Chennai Court July 1943 Judgments
Mask and Co. Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Mad670; (1943)2MLJ274
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The assessee in this case is a firm carrying on business in crackers. The assessee entered into a contract with other traders in the same line of business, under which the firm's goods were to be sold at specified rates. In breach of this contract, the assessee sold crackers at lower rates, to the detriment of the other parties to the contract. Consequently, the other parties filed a suit in this Court to recover the damages which they had sustained by reason of the breach of contract on the part of the assessee. The Court found that the assessee was liable in damages and assessed the sum at Rs. 5,000. With costs, the total amount payable by the assessee came to Rs. 6,203. The assessee claimed to be entitled to deduct this as a business expenditure under Section 10(2)(xii) of the Indian Income-tax Act. This contention was rejected by the Income-tax Officer, but the Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed it. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal agreed wi...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ct. Rm. N. Narayanan Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Mad682; (1943)2MLJ316
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This is a reference by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, under Section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act, and has been made at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras. The assessee's father, who died in 1921, was a partner in a money-lending firm carried on in the Federated Malay States. Notwithstanding the death of the assessee's father, the business of the firm was carried on until 1928 when a Panchayat met to decide what was payable to the assessee and his brother on account of their father's share, and the amount was fixed at $155,900. The assessee and his brother were minors, and so was Meyyappa. Ten years later, another Panchayat was formed for the purpose of deciding what interest should be paid on the $155,900 and the panchayatdars fixed the amount at $27,000. A sum of $182,900 representing principal and interest was paid to the assessee and his brother by way of a hundi on the 2nd April, 1938, the hundi being cashed o...
Tag this Judgment!A. Venkatarama Ayyar and anr. Vs. A.R. Srinivasa Sastrigal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad31; (1943)2MLJ352
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. This appeal arises out of an application made in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Kumbakonam under the rules made under the Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act for a declaration that a sum of Rs. 3,914-11-0 only is due from the applicant, respondent herein, under a mortgage executed by him in favour of the appellant's father for Rs. 10,000 in 1931. The Court below scaled down the debt to a sum of Rs. 5,814-11-2, and the creditors have brought this appeal.2. Mr. Seshagiri Sastri, earned Counsel for the respondent, has raised a preliminary objection that an appeal from the order of the lower Court lay under Section 13 of the Madras Civil Courts Act to the District Court in the first instance, and that the appeal preferred directly to this Court is not maintainable. Section 13, so far as it is material here, runs as follows:Appeals from the decrees and orders of Subordinate Judges and District Munsiffs shall, when such appeals are allowed by law he to the Distric...
Tag this Judgment!The Municipal Council, by Its Commissioner Vs. Syed Ghulam Muhammad Sa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad14; (1943)2MLJ402
Happell, J.1. The respondent who was the plaintiff in the suit out of which this appeal arises owns premises within the limits of the Trichinopoly Municipality known as the '' Summer House '' which consist of a number of tenements. The water-supply for these tenements was provided by a single pipe which was connected with the main pipe line. Under Section 306(3)(d) of the District Municipalities Act, a Municipal Council has power to make bye-laws 'for the conditions on which house connexions with the Council's water-supply mains may be made; for their alteration and repair and for their being kept in proper order.' The Council made a bye-law in 1933 under Section 306(3)(d) which came into force in January, 1934. It provided that 'every house to which water is laid on shall be provided with only one service pipe connection and controlled by a stop-cock and ferrule,' and thatNo house shall be supplied with water from existing or prospective service connection of any adjoining house or pr...
Tag this Judgment!The Public Prosecutor Vs. Kandikatla Nagabhushanam Alias Bhushanam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Mad661; (1943)2MLJ283
Kuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. This is an appeal by the Crown against the order of acquittal of the accused in C.C. No. 39 of 1942 on the file of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate's Court of Amalapuram who was charged with having committed an offence punishable under Section 19(f) of the Indian Arms Act. The case against him was that he was in possession of a revolver M. O, 1 without a license. The evidence against him consisted mainly of a confessional statement made by him when he was arrested in connection with another case, when he is said to have stated that this revolver was presented to him by a communist named Pattabhiramayya and that he had hidden it underneath the ground in his father-in-law's house. The revolver was recovered on this information given by him. He took the police inspector to his father-in-law's house and dug out this revolver from underneath the ground in one of the rooms of his father-in-law's house. The Magistrate acquitted the accused as he was of opinion--the confess...
Tag this Judgment!The Public Prosecutor Vs. Garla Radhakrishnayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Mad710; (1943)2MLJ293
Kuppuswami Aiyar, J.1. This is an appeal by the Crown against the acquittal of the accused in C.C. No. 364 of 1942 on the file of the Stationary Sub-Magistrate of Madanapalle. The accused was charged for an offence punishable Under Section 380, Indian Penal Code, the prosecution case being that he committed theft of two silver plates worth Rs. 65 belonging to one Venkatanarayana Chetti by taking them out of his possession from his dwelling house. A number of witnesses were examined and the defence also examined some witnesses. The main evidence relied on by the prosecution was a confessional statement made by the accused which led to the discovery of one of the alleged stolen articles. In paragraph 12 of his judgment the Magistrate stated that it was not put in evidence as it was not admissible. The document that was sought to be tendered in evidence was a confession recorded by the police and attested by the persons who were present there then. The Magistrate observed that such a reco...
Tag this Judgment!Bhavadasan Bhattathiripad and Anr. Vs. Avinhikkat Manakkal Neelakandha ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad19; (1943)2MLJ396
Horwill, J.1. The question is whether the petitioners in their suit for partition and possession of their shares have to ask for the cancellation of decrees passed against the karnavan as such.2. This class of case is not covered by the Full Bench decision in Ramaswami v. Rangachari : AIR1940Mad118 which is now the leading authority on questions of court-fee payable in partition suits. The learned Judges there held that if the plaintiff is eo nomine a party to the decree, then the decree is binding on him unless that decree is cancelled, even though the plaintiff may have been a minor at the time represented by the manager or some other member of the family. If the decree is not against the plaintiff, then nothing more than a declaration is necessary. The distinction between the two classes of cases is, if I may respectfully say so, very clearly put by Venkata-ramana Rao, J., in Vallabhacharyulu v. Rangacharyulu : AIR1937Mad449 . He says:There is a distinction between an obligation imp...
Tag this Judgment!Bondalapati Kanyakaparameswaramma Vs. Kolli Butchi Kotayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Mad686; (1943)2MLJ276
Wadsworth, J.1. This appeal raises the question of the interpretation of Section 4(h) of Madras Act IV of 1938. The appellant was the plaintiff in a suit on a promissory note, Ex. P-1, dated the 24th November, 1937. The promissory note was executed for a sum of Rs. 3,258-14-8 by the first defendant and relief was claimed on the basis that his son the second defendant was bound by the debt. This promissory note discharged an earlier promissory note Ex. P-2, dated 1st December, 1934, for Rs. 2,534-14-5 and there was a still earlier promissory note Ex. P-3 dated the 27th December, 1931, for Rs. 1,983-1-5 which so far as we are concerned is the starting point of the liability. The plaintiff claims that the debt due to her is protected from the operation of Madras Act IV of 1938 by reason of the provisions of Section 4(h) which runs as follows:Nothing in this Act shall affect debts and liabilities of an agriculturist falling under the following heads:... (h) any debt or debts due to a woman...
Tag this Judgment!N.M.S.S. Subramanian Chettiar Vs. S.M.A.M. Arunachalam Chettiar and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Mad761; (1943)2MLJ424
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This appeal has been placed for hearing before a Ful Bench, as it involves the consideration of certain observations contained in the judgment of this Court in Venkatadri Somappa v. Official Receiver of Bellary : AIR1938Mad801 to which exception has been taken. The appellant filed a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Devakotta to recover the sum of Rs. 14,186-15-9 which he claimed to be due to him under a deed dated 15th August, 1937. This deed admittedly purported to release the plaintiff's interests in immovable properties situate in Burma, where there is a Registration Act similar to the Indian Registration Act. The deed was not registered and consequently the defendants objected to its being admitted in evidence Their objection was upheld by the Subordinate Judge, who consequently dismissed the suit. The appeal is from this decision. The appellant says that his suit was a suit for specific performance of an agreement for the payment of t...
Tag this Judgment!Thota Surayya Vs. Inspector Municipal Councils and Local Board and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad148
ORDERHorwill, J.1. The Inspector of Local Boards. surcharged the President, who is the appellant, and the other members of the Panchayat Board, who are the respondents 2 to 12, in a sum of Rs. 665-11-9 which was paid by way of interest to the son of the appellant on a sum of money borrowed by the appellant as President of the Board for the purpose of carrying out a work that had been sanctioned by the Government. Of the eleven members of the Board, five, including the appellant, filed O. P. No. 13 of 1939 under Rule 6 of the rules framed under the Madras Local Boards Act to have the surcharge on them set aside. Their application was dismissed by the District Judge. They carried the matter in appeal to this Court and their appeal, numbered as C. M. A. No. 660 of 1941, was dismissed. Subsequently, the remaining six members filed the petition with which we are here concerned, which was numbered as O. P. No. 18 of 1939 on the file of the District Judge of West Godavari. They impleaded not ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »