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.
P.V. Sinnachami Chettiar Vs. Paramasivam Chettiar (Deceased) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Mad671; (1943)2MLJ166
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. The facts giving rise to these appeals may be briefly stated. The plaintiff who is the appellant here brought a suit, O.S. No. 70 of 1934, on the file of the District Munsiff's Court of Periyakulam, on a promissory note executed by the defendant's father and obtained a decree for Rs. 3,000 with interest and costs on the 28th February, 1935. The defendants appealed in A.S. No. 35 of 1935 to the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Dindigul, and that Court set aside the decree and remanded the case for fresh disposal. This was on the 11th March, 1936., In the meantime, the plaintiff realised in execution of the decree of the trial Court Rs. 1,750 on various dates. An appeal was preferred to this Court from the order of remand as a result of which the order was set aside and this Court restored the decree of the trial Court subject however to the reservation that the application of the defendants for relief under the Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act should be enquired...
A. Mallari Rao Vs. Sivagnana Vandayar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad11; (1943)2MLJ391
Shahabuddin, J.1. This is a civil miscellaneous appeal against the order of the learned District Judge of West Tanjore dismissing a petition filed by the appellant for directing the delivery of possession of certain properties after removal of obstruction. The appellant purchased these properties at a Court sale held on 10th September, 1935, in execution of a decree dated 27th February, 1926. That decree directed the payment of certain amounts by way of restitution and created a charge in that respect on the properties in question. The Official Receiver of West Tanjore representing the estate of the decree-holder brought these properties to sale. The appellant who purchased them is a stranger Court auction-purchaser. In the meantime the judgment-debtor sold these very properties on 12th March, 1928, to one Subramania Chettiar and from him the respondent purchased them on 23rd April, 1931. When the appellant auction-purchaser went to take delivery of the properties, the respondent resis...
The Bezwada Municipal Council, Represented by Mr. C. Narasimham, the C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Mad555; (1943)1MLJ415
Horwill, J.1. The respondent entered into an arrangement with the Municipality of Bezwada for the supply of water to his house. In accordance with the provisions of Section 147 of the old District Municipalities Act (IV of 1884), the meter was supplied by the respondent; and the question that arises in this appeal is whether he is liable to the Municipality for the repairs of the meter. The Courts below held that he was not.2. Various points were raised on behalf of the Municipality by Mr. Bhimasankaram for the appellant, but I think the only point worth discussion is whether under the terms of Section 147 the respondent is legally liable for repairs carried out by the Municipality. Section 147 (4) says,The works necessary for such supplies and all future repairs shall, in every case be carried out by the Chairman, or under his orders, and the expense thereof shall be defrayed by such owner or occupier.So the question is whether a meter is a work necessary for ' such supplies.' The res...
The Official Trustee of Madras Representing the Estate of Varada Venka ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Mad518; (1943)1MLJ408
Somayya, J. 1. The point which arises for decision in this case is whether Section 101, Clause (a) of the Madras City Municipal Act applies to this case. The appellant claimed exemption from taxation under Section 101(a) in respect of a building which is admittedly set apart for public worship, being a bhajana mandiram, that is a place where a number of people gather and sing devotional songs in chorus. Occasionally this building was given to other persons for performing marriages and a small sum was collected from the marriage parties and the sum so collected was utilised for meeting the expenses of the bhajana mandiram. The lower Court held that Section 101 (a) did not apply on the ground that though the building was a place set apart for public purpose it could not be said that it was either actually so used or used for no other purpose. The present appeal is filed by the Official Trustee of Madras who is in charge of the bhajana mandiram and the argument is advanced that the exempt...
Poomalai Padayachi Vs. Annamalai Padayachi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad124; (1943)2MLJ515
Somayya, J.1. The plaintiff filed the suit out of which this second appeal arises for recovery of possession of certain properties on foot of a sale deed executed by the first defendant acting for himself and as guardian of his son the second defendant who was on the date of the sale a minor. The purpose of the sale was to discharge the debt which was admittedly due to one Subbaraya Pillai. Subbaraya filed a suit and obtained a decree, but for some reason the decree is no longer alive. It is said that the decree was allowed to become barred. The plaintiff alleges that he was in possession for some time and that he lost possession later on. Then he filed this suit for recovery of possession impleading both the father and son. Both the lower Courts have held that there was an intention to transfer the property and that the sale deed is a real transaction. They also repelled the plea of the defendant that there was a condition precedent to the sale deed coming into effect, namely, that it...
Kissan Singh and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Mad514; (1943)1MLJ416
ORDERHorwill, J.1. This petition relates to a pamphlet written by the first accused and signed by the second and third accused. The fourth accused in the lower Court was the printer. All the accused were convicted. The fourth accused, who was sentenced only to pay a fine did not appeal to the Sessions Judge. The other three accused appealed, but their appeal was dismissed. They are the petitioners in this Court.2. The charge against the petitioners was that of making a prejudicial pamphlet punishable under Rule 38 (5) of the Defence of India Rules read with Rule 34 (6) (e). The pamphlet purports to be addressed to the workers of Coimbatore. It begins by referring to the repressive measures taken by the Government all over the country, to lathi charges, and to an incident in Coimbatore where fire was opened on some mill workers resulting in the death of some of them. The pamphlet urged a non-official enquiry, and increase in wages, and other concessions, including payment of compensatio...
The Madras and Southern Mahratta Railway Company Limited Vs. the Commi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Mad702; (1943)2MLJ148
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This reference raises in a different setting the same question which was decided by this Court in the Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras v. M. & S.M. Railway Co., Ltd. (1940) 3 M.L.J. 110 : I.L.R. (1940) Mad. 889 Since that case was decided, certain alterations have been made in the contract between the Secretary of State and the company and it is said that the alterations have the effect of relieving the company from the liability to pay income-tax in India on the sum of Rs. 23,33,333. Admittedly the contract was amended with this object in view. If by the amending contract the company can escape this liability it is entitled to make the amendment and the Court has only to decide whether this object has been achieved. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, has held that the object has not been achieved, but at the request of the company it has referred for the decision of this Court the following question:Whether the sum of Rs. 23,33,333 g...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras Vs. the Madras and Southern Mahratt ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1943
Reported in: [1943]11ITR380(Mad)
[Judgment of the Court was delivered by the Honble the Chief Justice].This reference raises in a different setting the same question which was decided by this court in Commissioner of Income tax Madras v. Madras and Southern Mahratta Railway Company Limited, Madras. Since that case was decided, certain alterations have been made in the contract between the Secretary of State and the company and it is said that the alterations have the effect of relieving the company from the liability to pay income tax in India on the sum of Rs. 23,33,333. Admittedly the contract was amended with this object in view. If by the amending contract the company can escape this liability it is entitled to make the amendment and the court has only to decide whether this object has been achieved. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, has held that the object has not been achieved, but at the request of the company it has referred for the decision of this court the following question :-'Whether the...
Kondapalli Sudarsana Rao Vs. Putta Dalayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Mad487; (1943)1MLJ339
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. The facts giving rise to this second appeal are simple and not in dispute. One Appanna Dora died in 1906 having executed a will whereby he gave his widow power to adopt. The widow adopted the appellant in 1913 when he was still a minor. The natural father of the appellant acting as his guardian executed a deed of maintenance in favour of Ammanna , the mother of Appanna, on 13th April, 1914, agreeing to pay her maintenance at the rate of seven garces of paddy every year with interest at the rate of two addas per putti per month in case of default of payment on the due date. Ammanna assigned to the respondent herein the arrears of maintenance due for the four years from Promoduta to Sreemukha (both inclusive) under two assignment deeds dated 21st January, 1933, and 24th September, 1934, respectively, whereupon the respondent brought the suit for recovery of the arrears with interest, impleading the appellant who had attained majority as the first defendant and his ...
P. Kanakamma and anr. Vs. B. Krishnamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Mad445; (1943)1MLJ335
1. The first respondent as the heir to the estate of her deceased father sued on the original side of this Court to recover possession of two houses, one being known as No. 9, Subbarayalu Naidu Lane, and the other as No. 17, Narayana Mudali Street, G. T., Madras. The appeal is concerned only with the first mentioned property. The respondent's case is entirely devoid of merit, but the learned Judge found that in law she was entitled to possession of No. 9, Subbarayahl Naidu Lane, and accordingly passed a decree giving her possession. The learned Judge indicated, however, that no one would be more pleased than he, if, in the event of an appeal being filed, the Judges who heard it should find themselves able to arrive at a different conclusion. We appreciate the learned Judge's feelings in the matter and we regret as much as he that we feel bound to concur in the decree which he has passed.2. The appeal has been placed before a Full Bench as it involves the consideration of the question w...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »