Chennai Court October 1944 Judgments
Rikka Yellayya Vs. Rikka Pydamma and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad187; (1945)1MLJ42
1. The plaintiff's husband and the second defendant's (appellant's) father were brothers. The plaintiff's husband died in 1925; and her case is that her husband became divided from the second defendant's father in 1910 and that they had been in separate enjoyment of their respective shares of the property. In 1937, the plaintiff got herself recognised by the Vizianagaram Samasthanam as a joint pattadar with the appellant on the recommendation of a Revenue Inspector. Later on, when she applied for a separate patta, the Samasthanam sent a surveyor to demarcate the land and measure it, so that it could ascertain what portion of the rent was due from her. While attempting to do so, the servants of the Samasthanam were obstructed by the appellant; and so the Samasthanam expressed itself unable to grant a separate patta as requested. Hence the suit under Section 55 of the Madras Estates Land Act for a separate patta.2. The first Court held that the plaintiff's husband had not become divided ...
Tag this Judgment!The Crown Prosecutor Vs. M.Sp.S.V.M. Meyappa Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad120; (1945)1MLJ6
1. This is an appeal by the Provincial Government against the order of the Third Presidency Magistrate acquitting the accused in C. C No. 2354 of 1943. The offence of which the accused was charged was under Rule 117(2) of the Defence of India Rules.2. It was said that in filling up form K of the form used under the Motor Spirit Rationing Order in respect of applications for supplementary coupons, the accused under column 7 stated in effect that he had only one car> namely MSC I737,whereas in fact he had another car in Ramnad MDR 1341. Column 7 of Form K runs :If the application refers to a private car or motor cycle give registered number and horse power of all motor cars and motor cycles in applicant's possession or in possession of the applicant's firm which are available for his use or in the possession of any member of family residing with the applicant.Rule 117(1) of the Defence of India Rules states:If any person when required by or under any of these rules to make any statement ...
Tag this Judgment!A.V. Sundaramurthy Chettiar Vs. S. Muthiah Mudaliar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad190; (1945)1MLJ56
Wadsworth, J.1. This is an application by the sixth respondent in A.S. No. 160 of 1942 praying for the cancellation of the vakalat given to the advocates representing him in that appeal. From the statement of accounts between the client and the advocates which has been placed before us and is apparently admitted on both sides to be correct, it appears that the advocates were engaged to conduct the case of the petitioner on a fee of Rs. 900. The petitioner has paid in all Rs. 718, of which Rs. 450 has been credited to the fee, and all the rest, except a balance of Rs. 21-9-6, has gone in discharge of necessary expenses. One week after the appeal was posted in the rough list, the petitioner, who had been promising a, remittance for the purchase of printed papers, and the balance of fees, announced that he wished to change his advocate. The advocates concerned had not received the balance of their fee nor the amount necessary for the purchase of the printed papers, the total cost of which...
Tag this Judgment!Periambal Chettiar Vs. Sundarammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad198; (1945)1MLJ58
King, J.1. This appeal arises from a suit brought by the widow of one Pachayappa Chettiar against the first defendant who succeeds to the property of Pachayappa Chettiar by virtue of a will executed by him on the 6th January, 1942. First defendant is the maternal uncle of the testator. In his will the testator specifically states that his wife the plaintiff has no claim to suceed to his property. The plaintiff and her husband had not lived together from 1929 until the date of the husband's death. In 1930 there was a magisterial order under the Code of Criminal Procedure against the husband for the payment of maintenance to the plaintiff, but the effect of this order was nullified by subsequent civil litigation undertaken by the testator in a suit in 1931 for the restitution of conjugal rights. In that suit he obtained a decree which was confirmed on appeal in 1933. After 1933 no serious attempts appear to have been made to persuade the plaintiff to live with the : husband and no procee...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Gangabishan Mohanlal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1944
Reported in: (1945)1MLJ61
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. The assessee is the manager of a joint Hindu family having its residence at Secunderabad outside Britjsh India. He was assessed on behalf of the family for the assessment years 1939-1940 and 1940-1941 in respect of the family income accruing not only in British India but also abroad, the assessee being treated as a resident under the provisions of Section 42A (b) of the Income-tax Act. The assessee appealed to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal which did not agree with the view that the family of the assessee was resident within the meaning of the section referred to above and directed that he should be assessed as a non-resident. The Commissioner of Income-tax, having asked for a reference to this Court on this question, the Appellate Tribunal has stated the case and referred the following question for the opinion of this Court:Whether on the facts found by the Tribunal the assessee can be said to be a resident in British India within the meaning of Section 4-A (...
Tag this Judgment!Ar.Kr.V. Velayudhan Chettiar Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad195; (1945)1MLJ149
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This is a reference by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Calcutta Bench, under Section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act. The Tribunal has not accurately set out the facts, but these are not in dispute and they may be stated very shortly.2. The assessee is joint with his three sons. In 1922, he started at Negamba in Ceylon a business in partnership with a stranger to the family. On the 7th May, 1924, he embarked on a cloth business in Colombo. Here he had no partner. In the month of July, 1924, his father gave him a sum of Rs. 25,000 and in the month of June of the following year a sum of Rs. 8, 221. The assessee was one of three brothers and each received the same amount. In the statement of the case it is said that the gift to the assessee in June, 1925, was a sum of Rs. 24,665. This was the amount which was divided by the father between his three sons. Another mistake in the statement of the facts made in the order of reference is that the assessee co...
Tag this Judgment!G.S. Ramaswamier and Sons Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad131; (1945)1MLJ175
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The assessee in this case is the firm of G.S. Ramaswamier and Sons. The partners are four brothers. Until 1929 they constituted a joint Hindu family, but in that year a separation took place. It is not necessary to set out the course of events between 1929 and 1936 because this case turns on what happened after the 13th January, 1936, when the brothers formed the firm of G.S. Ramaswamier and Sons. The business of this firm was the manufacture of dhuppattas at Madura and dhavanis at Paramakudi. The goods manufactured were sold by branches of the firm at Bombay, Nagpur and Poona. On the 13th April, 1940, two new firms were started, one under the style of G.R. Narasimha Ayyar and Co., and the other under the style of G.R. Ramachari and Co. Two of the brothers were the partners in G.R. Narasimha Ayyar and Co., and the other two were the partners in G.R. Ramachari and Co. The new firms commenced the manufacture of the same goods which were sold during the y...
Tag this Judgment!A.T. Ponnappa Chettiar and ors. Vs. Bodappa Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad146
ORDERBell, J.1. Te petitioners were defendants 1, 2 and 4 in a suit brought against them and the other members of their family by one Bodappa Chettiar for the price of goods sold and delivered to the defendants by an unregistered firm of which the plaintiff and one Jayarama Chetti were or had been partners. The goods were sold and delivered between 16th September 1939 and 29th April 1943. The defendants appeared and took the objection, among others, that the suit, being one to recover a debt due to the partnership was not maintainable Under Section 69, Partnership Act. Bodappa Chettiar promptly applied to the District Munsif for leave to amend his plaint by stating that the said partnership had in fact been dissolved on 7th July 1941 and that, under the terms of the dissolution he had become entitled to sue for out standings due to the partnership. This amendment was allowed. The objection was again raised at the trial and was overruled by the District Munsif on the ground that as the ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras Vs. Gangabishan Mohanlal.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1944
Reported in: [1945]13ITR20(Mad)
(Judgment of the High Court was delivered by Patanjali Sastri, J.)The assessee is the manager of a joint Hindu family having its residence at Secunderabad outside British India. He was assessee on behalf of the family for the assessment years 1939-40 and 1940-41 in respect of the family income accruing not only in British India but also abroad, the family being treated as resident in British India under the provisions of Section 4-A (b) of the Income-tax Act. The assessee appealed to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal which did not agree with the view that the family of the assessee was resident in British India within the meaning of the section referred to above and directed that he should be assessed as a reference non-resident. The Commissioner of Income-tax, having asked for a reference to this Court on this question, the Appellate Tribunal has stated the case and referred the following question for the opinion of this Court :-'Whether on the facts found by the Tribunal the assessee...
Tag this Judgment!G. S. Ramaswamier and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1944
Reported in: [1945]13ITR24(Mad)
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by the Honourable the Chief Justice)The assessee in this case is the firm of G. S. Ramaswamier and Sons. The partners are four brothers. Until 1929 they constituted a joint Hindu family, but in that year a separation took place. It is not necessary to set out the course of events between 1929 and 1936 because this case turns on what happened after the 13th January 1936 when the brothers formed the firm of G. S. Ramaswamier and Sons. The business of this firm was the manufacture of dhupattas at Madura and dhavanies at Paramakudi. The goods manufactured were sold by branches of the firm at Bombay, Nagpur and Poona. On the 13th April 1940 two new firms were started, one under the style of G. R. Narasimha Ayyar and Company and other under the style of G. R. Ramachari and Company. Two of the brothers were the partners in G. R. Narasimha Ayyar and company and the other two were the partners in G. R. Ramachari and Company. The new firms commenced the manuf...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »