Chennai Court January 1945 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.
Khan Bahadur Chowakkaran Keloth Mammad Keyi Sahib, Karnavan and Manage ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad101; (1945)2MLJ425
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The appellant is the owner of a house in Cannanore. At all times material it was leased to the Cannanore Municipal Council for the purpose of a school. Up to the 29th August, 1939, the building was exempt from property tax by reason of Section 83(1)(c) of the Madras District Municipalities Act, 1920. On that date, the section was amended by the Madras City Municipal, District Municipalities and Local Boards (Amendment) Act, 1939 (Madras Act XXI of 1939) which inserted a proviso to the effect that nothing contained in Clauses (a) (c) and (e) of Section 83 should be deemed to exempt from property tax a building for which rent was payable by the person or persons using it for the purposes referred to in these clauses.2. As the house had become liable to assessment, for the purpose of Municipal taxation, the Cannanore Municipal Council amended the assessment register by inserting therein an entry with regard to this house, and on the 2nd October, 1939, it ...
In Re: Mogila Doraiswami Naidu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Mad302; (1945)1MLJ178
ORDERHappell, J.1. The Sub-Magistrate, Puttur, in Criminal Case No. 432 of 1944, convicted two youths of offences under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case was that the first accused, who was travelling in the same carriage, as P.W. 1, picked P.W. 1's pocket of a purse as soon as the train stopped at Puttur railway station and passed the purse over to the second accused. P.W. 1 did not actually see the first accused taking the purse from his pocket, but he says he saw him pass the purse to the second accused, and P.W. 2, a refreshment attendant, says that he saw the first accused pick P.W. 1's pocket and pass the purse to the second accused. As the accused had not been previously convicted, the Sub-Magistrate thought that the case was a fit one to be dealt with under the provisions of Section 562 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and accordingly forwarded the two accused to the Joint Magistrate of Chandragiri. The Joint Magistrate was of opinion that the accused ...
In Re: Natesa Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Mad330; (1945)1MLJ179
ORDERMockett, J.1. The petitioner has been convicted under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 457 of the Indian, Penal Code concerns lurking house-trespass which is denned in Section 443. It is house-trespass after taking precautions to conceal the house-trespass from the person who has a right to exclude the trespasser from the building. Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code concerns theft in a building. It should be clear that it is quite possible to commit the offence of lurking house-trespass without stealing anything at all just as it is possible to commit theft in a building without committing lurking house-trespass. The offences are therefore quite distinct. A Bench of this Court has discussed this topic in connection with Sections 147 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. In the case reported in In re Ponniah Lopes, Bardswell, J., observes:There has been a general agreement amongst all the High Courts except that of Lahore that if a person is convicted of rioting...
In Re: B.L.V. Rangarao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1945
Reported in: (1945)1MLJ183
ORDERMockett, J.1. This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Vizagapatam under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The accused was charged under Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code--forgery, and Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code--cheating, the allegation being that he forged a signature on a money order form and by impersonating the true owner cheated. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge of Chicacole acquitted the accused of cheating but convicted him of forgery. The accused appealed and the learned Sessions Judge appears to find himself embarrassed by having on the record an acquittal which he considers inconsistent with the conviction. He seems to think while the acquittal stands his hands are in some manner tied with regard to confirming the conviction. It is not so. The whole evidence is before the Court. He is entitled if he thinks fit, to express his disagreement with the findings of fact in the acquittal although there being no appeal the acquittal sti...
Salvapanthula Seshagiri Rao and anr. Vs. Rebala Subbarami Reddy and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-16-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Mad154; (1945)1MLJ270
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. These two appeals arise out of an order passed in execution proceedings by the Subordinate Judge of Nellore. The question in A.A.O. No. 803 of 1943 is one of limitation. A.A.O. No. 196 of 1944 raises a question of res judicata, but it is admitted that if this Court decides the question of limitation in favour of the appellants in A.A.O. No. 803 of 1943, it will mean the dismissal of A.A.O. No. 196 of 1944.2. In order to appreciate the question of limitation, it is necessary to set out the course of events between the 28th October 1929 and the 3rd March 1943, the date of the order under appeal. On the 28th October 1929 one Salvapantulu Subba Rao obtained a money decree in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Nellore for Rs. 2,000 with interest against Robala Venkatareddi, Robala Subbarami Reddi and certain others. Venkatareddi was the first defendant and Subbarami Reddi the second defendant. On the 25th October, 1932 the decreeholder applied for execut...
Pr.M. Ramaswami Chettiar Alias Periakaruppan Chettiar Vs. M.Pl.Rm. Ram ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-16-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Mad342; (1945)1MLJ391
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. This appeal arises out of an application made by the appellant under Section 19 of the Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act, 1938, to scale down a decree obtained by the respondent.2. The parties are Nattukottai Chettiars carrying on business as money-lenders and bankers and there were dealings between them extending over a number of years. For amounts due in respect of sttch dealings the appellant's father executed two deposit letters for Rs. 4,870-12-0 and Rs. 2,735.45 respectively. The respondent brought a suit against the appellant and his father and brothers who formed a Hindu joint family on the said deposit-letters and obtained the decree in question against the appellant's father who was the first defendant personally and against the family properties of the appellant and his brothers. In execution of the decree the respondent attached a house as belonging to the family of the judgment-debtors but the appellant put forward a claim that it was his separate pr...
P.V. Damodara Reddi and anr. Vs. Indian National Agencies, Limited
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-16-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad35; (1945)2MLJ432
Clark, J.1. P.V. Damodara Reddi and D. Duraiswami Nayudu, each applied in writing for shares in the Indian National Agencies, Limited. These shares were of the face value of value of Rs. 1,000. Their applications were considered at a meeting of the directors of the company held on 12th April, 1942. The applications for shares appear to have been made in February, 1942. Each of the applicants was allotted two shares at the meeting of 12th April, 1942 and the minutes of that meeting recorded that, upon these allotments being made, the two applicants joined the meeting, that is, as directors of the company. As well as being present at the remainder of this first meeting, the applicants are said to have been present at a number of other subsequent meetings. The applicants were duly entered on the register of the members of the company.2. Some eight months later, in about December, 1942, the directors of the company resolved to cancel the allotment of these shares to the applicants. The pre...
In Re: a Pleader
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-15-1945
Reported in: (1945)1MLJ174
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The respondent is a pleader practising in the district of Bellary. He has been accused of professional misconduct in that he induced a client to sign blank sheets of paper in order that they could be used for the preparation of a plaint, which would then be regarded as having been duly signed and verified by the client. The plaint was filed in the Court of the District Munsiff of Bellary and as the District Munsiff considered that the spacing of the document was such as to indicate that this had happened, he submitted the document to the District Judge who instituted these proceedings against the respondent.2. We agree with the learned District Judge that it is most objectionable for practitioners to take their clients' signatures on blank sheets of paper. For instance, when this is done in the case of a plaint there can be no proper verification as required by the Code of Civil Procedure. A practitioner who permits this to be done is undoubtedly guilt...
A.V. Sundaram Chettiar Vs. T.O. Ittimathu and Brothers by Proprietor, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-15-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Mad209; (1945)1MLJ278
Somayya, J.1. The findings are accepted. The result is that the defendant is entitled to be given credit for Rs. 1,449-14-8 in addition to the sums which are found in the plaintiff's accounts. The lower Court has found that these payments are true. On the other side, the plaintiff is entitled to get a sum of Rs. 1,372-3-9 in all for all the three periods covered by the suit. The final result is that nothing is owing to the plaintiff. It was argued that the defendant's firm is an unregistered firm and that therefore the defendants are not entitled to prefer the appeal. I cannot accept this argument. Section 69 of the Partnership Act prohibits a suit by the members of an unregistered firm. If a suit is filed against certain persons who carry on business without getting themselves registered and a decree is passed, they certainly ought to have the right of preferring an appeal and of questioning the correctness of the decisions of the trial Court. I, therefore, reject this contention. The...
A. Chockalingam Chettiar Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-1945
Reported in: (1945)1MLJ190
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, has referred to this Court for answer the following question:Whether the income from agricultural land in Burma is covered within the definition given in Section 2(1)(a) of the Indian Income-tax Act?Section 2(1)(a) reads as follows:Agricultural income ' means any rent or revenue derived from land which is used for agricultural purposes, and is either assessed to land revejiue in British India or subject to a local rate assessed and collected by officers of the Crown as such.The assessee says that agricultural land in Burma is subject to a local rate assessed and collected by officers of the Burma Government who are officers of the Crown. That may be the case, but we cannot accept that officers of the Crown in Burma are officers of the Crown within the meaning of the Indian Income-tax Act. Agricultural income is exempt from income-tax in British India because it pays tax in another form to a Government ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »