Chennai Court February 1944 Judgments
In Re: Ghosh Beevi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Mad406
ORDERKrishnaswami Ayyangar, J.1. The matter comes before me on a reference made by the Taxing Officer. The suit out of which the present second appeal has been sought to be preferred was instituted on 13th December 1941 for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from trespassing on land alleged to be in the lawful possession of the plaintiff as a usufructuary mortgagee. The plaintiff valued the suit for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction on her own valuation at Rs. 100, a course which was open to her under Section 7, Clause (iv) (d), Court-fees Act, read with Section 8, Suits Valuation Act. A decree was passed in favour of the plaintiff and thereupon defendant 1 appealed to the District Court. The appeal was disposed of on 4th October 1943 and it resulted in a reversal of the decree passed by the District Munsif. The plaintiff is now endeavouring to file a second appeal and she filed her memorandum in this Court on 3rd January 1944. Between the date when the District...
Tag this Judgment!i.T. Commr. Vs. Annamalai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Mad398
Leach, C.J.1. In the statement of the case made by the Appellate Tribunal it is suggested that the Commissioner of Income-tax has misunderstood the findings of fact arrived at by the Tribunal and stated in its order of 9th February 1943. We do not think that there has been any misapprehension on the part of the Commissioner, but in any event the facts are clear. Until 28th March 1939 the assessee was joint with his father. The family carried on a money lending business in the Federated Malay States. On separation, the assessee received as his share of the family assets the business which the family had carried on in the Federated Malay States. Between 1st April 1933 and. the date of partition this business had earned considerable profits, all of which accrued to the assessee under the partition. Between 28th March 1939 and 12th April 1939 the assessee brought to British India Rs. 40,742 of the accumulated profits and the Income-tax Officer decided that he was liable under Section 4(1) ...
Tag this Judgment!S.C. Puttappaji Vs. D. Mallappa and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Mad420
Horwill, J.1. Execution Petition No. 286 of 1936 was filed out of time; because the prior execution petition - which was unnumbered - was returned for supplying defects and no final order was passed on it. Notice went to the respondent and to the other judgment-debtors; but they did not appear and remained ex parte. In due course, on 10th October 1938, the Court passed the order 'Proclaim and sell.' Because of the filing of a petition under Act 4 of 1938, execution was stayed; and at a later stage an objection of limitation was taken, which was upheld. The appellant appealed; and the lower appellate Court confirmed the order of the first Court.2. There can be no doubt, not only that an order passed in one execution petition will operate as res judicata if a similar point arises for decision in a later execution petition, but a decision made at one stage of execution operates as res judicata at a later stage. If an order to execute is passed in an execution petition, then by implication...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sri K. N. K. V. R. V. Venkatachalam Che ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Mad567
Leach, C.J.1. Facts which have been disclosed in this Court make it clear that the assessment in this case has proceeded on a wrong basis. The assessment was made on the assessee under proviso 1 to Section 41 (1), Income-tax Act. The account year is the year 1940-1941 and the assessment year 1941-1942. The section was amended by Act 23 of 1941 and the amendment came into force on 26th November 1941, which was after the assessment. Consequently Section 41 did not apply which means that the Income-tax Officer had no power to levy the maximum rate. The assessee is the executor of the will of one Kannammal Achi, who died on 5th August 1940, leaving a will dated 25th April 1940. She was survived by her husband and her son. She had decided not to leave any part of her property to her son. Out of a sum of Rs. 1,17,700 belonging to her she left Rs. 50,000 to her husband. She left the balance to son's son, natural or adopted. At the time of her death her son had no issue and had made no adoptio...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. S. N. A. S. A. Annamalai Chettiar, Kara ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1944
Reported in: [1944]12ITR226(Mad)
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by the Honble the Chief Justice).In the statement of the case made by the Appellate Tribunal it is suggested that the Commissioner of Income-tax has misunderstood the findings of fact arrived at by the Tribunal and stated in its order of 9th February 1943. We do not think that there has been any misapprehension on the part of the Commissioner, but in any event the facts are clear.Until the 28th March 1939 the assessee was joint with his father. The family carried on a money-lending business in the Federated Malay States. On separation, the assessee received as his share of the family assets the business which the family had carried on in the Federated Malay States. Between the 1st April 1933 and the date of partition this business had earned considerable profits, all of which accrued to the assessee under the partition. Between the 28th March 1939 and the 12th April 1939 the assessee brought to British India Rs. 40,742 of the accumulated profits and...
Tag this Judgment!Firm Schwebo Vs. Subbiah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Mad381
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. This appeal has been brought by the plaintiff, a firm of Nattukottai Chetty money-lenders and bankers, from a decree of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Sivaganga dismissing their suit for setting aside an order whereby the four-sixths share of respondents 1 to 4 in their joint family property was released from attachment in execution of an order for restitution passed by the High Court of Judicature at Rangoon. Respondent 5 was impleaded pro forma as the receiver appointed in certain proceedings which were pending between the partners of the appellant firm, and no further reference will be made to him herein. The respondent's father Subramaniam Chettiar who was carrying on business as banker and money-lender at Rangoon and other places under the name and style of 'AT. K. PL. SP. Chettiar Firm' sued the appellants and others in the High Court at Rangoon in its original jurisdiction for recovery of Rs. 20,000 and obtained a decree on 27th July 1931. The appel...
Tag this Judgment!Gopalaswamy Vs. G.P. Ramayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Mad397
Leach, C.J.1. The short question in this petition is whether the insertion of Section 34A in the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, by the amending Act of 1929, compels the Court to place a different interpretation upon. Section 34 (d) from that placed upon it by this Court in Harikrishna v. Govindarajulu A.I.R 1926 Mad. 478. On 20th December 1939, the petitioner was appointed the guardian of the property of the two minor sons of one Kotayya. He was directed to submit his accounts once a year. The respondent entered into a surety bond for the due administration of the estate during the minority of the wards. On 19th September 1940, the respondent filed a petition in the guardianship proceedings asking for an order of the Court directing the petitioner to file his accounts and the relevant vouchers. On 15th January 1941 the petitioner filed a statement of accounts in which he showed that he had collected Rs. 3864 and had disbursed Rs. 3822-13-3, leaving a balance in his hands of Rs. 41-2-9....
Tag this Judgment!East and West Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kolla Venkiah and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Mad559
1. The question at issue in this appeal is whether the appellant the East and 'West Life Insurance Go. Ltd., is liable to pay to respondent 1, Kolla Venkayya the sum due on a life policy issued to respondent 1's brother, Kolla Janakirarnayya, in December 1935 for as. 15,000. The learned Subordinate Judge of Bapatla has granted a decree to respondent 1 for Rs. 12,862-13-0, after making certain deductions from the claim which dc not now concern us, but has refused him costs. The company has appealed and respondent has filed a memo of cross-objections on the question of costs only.2. The undisputed facts of the ease are these. Premiums were due on the policy every six months. The premium due on 11th June 1936 was not paid in time. The policy therefore lapsed, but under its terms could be rein stated on 'evidence being furnished of good health to the satisfaction of the directors.' In September 1936, the premium was paid and the policy reinstated. In this connexion an application form Ex. ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras Vs. K. N. K. V. R. V. Venkatachalam ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1944
Reported in: [1944]12ITR261(Mad)
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by the Honble the Chief Justice).Facts which have been disclosed in this Court make it clear that the assessment in this case has proceeded on a wrong basis. The assessment was made on the assessee under the first proviso to Section 41 (1) the Income-tax Act. The account year is the year 1940-41 and the Assessment year 1941-42. The section was amended by Act XXIII of 1941 and the amendment came into force on the 26th November 1941 which was after the assessment. Consequently Section 41 did not apply which means that the Income-tax Officer had no power to levy the maximum rate.The assessee is the executor of the will of Kannammai Achi, who died on the 5th August 1940, leaving a will dated the 25th April 1940. She was survived by her husband and her son. She had decided not to leave any part of her property to her son. Out of a sum of Rs. 1,17,700 belonging to her she left Rs. 50,000 to her husband she left the balance to her sons son, natural or adop...
Tag this Judgment!Chinnamma Naicken and ors. Vs. Rama Naicken and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Mad472
ORDERKuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. This is a petition to revise the order of the Joint Magistrate of Karur passed under Section 146, Criminal P.C. There was a dispute about possession between the A and B party who were parties to Miscellaneous Case No. 9 of 1943 on the file of the Joint Magistrate of Karur. Each side claimed to be in possession of the properties. The petitioners before this Court contended that they obtained delivery of possession of the properties in execution of a decree in O.S. No. 19 of 1942 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Trichinopoly to which some of the members of the A party were parties, and that consequently the right to obtain delivery of possession of properties having been found by a competent Court, the Joint Magistrate was not justified in passing an order under section 146.2. Exhibit I-A the delivery attakshi, shows that 2 acres 74 cents in survey field No. 474, 53 cents in 475, 1 acre 11 cents in 477, 4 acres, 1 cent in 478, the southern 14 cents in s...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »