Chennai Court February 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.
V.S.A. Arumuga Mudaliar Vs. V.S.P. Balasubramania Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Mad294; (1945)1MLJ463
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. These two appeals arise out of an order passed by the Additional Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore on the 23rd November, 1942. No. 269 of 1943 is an appeal against the order itself. No. 213 of 1943 it against the deceree which followed the order and has been filed by the appellant ex abundanti cautela. For reasons which we shall state both the appeals must be dismissed.2. The appellant is the seventh defendant in a suit for partition of joint family property. The plaintiff is the first respondent. There are altogether fifteen defendants, but only defendants 1 to 8 are really concerned with the suit. The plaint was filed on the 22nd Novemb3r, 1940. In 1942 a settlement was contemplated and in order that it might be brought about, the Court granted several adjournments. On the 31st August, 1942, it was reported that the seventh defendant had consented 'to settle matters' and at his request the case was adjourned until the 7th September, 1942. After the two...
Rachakonda Venkata Veeraraghavayya and anr. Vs. Pinapala Sreenivasa Ra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Mad231; (1945)1MLJ288
ORDER--The suit is to stand dismissed only as regards defendants 2 and 4 who are interested in items 4, 5 and 6; as regards other defendants and other items, the decree of the lower appellate Court will have to stand, as they have not preferred any appeal.7. The court-fee must be paid by the plaintiff. (No leave)....
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. K.C. Manavikrama Rajah of Calicut ( ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1945
Reported in: (1945)1MLJ263
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The assessee is the Zamorin of Calicut. He owns agricultural lands in the district of Malabar which he leases to tenants. Under the Malabar Tenancy Act, 1930, a tenant is entitled to renewal of his lease, which is usually for 12 years. It is the custom in that part of India for the tenant to pay a renewal fee which is known as Avakasam and additional Avakasam which is a percentage of the Avakasam. The assessee has been in the habit of requiring his tenants to pay more than the Avakasam and additional Avakasam before granting them renewals. What the assessee exacts from his tenants on a renewal is allocated in his books under the following heads : (1) Avakasam, (2) Additional Avakasam, (3) Thirumasapoli, (4) power-of-attorney fees, (5) writing charges, (6) Thirumalkazcha, (7) Thirukkaikanom, (8) sundry expenses, (9) expenses at the tenant's place, and (10) expenses for the estate office. We are told that Thirumasapoli is a religious ceremony held monthl...
V.M. Raghavalu Naidu and Sons by Executors Mr. C.G. Krishnaswami Naidu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Mad311; (1945)1MLJ296
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The assessees are the executors of the will of one M. Seshachalam Naidu, who died in the year 1936. By his will he directed that his executors should pay to his widow monthly the sum of Rs. 50 for her own use and a further sum of Rs. 1,000 each month for the maintenance of herself and her children. In accordance with these directions, the executors paid to the widow Rs. 12,156 in the year of account. The Income-tax Officer assessed the executors on the footing that the estate belonged to a joint Hindu family, but on appeal the Appellate, Assistant Commissioner said that the status was that of an ' Association of Individuals,' and directed the Income-tax Officer to make the assessment on this basis. The Income-tax Officer did so and again allowed the deduction of the Rs. 12,156.. In the following year, another Income-tax Officer decided that his predecessor was wrong in allowing the deduction of Rs. 12,156 and decided to re-open the assessment under Sec...
Kadir Bathummal Vs. Meeral Melial Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Mad303; (1945)1MLJ338
Somayya, J.1. In this case both the Courts have found that the first defendant, the brother of the plaintiff, took possession of the entire estate left by the father including a prosperous business which he was carrying on. The plaintiff was at the time of her father's death an infant and she was living with the brother who was managing the properties. The properties in question were purchased by the brother, the first defendant, out of the profits of the business which he was carrying on. Both the lower Courts found that the first defendant was in a fiduciary position. On these facts, the decision in Kathoom Bi v. Abdul Wahab Sahib : AIR1939Mad313 clearly applies. There the plaintiff's father died leaving a daughter, the plaintiff, who was entitled to a half share and three brothers. The plaintiff's uncles took possession of the entire properties including a business which the deceased was carrying on. Subsequently some properties were acquird from the profits of the business which th...
S.N.A.Al.Ct. Chidambaram Chettiar Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1945
Reported in: (1945)1MLJ406
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. This reference arises out of an assessment to income-tax for the year 1940-41 made on one S.N.A. Al. Ct. Chidambaram Chettiar (hereinafter referred to as the assessee), a Nattukottai Chetti money lender and banker carrying on business at Karaikudi in British India, his headquarters (Oorkadai), and at Penang and Butterworth in the Federated Malay States.2. In the assessment for the year 1939-40 the assessee suffered a loss of Rs. 41253 at Karaikudi, where he also bought and sold securities on his own account. After setting off the loss against the profits of the business abroad, there was a net loss of Rs. 21,522, which was carried forward to the next year. In the assessment for that year (1940-41) it was found that there was again a loss of Rs. 23,125 at Karaikudi, but the business at Penang resulted in profits. The assessee claimed that not only the loss of Rs. 23,125, but also the unadjusted balance of loss carried forward from 1939-40, viz., Rs. 21,522, should...
Nagaratnam Pillai Vs. Kamalathammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Mad299; (1945)1MLJ394
King, J.1. This is an appeal by the first defendant against the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge decreeing O.S. No. 47 of 1943, as against the appellant. The appeal is filed under Order XLIII, Rule 1(6)of the Code of Civil Procedure which provides a right of appeal from an order under Rule 10 of Order VIII, pronouncing judgment against a party. The judgment does not say specifically that it is being pronounced against the first defendant under that order; and because this is so, a preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the plaintiff that no miscellaneous appeal lay and that the appellant's only right was to file a regular appeal and pay the required court-fee. We have found against this preliminary objection. Although the language of paragraph 2 of the judgment is somewhat ambiguous and refers not only to the failure of the appellant to file his written statement in time, but also to the fact that at the trial on the second February 1944 he did not appear, it seems clea...
S.N.A. Al. Ct. Chidambaram Chettiar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Mad318
Patanjali Sastri, J. 1. This reference arises out of an assessment to income-tax for the year 1940-41 made on one S.N.A. Al. Ct. Chidambaram Chettiar (hereinafter referred to as the assesses), a Nattukottai Chetti moneylender and banker carrying on business at Karaikudi in British India, his headquarters (Oorkadai), and at Penang and Butterworth in the Federated Malay States.2. In the assessment for the year 1939-40 the assessee suffered a loss of Rs. 41,253 at Karaikudi, where he also bought and sold securities on his own account. After setting off the loss against the profits of the business abroad, there was a net loss of Rs. 21,522, which was carried forward to the next year. In the assessment for that year (1940-41) it was found that there was again a loss of Rs. 23,125 at Karaikudi, but the business at Penang resulted in profits. The assessee claimed that not only the loss of Rs. 28,125, but also the unadjusted balance of loss carried forward from 1939-40, viz., Rs. 21,522, shoul...
Commissioner of Income-tax Madras Vs. K. C. Manavikraman Rajah.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1945
Reported in: [1945]13ITR174(Mad)
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by the Honble the Chief Justice).The assessee is the Zamorin of Calicut. He owns agricultural lands in the district of Malabar which he leases to tenants. Under the Malabar Tenancy Act, 1930, a tenant is entitled to renewal of his lease, which is usually for 12 years. It is the custom in that part of India for the tenant to pay a renewal fee, which is known as Avakasam and additional Avakasam which is a percentage of the Avakasam. The assessee has been in the habit of requiring his tenants to pay more than the Avakasam and additional Avakasam before granting them renewals. What the assessee exacts from his tenants on a renewal is allocated in his books under the following heads : (1) Avakasam, (2) additional Avakasam, (3) Thirumasapoli, (4) Power of attorney fees, (5) writing charges, (6) Thirumalkazcha, (7) Thirukkaikanom, (8) sundry expenses, (9) expenses at the tenants place, and (10) expenses for the estate office. We are told that Thirumasapoli...
Noony Suryanarayanamurthi, Minor Represented by Next Friend and Matern ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1945
Reported in: (1945)1MLJ292
Patanjali Sastri, J. 1. These connected appeals arise out of a suit for partition brought by the appellant in the main appeal A.S. No. 89 of 1943, impleading his father as the first defendant and his brother as the third defendant. The first defendant having been adjudicated insolvent, the Official Receiver in whom the property of the insolvent had vested was joined as the second defendant. Defendants 4 to 6 were the unmarried daughters of the first defendant. Certain creditors and alienees of family properties were also impleaded as defendants 7 to 18, and questions were raised as to the binding character of the transactions which they had respectively entered into with the first or the second defendant as the case may be. 2. Before the third defendant was born in 1938, the half share in the family properties to which the first defendant was entitled at the time of his adjudication (23rd March, 1933) had become vested in the second defendant. After the proceedings in insolvency had la...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »