Chennai Court November 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.
Batchu Venkatarao Vs. Surneedi Sathiraju and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad291; (1946)1MLJ198
Wadsworth, J.1. The appellant filed a suit on a mortgage for Rs. 3,000 bearing interest at 12-3/8 per cent, per annum with a default rate of 12-3/8 per cent, com pound with annual rests. In the plaint the appellant gave up Rs. 550 and claimed Rs. 9,000 with subsequent interest. The defendants raised pleas under Madras Act IV of 1938 which were negatived. The Court accepted the evidence of certain payments made and also reduced the rate of interest to nine per cent simple, treating the transaction as usurious and gave a decree on that basis for Rs. 3,000 with interest at nine per cent from the date of the bond, less the amount of the payments. In calculating the amount of the payments an error was made, the total being taken as Rs. 1,800 instead of Rs. 3,160. The preliminary decree is dated 20th February, 1942 and one year was allowed for redemption. There was no appeal and a final decree was passed. In the course of the execution the defendants discovered the error in calculating the a...
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sri Talupuru Venkatasubbiah Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1945
Reported in: (1946)1MLJ362
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The assessee is the manager of a joint Hindu trading family, which deals in timber, iron and hardware and runs a money-lending business. Before 1933, it carried on a separate money-lending business in partnership with one Chinni Veera Swami Chetti. This business was dissolved in 1933 and its assets were divided between the partners. As part of its share the family of the assessee received certain promissory notes executed by persons to whom the partnership had lent money. At the time of the dissolution these debts were regarded as being good and were entered in the books of the family relating to its money-lending business. From time to time the promissory notes were renewed and interest was paid to the family by the debtors. This interest was included in the profits of the family and assessed to income-tax accordingly.2. In the year of account 1941-42 the assessee wrote off as being irrecoverable three debts, namely, Rs. 3,182, Rs. 4,382 and Rs. 1,291...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sri Talupuru Venkatasubbiah Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad494
Leach, C.J.1. The assessee is he manager of a joint Hindu trading family, which deals in timber, iron and hardware and runs a money-lending business. Before 1933, it carried on a separate money-lending business in partnership with one Chinni Veera Swami Chetti. This business was dissolved in 1933 and its assets were divided between the partners. As part of its share the family of the assessee received certain promissory notes executed by persons to whom the partnership had lent money. At the time of the dissolution these debts were regarded as being good and were entered in the books of the family relating to its money-lending business. From time to time, the promissory notes were renewed and interest was paid to the family by the debtors. This interest was included in the profits of the family and assessed to income-tax accordingly. In the year of account 1941-42 the assessee wrote off as being irrecoverable three debts, namely, Rs. 3182, Rs. 4382 and Rs. 1291, making in all Rs. 8855....
Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras Vs. Sri Talupuru Venkatasubbiah Che ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1945
Reported in: [1946]14ITR227(Mad)
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by the Honourable the Chief Justice.)The assessee is the manager of a joint Hindu trading family, which deals in timber, iron and hardware and runs a money-lending business. Before 1933 it carried on a separate money-lending business in partnership with one Chinni Veeraswami Chetti. This business was dissolved in 1933 and its assets were divided between the partners. As part of its share the family of the assessee received certain promissory notes executed by persons to whom the partnership had lent money. At the time of the dissolution these debts were regarded as being good and were entered in the books of the family relating to its own money-lending business. From time to time the promissory notes were renewed and interest was paid to the family by the debtors. This interest was included in the profits of the family and assessed to income-tax accordingly.In the year of account, 1941-42, the assessee wrote of as being irrecoverable three debts, na...
C.K.S. Krishnamurthi and anr. Vs. Chidambaram Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad243; (1946)1MLJ58
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The appellants are the plaintiffs in the suit. They are the sons of the 10th defendant. They seek to set aside the decree of this Court in Appeal No. 250 of 1937 in so far as it affects the interest claimed by them in the properties mentioned in the plaint. Appeal No. 250 of 1937 arose out of O.S. No. 1 of 1936, which was filed by the plaintiffs' father in the Court of the Subordinate Judge cf Madura to recover possession of the land in suit. The Subordinate Judge held that he had failed to prove title to the land. On the other hand he found that the respondent in that appeal had established a title and he had also shown that he had been in adverse possession for more than the statutory period before the 10th defendant purported to purchase the property. On appeal this Court considered that it was not necessary to go into the question of the 10th defendant's title because it was obvious that the respondent had already acquired a title by adverse posses...
Kallakuri Venkateswarlu and ors. Vs. Kalidindi Narayanaraju and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad380; (1946)1MLJ272
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. The short point raised in this appeal which has been brought by some of the defendants related to the mode of appropriating three of the payments made in scaling down the suit mortgage debt. These payments are as follows : Rs. 2,200 paid on 6th November, 1925 ' towards the debt due under this mortgage deed '; Rs. 1,000 paid on 15th March, 1927, '. towards the principal and interest due on the debt ' and stated to have been ' credited towards this deed '; Rs. 1,500 paid on 15th February, 1930, in two parts, namely, Rs. 684-7-9 out of which Rs. 420 was to be credited to the principal and Rs. 264-7-9 towards the interest due on the bond and Rs. 815-8-3 paid ' towards the deed.' In scaling down the debt the Court below after discussing the decisions of this Court relating to the manner in which open payments have to be dealt with for the purposes of the Act IV of 1938 expressed the opinion that a payment made towards principal and interest of a debt could not be rega...
K. Chunilal Sowcar Vs. K.N. Srinivasa Rao and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad362; (1946)1MLJ59
Bell, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition purports to be filed under Section 75 of the Provincial Insolvency Act against an order of the District Court on appeal from the order of the Subordinate Judge of Chingleput made in insolvency petition No. 7 of 1943.2. The petitioning creditor is the petitioner here. He filed an insolvency petition under secdon 9 on 10th December, 1943. In accordance with the High Court Rule made under Section 79 of the Act with regard to notices (Rule 21), notices of the date fixed for the hearing of the petition under Section 19(1) of the Act were sent to all creditors and to the debtor within the time laid down by Rule 21(3). The date fixed for the hearing of the petition was 9th February, 1944. For some reason or another the actual hearing was apparently postponed until the 24th March, 1944, when an order of adjudication was passed. In the meantime, on 29th February, 1944, an amendment to Rule 21, Sub-rule 3 had been made making Rule 21(3) read to the effect ...
The Official Receiver of South Arcot Vs. K.V.M.P.Kt. Alagappa Chettiar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad236; (1946)1MLJ113
Rajamannar, J.1. This is an appeal by the Official Receiver of South Arcot from the decree and judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Cuddalore dismissing the suit instituted by him for a declaration that the deed of mortgage executed by the insolvent one Kadiresan Chettiar in favour of defendants 5 to 8 on 29th January, 1932, in respect of properties mentioned in the plaint schedule is a sham and nominal transaction, or, in the alternative, for a declaration that the said deed of mortgage is not binding on the plaintiff or any of the creditors under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act. Defendants 1 to 3 are the sons of Kadiresan Chettiar who died in March, 1940, before the institution of the suit. Defendant 4 is a creditor of the insolvent who claims to have purchased the interests of the sons in item 1 of the plaint schedule. Defendant 9 is a subsequent purchaser from the fourth defendant. Defendant 10 is the Official Receiver of Pudukottah, made a party because of an insolvency...
Chavakula Yanadamma and anr. Vs. Chavakula Venkateswarlu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-1945
Reported in: (1946)2MLJ345
Wadsworth, J.1. The appellants are mother and daughter, the first appellant being the widow of one Venkata Krishnayya who died in 1936. Venkata Krishnayya was the undivided brother of the contesting respondent, the first defendant in the lower Court. The appellants filed the suit for a declaration that they were entitled to certain properties in lieu of maintenance as a consequence of the award of an arbitrator, who is impleaded as the fifth defendant in the suit. The allegations in the plaint were that the first plaintiff is legally entitled to a half share in the family properties for the maintenance of herself and her daughter, that the first defendant was refusing to give proper maintenance to the plaintiffs who threatened legal proceedings, whereupon mediators intervened, and on their suggestion the dispute was referred to the fifth defendant as an arbitrator, who decided that the suit properties should be given to the plaintiffs, that the plaintiffs got possession in pursuance of...
Jonnada Sayi and ors. Vs. Jonnada Subbanna and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad310; (1946)1MLJ92
Chandrasekhara, Aiyar, J.1. The suit was brought by the plaintiffs to recover possession of certain properties described as washerman service inam lands on the allegation that they belonged to the first plaintiff and were given on lease to the second plaintiff under Ex. P-I on the 10th March, 1941 and that the defendants trespassed into the lands on 29th April, 1941. Certain very material facts which have been found to be true were suppressed by the plaintiffs. The first plaintiff had put the defendants in posession of the properties under arrangement evidenced by a letter marked as Ex. D-I, dated 3rd January, 1932. Under this arrangement they were to have possession of the lands belonging to her, rendering village service as per mamool and giving her a half share in the produce. In case, the lands were given on lease they were to give her a half share of the rent received. The arrangement was to enure for her life and possession was delivered to the defendants under the arrangement. T...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »