Chennai Court October 1944 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.
Ar. Kr. Vs. Velayudham Chettiar V. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1944
Reported in: [1945]13ITR30(Mad)
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by the Honourable the Chief Justice).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.The assessee is joint with his three sons. In 1922 he started at Negombo 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 the 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...
In Re: Chellakani Sahib and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad105
ORDERHappell, J.1. The petitioner has been convicted of an offence Under Section 9, Madras Gaming Act and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 10 and to seven days' simple imprisonment in default of payment. In my opinion, the conviction cannot be sustained. It may be conceded that the petitioner was found with others playing cards for money in a room belonging to a dancing girl. For an offence Under Section 9 to be completed, however, the accused person must have been found gaming or present for the purpose of gaming in a common gaining house and for a room to be a common gaming house within the meaning of Section 3, Madras Gaming Act, the cards, dice, or other instruments of gaming must be kept or used for the profit or gain of the person owning or occupying the room. Section 6 provides that if a warrant has been issued Under Section 5, the cards, dice or other instruments of gaming found at the place shall be evidence that such place is used as a common gaming house. In the present case the B...
In Re: Cherukuri Rami Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad208; (1945)1MLJ202
ORDERHappell, J.1. The petitioner was the first of three accused in C.C. No. 965 of 1943 on the file of the Stationary Sub-Magistrate of Kovur. All the accused were charged with offences under Sections 457 and 380 or Section 411 of the Penal Code. The 2nd and 3rd accused were acquitted. The first accused was convicted by the Stationary Sub-Magistrate of an offence under Section 411 only and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. On appeal the conviction and sentence were confirmed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Kavali.2. The prosecution case was that P.W. 1--a well-to-do ryot of Kovur on the morning of the 25th June, 1942, found that seven bulls which he had tied up in a shed the previous night were missing. News reached him on the 26th that the bulls had been seen in the possession of the accused and on the 27th of June, the bulls and the accused were detained at the village some thirty or forty miles from Kovur. The 2nd and 3rd accused are the servants of the f...
Pitchika Somanna and ors. Vs. Putchala Chinnayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad107
ORDERByers, J.1. These petitions arise out of the dismissal of two applications brought Under Order 9, Rule 9, Civil P.C., for the restoration to the file of the lower Court of two petitions Under Section 73, Madras Village Courts Act. The facts in so far as they are necessary are that on an adjourned hearing date the petitioners' vakil was absent and an adjournment of some 15 minutes or so to enable him to be present was refused. The petitions were dismissed and on the same day two petitions for restoration, supported by the necessary affidavit were presented, but the learned District Munsif dismissed them on the ground that Order 9, Rule 9, Civil P.C., did not apply to proceedings Under Section 73, Madras Village Courts Act. He relied on the decision of Burn J. in Khizar Mohamed v. Addul Razack Sahib 2 M.L.J. 88 which was followed by me in Subbama v. Venkatareddi A.I.R. 1943 Mad. 260. The argument now presented is that although Order 9, Rule 9 of the Code applies in terms only to sui...
Thirugnanavalli Ammal Vs. P. Venugopala Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad125; (1945)1MLJ20
ORDER1. The question is whether the case falls under Section 4, Clause (a) of Madras Act IV of 1938 which runs thus:Nothing in this Act shall affect debts and liabilities of an agriculturist falling under the following heads : (a) any revenue, tax or cess payable to the Provincial Government.The respondent in this petition paid the revenue due to the Provincial Government for two faslis, and this Court held that he was entitled to recover the sums paid with interest at six per cent per annum from the dates of payments. Thereupon this petition was filed by the defendant to have the provisions of Madras Act IV of 1938 applied and for scalirig down. We sent the petition to the lower Court for findings. The lower Court has returned a finding that the petitioner is an agriculturist and that he is entitled to the benefits of the scaling down provisions. Objection is taken that the case falls under Section 4(a) of the Act and that therefore the debt is not liable to be scaled down. It is urge...
Penugonda Radhakrishnamurthy Vs. V.A.Y. Ethirajulu Chetty and Co. and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad184; (1945)1MLJ54
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of Kuppuswami , Ayyar, J., setting aside an order of the Principal Judge of the Gity Civil Court under the provisions of Section 39 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940, Two applications had been filed in the City Civil Court for an order extending the time allowed to an umpire for the passing of his award. The umpire awarded the first respondent a sum of Rs. 600; but the award was not made within the time allowed by law. The principal Judge of the City Civil Court refused the applications on the ground that by granting them the opposite party would lose valuable rights. The first respondent then appealed to this Court. Kuppuswami Ayyar, J., considered that the application for extension of time should have been granted, and allowed the appeal. Accordingly he sent the case back to the City Civil Court to decide the other points raised in the proceedings.2. A preliminary objection has been taken! It is contended that th...
Muthachi Alias Nambiappa Muthirian Vs. Kandaswami Muthirian and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad135; (1945)1MLJ207
Somayya, J.1. The only question in this second appeal is whether when the father of an undivided son of a joint Hindu family executes a mortgage and the mortgagee brings a suit on it, the onus of proving consideration for the mortgage is on the mortgagee or whether it is for the son to prove want of consideration. The suit mortgage was executed by the father of the first defendant and the suit was filed against the son, the first defendant, and the second defendant a subsequent mortgagee. The son denied consideration as well as necessity for the mortgage. Both the points were found by the trial Court against the plaintiff and the suit was dismissed. On appeal, the Subordinate Judge agreed with the District Munsiff in holding that there was no necessity for the mortgage but he gave a decree against the executant's half share in the suit property. On the question of consideration he held that the onus of proving want of consideration is upon the son, the first defendant, and that he did ...
Mullapudi Hanumayya Vs. Annadasu China Bapanayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad188; (1945)1MLJ66
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. On the 7th April, 1943, immovable property was sold by the Subordinate Court of Tenali in execution of a money decree. Within time the judgment-debtors applied under Order 21, Rule 89 of the Civil Procedure Code for an order setting aside the sale and deposited the necessary amount. The application was opposed by the auction purchaser on the ground that the decretal amount ' had not been paid into Court by the judgment-debtors themselves, but by one V. Bapamma who was acting as their agent. The objection was rightly overruled by the Subordinate Judge and the sale was set aside. The auction purchaser has, however, preferred this appeal.2. The appellant relies on a decision of a single Judge of the Allahabad High Court who apparently was of the opinion that the money must be deposited either by the judgment-debtor himself or by an agent authorised by special or general power-of-attorney. We are not prepared to follow this decision, which was given in the...
Minor Bhaskaran by Adoptive Mother Narayani Ammal Vs. Dhanammal and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad89
Kuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. These appeals are against the orders passed by the learned District Judge of Trichinopoly dismissing I.A. Nos. 420 of 1938 and 158 of 1938 filed by the appellant in these appeals. The appellant (petitioner) is the heir of his step-mother, the late Alamelu Ammal, the widow of one Gopalaswami Naidu, who was declared a lunatic and for whom one Govindammal was appointed as guardian and manager of the person and property in O.P. No. 94 of 1929 on the file of the District Court, Trichinopoly. Certain nanja and punja lands and a house had been devised to her by her father. Her husband died, and there was, as it were, a scramble for the possession of the properties allotted to her, with the result that one Rangaswami Naidu as next friend of Alamelu Ammal filed a suit, O.S. No. 193 of 1929 in respect of the properties. He it was that filed O.P. No. 94 of 1929 also. It was ultimately ordered and Govindammal was appointed manager and guardian. The matter was taken to this C...
P. Ammaniamma Vs. Fattikonda Muddappa and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad80
Wadsworth, J. 1. This appeal arises out of a decree on a promissory note executed by defendants 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6. The decree was passed on 7th March 1933 for a sum of Rupees 11,668-10-6 together with Rs. 1292-11-0 as costs. There were ten defendants in all, the other defendants being the sons of the executants. During the years 1935 and 1936 sums totaling Rs. 3250 were paid towards the decree and are credited in the present execution petition which was filed on 9th August 1941. The balance claimed amounting to RS. 13,682-9-6 was sought as against defendants 1 to 3 alone. The execution was resisted on the basis of a story of payment made to defendant 5 who is alleged to have satisfied the decree, though no such satisfaction was recorded; and it is alleged that the decree-holder is now executing the decree at the instance of defendant 5. The main question is whether it is open to the appellant to put forward such a contention having regard to the terms of Order 21, Rule 2, Civil P.C. Ord...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »