Chennai Court February 1945 Judgments
Thandavaroya Gramani Vs. Arumugha Mudali and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Mad261; (1945)1MLJ421
Kuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. The only point for consideration in this appeal is whether E.A. No. 1102 of 1942 on the file of the Chingleput Subordinate Judge's Court out of which this appeal arises was barred by limitation or not. Both the lower Courts have found that it was not barred by limitation. The decree was passed on 11th November, 1938. The defendant was ex parte. This petition was filed on 25th July, 1942. The final order on the previous E.P. No. 287 of 1939 was passed on 5th July, 1939. But it was alleged for the decree-holder that the defendant made an application, I.A. No. 384 of 1939, to set aside the ex parte decree in the suit, and that an appeal was preferred against the order dismissing that application and that appeal was dismissed as incompetent and therefore the period of limitation commenced on 5th August, 1940, the date on which the appeal against the petition to set aside the ex parte decree was disposed of. It is contended for the appellant that there was no final or...
Tag this Judgment!Rajam Alias Rukmini Ammal Vs. Parameswara Ayyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1945
Reported in: (1945)1MLJ433
Kuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. The appellant and petitioner in the civil revision petitions is the widow of one S. Venkatarama Aiyar and they arise out of proceedings in execution of the decree against her in respect of debts due by her husband. Money paid into Court by an insurance company in respect of a life policy taken up by the late Venkatarama Aiyar was sought to be attached by these creditors, and she contended that the money was not assets which could be attached at the instance of her husband's creditors. The said Venkatarama Aiyar was employed in the Forest department under the Government and he was subscribing to the General Provident Fund. Later on he took out a life policy in the Asia Life Insurance Co., Ltd., Bombay, in which he nominated his first wife, Lakshmi Ammal, as the beneficiary, if she should survive him. Subsequently he was not able to pay the premium and as permitted by the rules framed by the Government in respect of the General Provident Fund he drew money from the...
Tag this Judgment!S.K.R.S. Sabapathi Chettiar Vs. Lakshmanan Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1945
Reported in: AIR1941Mad3243; (1945)2MLJ22
Kuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. The appellant is the eighth defendant and the appeal arises out of proceedings in execution of the decree in O.S. No. 1 of 1941, on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Devakotta. The execution petition was filed by the assignee decreeholder. Notice was ordered to be issued to the original decreeholder and to the judgment-debtors. All of them were served except defendants 1 and 4. The petitioner exonerated defendants 1, 2 and 4 from the decree and as the others were served, the petition was proceeded with. The assignment was recognised and the properties of the eighth defendant which were sought to be proceeded against were directed to be sold. The petition was adjourned for settlement of sale proclamation. It is against that order this appeal has been filed by the eighth defendant. His contention is that since notice had not gone to all the judgment-debtors the assignment ought not to have been recognised as the service of notice on all the judgment-debtor...
Tag this Judgment!Rajam Alias Ruqmini Ammal Vs. Parameswara Ayyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Mad267
Kuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. The appellant and petitioner in the civil revision petitions is the widow of one S. Venkatarama Aiyer and they arise out of proceedings in execution of the decree against her in respect of debts due by her husband. Money paid into Court by an insurance company in respect of a life policy taken up by the late Venkatarama Aiyer was sought to be attached by these creditors, and she contended that the money was not assets which could be attached at the instance of her husband's creditors. The said Venkatarama Aiyer was employed in the Forest Department under the Government and he was subscribing to the General Provident Fund. Later on he took out a life policy in the Asia Life Insurance Co., Ltd. Bombay, in which he nominated his first wife, Lakshmi Ammal, as the beneficiary, if she should survive him. Subsequently, he was not able to pay the premium and as permitted by the rules framed by the Government in respect of the General Provident Fund he drew money from the...
Tag this Judgment!Kompella Yegnanarayana Somayajulu and ors. Vs. Akella Subbarayudu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Mad203; (1945)1MLJ339
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The question which is raised in this reference is whether the judgment of the Federal Court in Bank of Commerce, Ltd., Khulna v. Kunja Behari Kar (1945) 1 M.L.J. 24 : (1944) F. 151 has overruled the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Nagaratnam, v.Seshayya (1939) 1 M.L.J. 272 : I.L.R. (1939) Mad. 151 in so far as it relates to negotiable instruments. The Full Bench held that the Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act, 1938, was infra vires the Provincial Legislature in all respects. The main attack on the Act was that its scaling down provisions were repugnant to the Negotiable Instruments Act, and that legislation on matters affecting negotiable instruments was confined to the Federal Legislature. It was held that as the Act was intended for the relief of agriculturists over-burdened with debt and that as money-lending and agriculture were Provincial subjects, the Provincial Legislature had th6 power to pass the Act, notwithstanding that in some r...
Tag this Judgment!Louis Dreyfus and Co. Ltd. by Its then Manager Richard Howard Pollard ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Mad383; (1945)1MLJ414
Horwill, J.1. These three appeals arise out of three suits that were tried together in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Cuddalore because they gave rise to identical questions of fact and law. In each suit, the plaintiff was a company purchasing groundnuts and exporting them from Cuddalore in the South Arcot district. The common defendant in the three suits was 'The South Arcot Groundnut Market Committee' by its President. That Committee was established under Section 5 of the Madras Commercial Crops Act of 1933; and in exercise of the powers conferred upon it by the Act, it claimed fees on sales of groundnuts to the three plaintiff firms. The plaintiffs paid what was demanded of them and filed these three suits for the return of the sums paid by them.2. Two questions have been argued in these appeals : one is whether the sales and purchases in question were within the South Arcot district, and the other is whether the defendant committee had power to levy these fees, in view of th...
Tag this Judgment!Chinni Venkatachalam Chetti Vs. Kencham Bindu Madhava Rao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Mad411; (1945)2MLJ66
King, J.1. This is a petition by the unsuccessful plaintiff in O.S. No. 395 of 1939 on the file of the Court of the District Munsiff, Nellore. The decree dismissing his suit was confirmed on appeal by the District Judge of Nellore and the plaintiff has accordingly approached this Court with the present petition. The suit was upon a promissory note which was admitted, during the trial before the District Munsiff, to have been true and supported by consideration. In both the Courts, however, the suit has been dismissed on the ground that the provisions of Section 19(iv) of the Madras Debt Conciliation Act prevents its being filed. That section says that a suit for the recovery of any debt which has been deemed to have been duly discharged under Sub-section (ii) of Section 10 cannot be entertained by any Civil Court. Sub-section (ii) of Section 10 provides that where a statement is not submitted to the Board in compliance with the provisions of Sub-section (i), the debts which ought to be...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ar.M.M. Firm (Penang) by Partner, S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1945
Reported in: (1945)2MLJ118
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The managing partner of the assessee firm formerly carried on a money-lending business in partnership with his brother at Penang under the Vilasam of A.Y. AR. At the end of 1939 the A.Y. AR. firm was dissolved and Muthukaruppan Chettiar started a new business at Penang under the vilasam of AR. M. M. He had four sons, who were joint with him, and the new business belonged to the family. While the A.Y. AR. firm was carrying on business it advanced the sum of $ 5,000 to a customer of the firm on a second mortgage of immoveable property. It became apparent that the chances of recovering this debt were very doubtful and succeeding agents of the firm refused to take it over at the face value. In consequence, it was written down in the books of the A.Y. AR. firm to $5. When the A.Y. AR. partnership was dissolved, each brother took a half share of the assets and undertook to pay half of the liabilities. Under this arrangement, Muthukaruppan Chettiar became ent...
Tag this Judgment!S. Marimuthu Pillai Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1945
Reported in: [1945]13ITR186(Mad)
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by Patanjali Sastri, J.)This reference arises out of an assessment made upon one Marimuthu Pillai as manager of the joint Hindu family consisting of himself and his undivided brother for the year 1940-41.It is common ground that the family (hereinafter referred to as the assessee) was 'resident' in British India within the meaning of Section 4-B (b) of the Indian Income-tax Act, but the assessee was also treated as 'ordinarily resident' in British India within the meaning of Section 4-B of that Act. The question whether the assessee was not ordinarily resident in British India became material in connection with the assessment of the income of certain tea estates owned in Ceylon. If the assessee was also 'ordinarily resident' in British India, such income would be assessable to tax in British India, irrespective of whether or not it was received in or brought into British India. The income-tax authorities assessed the income on that footing, rejectin...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras Vs. Ar. M. M. Firm.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1945
Reported in: [1945]13ITR290(Mad)
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by the Honourable the Chief Justice.)The managing partner of the assessee firm formerly carried on a money-lending business in partnership with his brother at Penang under the vilasam of A. Y. AR. at the end of 1939 the A. Y. AR. firm was dissolved and Muthukaruppan Chettiar started a new business at Penang under the vilasam of AR. M. M. He had four sons, who were joint with him and the new business belonged to the family. While the A. Y. AR. firm was carrying on business it advanced the sum of $ 5,000 to a customer of the firm on a second mortgage of immovable property. It became apparent that the chances of recovering this debt were very doubtful and succeeding agents of the firm refused to take it over at the face value. In consequence it was written down in the books of the A. Y. AR. firm to $ 5. When the A. Y. AR. partnership was dissolved, each brother took a half share of the assets and undertook to pay half of the liabilities. Under this arr...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »