Chennai Court August 1943 Judgments
Kondepu Raghavayya Vs. Elukooru Vasudevayya Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad47; (1943)2MLJ375
King, J.1. The appellant is a merchant living in Bezwada. In September, 1935, he entered into two contracts with the respondent, a merchant of Nandyal: In April, 1936, appellant, alleging that the contracts had been broken by the respondent, filed a suit for damages against him in the Court of the District Munsiff of Bezwada. In his written statement respondent pleaded, amongst other contentions, that one of the terms of the contracts themselves was that all suits arising out of them should be filed only in Nandyal, and therefore the Bezwada Court had no jurisdiction. In reply to this contention a further sub-paragraph was inserted in the plaint in March, 1937, in which it was stated that the term relied upon by the respondent offended against Section 23 of the Contract Act. The District Munsiff of Bezwada held that he had no jurisdiction to try the suit and returned the plaint. On appeal, the Subordinate Judge of Bezwada confirmed this decision.2. Appellant thereupon presented the pla...
Tag this Judgment!Al. Vr. V.P. Pethaperumal Chettiar Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad76; (1943)2MLJ439
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. Two questions have been referred to this Court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, at the request of the assessee. Mr. Srinivasa Ayyangar, on behalf of the assessee, has informed the Court that his client does not wish to proceed with the reference so far as it concerns the first matter. This means that the decision of the Tribunal on the question of whether the interest received by the assessee in respect of the preference shares held by him in the Steel Corporation of Bengal is taxable income will stand.2. The second question reads as follows:Whether the interest on rent payable to the appellant as landholder under the Madras Estates Land Act can be said to be agricultural income within the meaning of section a (1)(a) of the Act and so exempt from assessment under Section 4(3)(viii) of the Income-tax Act.3. The assessee is a landholder within the meaning of the Madras Estates Land Act. Section 61 of the Act states that an arrear of ...
Tag this Judgment!Maturi Lakshmikantamma Vs. Motilal Kesarimal Firm and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad49; (1943)2MLJ492
Horwill, J.1. The petitioner's husband made a number of alienations just before he was adjudicated insolvent; and with regard to some of them, the Official Receiver instituted proceedings under Sections 4, 5, 53 and 54-A of the Provincial Insolvency Act to have them set aside. With regard to the one with which we are concerned, however, he took no action. One of the creditors then applied to the Insolvency Court under Section 54-A of the Insolvency Act for permission to institute proceedings under Sections 4, 53, and 54; and the Court accorded that sanction. The application was heard; and the Court found that it was a genuine transaction fully supported by consideration and not made in fraud of creditors. An appeal filed by the aggrieved creditor was allowed. During the pendency of the appeal, however, the Insolvency Court annulled the adjudication, though it does not appear that the appellate Court was aware of this. The question is whether on account of the annulling of the adjudicat...
Tag this Judgment!Al. Vr. Vs. P. Pethaperumal Chettiar V. Commissioner of Income-tax, Ma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1943
Reported in: [1943]11ITR532(Mad)
(The Judgment of the Court was delivered by the Honourable the Chief Justice.)Two question have been referred to this Court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, at the request of the assessee. Mr. Srinivasa Ayyangar, on behalf of the assessee, has informed the court that his client does not wish to proved with the reference so far as it concerns the first matter. This means that the decision of the Tribunal on the question of whether the interest received by the assessee in respect of the preference shares held by him in the steel Corporation of Bengal is taxable income will stand.The second question regards as follows :-'Whether the interest on rent payable to other appellants as landholder under the Madras Estates Land Act can be said to be agricultural income within the meaning of section 2(1)(a) of the Act and so exempt from assessment under section 4(3)(viii) of the Income-tax Act.'The assessee is a landholder within the meaning of the Madras Estates Land Act. Sec...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Rangaswami Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad45
ORDERKuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. All the three petitioners seek to have the order of the Joint Magistrate of Pollachi confirming the order of the Stationary Sub-Magistrate of Polladam, convicting them of an offence punishable under Section 183, Penal Code, and sentencing them to pay a fine of Rs. 20 each set aside. Ragi in their possession during their absence was seized by the head-constable, P.W. 1, who had come there to investigate a case of theft, and kept loaded in a bandy for the purpose of being taken. The three accused and others hearing about it, came from the north, stood before the bandy and raising their hands said that the bandy should not be driven and they objected to the article being taken. The charge was originally laid under Section 353, Penal Code; but as the evidence of the constable indicated that no force was used and that nothing was done by these accused except stating orally that the article should not be taken and that they stood before the cart with raised hands,...
Tag this Judgment!The Municipal Council, Represented by Its Commissioner Vs. E. Muhammad ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad85; (1943)2MLJ496
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. Within the Municipal limits of the town of Tiruvarur, there are three markets which are privately owned. The proprietor of a private market is required to take out each year a licence for which a fee is chargeable. The question which arises in these appeals is whether the Municipal Council of Tiruvarur has fixed the licence fee at a rate higher than the law allows. Of the three markets one is a general market, which is held once a week. The other two markets are held daily, one for the sale of fish and the other for the sale of vegetables. Up to the 1st April, 1934, the annual licence fee charged in respect of the general market was Rs. 50; for the fish market the fee was Rs. 100 and for the Vegetable market Rs. 25. For the year 1934-35, that is from the 1st April, 1934, to 31st March, 1935, the Council increased the fees to Rs. 452-4-0, Rs. 550 and Rs. 187-8-0 respectively. These fees were based on the provisions of Section 262-A of the Madras Distric...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Shekur
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad42; (1943)2MLJ389
Mockett, J.1. In view of the course which we propose to adopt it is desirable that as little as possible should be said about this case at this stage.2. The appellant was convicted and sentenced to death by the learned Sessions Judge of South Arcot for the murder of one Bapulal. Bapulal and the appellant were both cooks in the R.A.F. camp at Ulundurpet according to P.W. 1. On the evening of the 4th January between 5 and 6, Bapulal, the deceased man, performed his duties and served the evening meal and at 5 o'clock handed over the keys of the cookhouse to P.W. 2. Later that evening the appellant came to Sergeant Rowell who has gone to England and who was talking to P.W. I, and some comrades. According to P.W. 1 the appellant made a statement to Rowell, which he himself could not understand. Acting on Rowell's instructions P.W. 1 and another man Holmes by name went to search for Bapulal. They had at least gathered that some ill had befallen him. He was found eventually with his hands and...
Tag this Judgment!Khan Bahadur C.K. Mamad Keyi Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1943
Reported in: (1943)2MLJ364
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The assessee who is a resident of Tellicherry owns immovable property of considerable value in the City of Bombay. In respect of the financial year 1940-41 he contended that he was entitled to deduct, when calculating his income assessable under Section 9 of the Income-tax Act, the sum of Rs. 10,880 which he had been compelled to pay by the Government of Bombay as Urban Immovable Property Tax on his properties within the City of Bombay. The Income-tax authorities rejected his contention and the Appellate Tribunal, Calcutta Bench held that they were right. Thereupon the assessee asked the Tribunal to state a case to this Court under Section 66(1). The Tribunal acceded to this request and the question referred is in these words:Whether the sum of Rs. 10,880 (or any portion of it) being Urban Immovable Property Tax ,paid under the Bombay Finance Act is not an admissible deduction under Section 9(1)(iv) or 9(1)(v) in computing the income from property unde...
Tag this Judgment!Revenue Divisional Officer Vs. S. Varadachari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad271
Horwill, J.1. This is an appeal by the Government against the order of the Sub. ordinate Judge of Trichinopoly on a reference under Section 18, Land Acquisition Act, increasing the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer from Rs. 8-4-0 per cent. to Rs. 10 on an area of 2.75 acres in the Srirangam Municipality in Town Survey No. 2394. The Land Acquisition Officer based his award upon the sale price of two plots of land situate about a furlong from the land acquired. As he was of opinion that the land sold under those sale deeds was of the same quality as that acquired, he thought that the rate at which the land was sold in those two cases afforded a proper basis for the awarding of compensation in this case. The learned Subordinate Judge, purporting to follow Land Acquisition Officer, Calicut v. Subbarao A.I.R. 1941 Mad. 684 was of opinion that it was not proper to estimate the market value of the land by such a method and that the Land Acquisition Officer should have capit...
Tag this Judgment!C K Mamad Keyi Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad10; [1943]11ITR484(Mad)
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by the Honble the Chief Justice).The assessee who is a resident of Tellichery owns immovable property of considerable value in the City of Bombay. In respect of the financial year 1940-41 he contended that he was entitled to deduct, when calculating his income assessable under Section 9 of the Income-tax Act, the sum of Rs. 10,880 which he had been compelled to pay by the Government of Bombay as urban immovable property tax on his properties within the City of Bombay. The Income-tax authorities rejected his contention and the Appellate Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, held that they were right. Thereupon the assessee asked the Tribunal to state a case to this Court under Section 66(1). The Tribunal acceded to this request and the question referred is in these words :-'Whether the sum of Rs. 10,880 (or any portion if it) being Urban Immovable Property Tax paid under the Bombay Finance Act is not an admissible deduction under Section 9(1)(iv) or 9(1)(v) in c...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »