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.
K.Ar.S.T. Arunachalam Chettiar Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1945
Reported in: (1946)1MLJ96
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. For the purpose of deciding the question referred in this case we think it necessary to know whether the expenses of the rubber plantations' were debited to the assessee's money-lending business and whether the income; from the plantations was brought in as part of the profits of that business. In these circumstances we refer the case back to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under the provisions of Section 6(5(4) for a statement of the facts.2. The reference will stand adjourned until this further statement has been received. * * * * *3. After the return of statement of facts, the judgment of the Court was delivered byAlfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.4. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has submitted the further statement of facts called for by this Court in its order of the and March, 1945. The facts are now clear and they may be stated shortly as follows:5. The assessee, his father and his brother Narayanan Chettiar constituted an undivided Hindu fami...
Kovvuru Lakshmipathiraju and ors. Vs. Jagani Venkataswami and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad324; (1946)1MLJ104
Somayya, J.1. The suit has been dismissed as barred under Article 11 -A of Schedule I of the Indian Limitation Act as having been brought more than one year after an order was passed under Rule 101 of Order 21, Civil Procedure Code. The appellants are the purchasers of one-fourth right in certain properties which were mortgaged under P-I.K. Appala Narasimharaju and six others executed the mortgage, Ex. P-I, on 26th October, 1915. The mortgaged property consisted of about 24 acres which were held jointly by the several mortgagors. One of the mortgagors, K. Appala Narasimharaju, executed a sale deed of a fourth of the property under Ex. P-2 dated 18th February, 1918, for a stated consideration of Rs. 300, which was directed to be paid to the mortgagee under Ex. P-I. The property that was sold was 6 acres being an undivided one-fourth of a property which is described to have been held jointly by the vendors and others and to be situated within the boundaries given in paragraph 3 of Ex. P-...
Karathigundi Keshava Bhatta Vs. Sunnanguli Krishna Bhatta
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad334; (1946)1MLJ131
Chandrasekhara Aiyar, J.1. The defendant is the appellant and the question between him and the plaintiff relates to their respective rights to use the water of a thodu or channel passing to the east of their lands. The plan Ex. P-8 prepared by the Commissioner shows the relative positions of the fields of the plaintiff and the defendant and the thodu. The lower Courts have restricted the right of enjoyment of the water of this thodu by the defendant in accordance with what they considered to be the true meaning of the karar or compromise that was entered into between the parties in the year 1913, Ex. P-i and a decree in O.S. No. 393 of 1912, a copy of which has been marked as Ex. P-4. The defendant does not seem to have any grievance against the decrees of the lower Courts in so far as they restrict him to use the water of the channel for particular lands belonging to him but not for other lands which he has converted into garden after the date of the compromise. His chief complaint is...
K. Ar. S. T. Arunachalam Chettiar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1945
Reported in: [1946]14ITR61(Mad)
ORDER(Order of the Court was delivered by the Honourable the Chief Justice).For the purpose of deciding the question referred in this case we think it necessary to know whether the expenses of the rubber plantations were debited to the assessees money-lending business and whether the income from the plantations was brought in as part of the profits of that business. In these circumstances we refer the case back to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under the provisions of Section 66(4) for a statements of the facts.The reference will stand adjourned until this further statement has been received.In compliance with the above order the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal submitted the following further statement of facts :-FURTHER STATEMENT OF CASE.'This reference went up for hearing before the Honourable Judges of the High Court of Judicature at Madras on 2nd March 1945, but the Honourable the High Court has referred this case back to the Tribunal, under the provisions of Section 66(4), for a ...
Rednam Dharmarao Vs. Rednam Venkata Mahalakshmamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-1945
Reported in: (1946)2MLJ248
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. Sriramarao Naidu, the husband of the first respondent was the Huzur Sheristadar in the Coconada Collectorate. Being a Government servant, he was required to subscribe to the General Provident Fund. He had quarrelled with his wife and they had lived apart for several years. On the 6th January, 1940, he nominated as the persons entitled to receive the money standing to his credit in the Fund, should he die before retirement, the two plaintiffs and the third defendant. The plaintiffs are the sons and the third defendant is the daughter of Sriramarao's cousin, Purushottamarao Naidu. It appears from a document filed in the case that in nominating these persons he stated that he had no family. He died on the 30th April, 1942, without having become reconciled with his wife. His nomination remained unvaried and he left a will under which he purported to leave his provident fund money to the two plaintiffs and the third defendant. If his wife were still a membe...
The Public Prosecutor Vs. Pingali Mallikarjana Kota Paneswara Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-1945
Reported in: (1945)2MLJ575
ORDERKuppuswami Aiyar, J.1. This is a revision petition filed by the Public Prosecutor with regard to the sentence passed by the Additional First Class Magistrate of Bandar in C.C. No. 126 of 1944 on his file. The accused was convicted of an offence punishable under Section 409, Indian Penal Code and found guilty and dealt with under Section 562 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The offence is one punishable with transportation for life and therefore the case could not be dealt with under Section 562 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The sentence therefore is illegal and has to be set aside. Taking into consideration, however, the fact that the accused who is only 19 years of age and who was employed in the Rationing office, has not only lost his job but lost alt his chances of being employed in Government service in future, and as he also has returned the money, it will be sufficient if he is sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the Court. He is accordingly so sentenced. The sente...
The Public Prosecutor Vs. Sheik Masoom and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad171; (1945)2MLJ576
Kuppuswami Aiyar, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of acquittal of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Narasaraopet in C.C. No. 109 of 1945 on his file. The four accused were originally tried by the Sub-Magistrate of Narasaraopet for offences punishable under Section 380, Indian Penal Code, so far as accused 1 and 2 were concerned and for offences punishable under Sections 410 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code, so far as accused 3 and 4 were concerned, in respect of the same articles. They were all tried together and found guilty of the offences, with which they were charged; but as the first accused was an old offender who had been convicted for an offence under the provisions of Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code, there was also a charge against him under Section 75 of the Indian Penal Code. The Magistrate felt that he could not award the proper sentence on the first accused and so sent the papers to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Narasaraopet under Section 349 of the Crimin...
Public Prosecutor Vs. Pingali Mallikarjana Kota Paneswara Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad173
ORDERKuppuswami Aiyar, J.1. This is a revision petition filed by the Public Prosecutor with regard to the sentence passed by the Additional First Class Magistrate of Bandar in C.C. No. 126 of 1944 on his file. The accused was convicted of an offence punishable under Section 409, Penal Code, and found guilty, and dealt with under Section 562, Criminal P.C. The offence is one punishable with transportation for life and therefore the case could not be dealt with under Section 562, Criminal P.C. The sentence, therefore, is illegal and has to be set aside. Taking into consideration/however, the fact that the accused who is only 19 years of age and who was employed in the Rationing Office has not only lost his job but lost all his chances of being employed in Government service in future, and as he also has returned the money, it will be sufficient if he is sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the Court. He is accordingly so sentenced. The sentence will be undergone in the Court of t...
Jainambukanni Ammal and anr. Vs. Ruthrapathy Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad416; (1946)1MLJ181
Rajamannar, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by two persons interested in a certain charity to be conducted on the occasion of the Masi Makham festival of Sri Souriraja Perumal at Tirukannapuram as provided in a deed of settlement executed by one Marimuthu Pillai on 4th February, 1911, for the removal of the lirst defendant who purported to be the trustee at the time of the institution of the suit, for the framing of a scheme in respect of the charity and to declare certain alienations made by the first defendant in favour of the. fourth and the seventh defendants invalid and not binding on the trust and to appoint a fit and proper person as trustee in place of the first defendant. The suit was filed after obtaining the sanction of the Advocate-General under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned District Judge of East Tanjore has substantially decreed the suit as prayed for and the sixth and seventh defendants appeal, the sixth defendant: being a purchaser f...
The Board of Commissioners for Hindu Religious Endowments, Represented ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad256; (1946)1MLJ133
Alfred Henry Lioned Leach, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of the District Judge of Kistna amending a scheme framed by the Hindu Religious Endowments Board under Section 57 of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act. The scheme was framed in respect of the Sri Bhimeswaraswami temple at Gudivada. It is now admitted to be a non-excepted temple and that the family of Thummalapalli Venkata-krishnayya possessed a hereditary right to the trusteeship. On the 18th June, 1926, the Board framed a scheme under which it vested the management of the temple in a board of three trustees, one of them to be a member of this family. On the 5th November, 1942, the Board modified the scheme. Clause 5 of the modified scheme provided that the Board should appoint one of the trustees as the managing trustee for such period as it might deem fit with power to remove him from the office of managing trustee for good and sufficient cause and that the Board might entrust him with such powers as it might d...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »