-tax Officer, IV Circle, Madras, against the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner modifying the assessment made in this case. The appellant assessed the respondent as a Hindu undivided family and directed him to pay a tax of Rs. 54,990-9-0 on an income of Rs. 1,75,358. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner found the income to be Rs. 1,06,370 on the grounds which shall be considered in the other appeal against quantum of income preferred by the respondent of this appeal. The other appeal is R.A.A. No. 29 Madras of 1941-42. 2. The admitted facts of the case will be clear by the following pedigree which will show is sought to be assessed in his hands. The responde...
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Vedlapatla Veera Venkataramiah and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1943
Reported in: (1943)2MLJ6
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This reference has been made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, under Section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act at the request of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras. On the 15th August, 1938, the assessees filed a return of their income for the year 1938-39. On the 11th March 1939, the Income-tax Officer served a notice upon them under Sections 22(4) and 23(2) to produce the accounts of their money-lending business for the year 1937-38 and connected documents. The notice was to be complied with by the 20th of that month. The assessees produced for the inspection of the Income-tax Officer certain books of account but when he examined them he considered that the assessees possessed another set of books which they had suppressed. When the notice under Section 22(4) and 23(2) was served on the assessees Section 28 had not been amended. It was amended with effect from the 1st April, 1939. Sub-section 1(b) of Section 28 now provides that if ...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras Vs. Vedlapatla Veera Venkataramiah ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Mad579; [1943]11ITR308(Mad)
JUDGMENT JUDGMENT OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Under Secton 33 of the Indian Income-tax Act (XI of 1922) the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, consisting of R. P. Varma (Judicial Member) and P. N. S. Aiyar (Accountant Member,) delivered the following Judgment on January 20 1942. "This is an appeal against the confirmation by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Rajabhmudry, of the penalty imposed by the Income-tax Officer on the appellant under Section 28(1)(b), in respect of the assessment year 1938-39 and directed him to pay a sum of Rs. 1,200 as penalty under Section 28(1)(b) of the Amended Act. 2. The appellant contends that the penalty is not leviable as the amended Act is not applicable in respect of the assessment made on the appellant for the year 1938-39. The penalty was imposed in the following circumstances:- The Income-tax Officer considered that the appellant did not produce all the account books relating to his business in response to the notice h...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »