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.
Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras Vs. Pr. Pl. Palaniappa Chettiar.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Mad210; [1945]13ITR269(Mad)
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by the Honble the Chief Justice.)The assessee is the karta of a joint Hindu family which carried on a money-lending business in Muar and Seramban in the Federated Malay States. The year of account is from the 13th April 1940 to the 12th April 1941. The karta went to Muar in the month of November 1938 and remained there until the 20th October 1940 during which time he had control of the familys business in the Federate Malay States. He returned to this Presidency on the 24th October 1940 which means that he was here for a little less than six months of the account year. The Income-tax Officer was of the opinion that the business at Muar and Seramban was controlled by the karta from Madras and consequently the case fell within the second proviso to Section 4 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that there was no evidence that the karta, after his return to this Presidency, had exercised control over the business ...
Sri Amaneswaraswami Temple by Trustee Muthuswami Gurukkal Vs. Devana G ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Mad323; (1945)1MLJ184
King, J.1. This is an appeal from the decree of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore dismissing with costs a suit by the trustee of the Sri Amaneswaraswami temple for a declaration that the inam which has been resumed by the Government comprises both the melwaram and kudiwaram right in the land. The suit was brought under the provisions of Section 44-B of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act. It was resisted by the defendants, to whom the inam was alienated in 1903 by a previous trustee, on the ground that they had kudiwaram right. They pleaded that the resumption was ultra vires as Section 44-B could not in any circumstances apply to an inam which had been granted not to a person whose duty it was to perform services on behalf of a temple but to the deity enshrined in the temple itself. The learned Additional Subordinate Judge upheld this view of the construction of Section 44-B and dismissed the suit.2. It has been urged for the appellant here that the responde...
In Re: Jami Kurmanna
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1945
Reported in: (1945)1MLJ268
ORDERByers, J.1. A typed copy of the lower Court's Order is insufficient and the appellant must produce the requisite number of printed copies of the Judgment in accordance with the mandatory provisions of Order 41-A, Rule 2 read with Order 43 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The words 'unless the Appellate Court dispenses therewith' contained in Order 41, Rule 1 of the Code are not found in the Madras rule, Order 41-A, Rule 2 of the Code. If the appellant's failure to furnish the printed copies in the first instance is due to the fault of the lower Court, time in his favour will probably be allowed; but this is a question which will require consideration only at some later stage. The power of dispensation contained in Order 41, Rule 1, does not extend to appeals presented to the High Court, for which special provision has been made by the amended rules. The petition is ordered to be dismissed....
Subramania Aiyar Vs. Valliamma Alias Maragathavalli Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Mad287; (1945)1MLJ315
King, J.1. The subject-matter of this appeal is a sale of certain items of property belonging to the estate of an insolvent by the Official Receiver on the 12th July, 1943. The sale realised a sum of Rs. 18,100 and the present appellant was the highest bidder. Within the time limit allowed by Section 68 of the Provincial Insolvency Act an application was made by the widow as legal representative of the insolvent to set aside the sale proposing that she would make a deposit of sufficient money to satisfy the creditors. The sale has been set aside by the learned District Judge in the order now appealed against. He provided that enough money should be deposited by the first respondent, the widow, to pay off the debts of the creditors in full, calculated up to the date of the widow's petition with interest. He also directed that compensation of five per cent, upon the analogy of Order 21, Rule 89 should be paid to the appellant. The necessary money was deposited by the first respondent and...
Kangayam V.V.R. Bank by Managing Partner and Agent Valliappa Chettiar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-1945
Reported in: (1945)2MLJ1
1. This appeal is governed by the decision of this Court in Ananthanarayana Iyer v. Sivaramakrishna Iyer : AIR1943Mad370 . The appellant is the plaintiff in the suit. On the 4th July, 1912, one Pattai Goundan mortgaged his one-fourth share in the property in suit to the first defendant and on the 26th September, 1912, he created a second mortgage in favour of the plaintiff. In O.S. No. 802 of 1924, on the file of the District Munsiff's Court of Dharapuram the plaintiff sued to enforce his second mortgage. He did not, however, implead the first defendant as the mortgagee. He obtained a decree and at (he Court sale held in execution on the 13th August, 1929, he bought the mortgagor's one-fourth share. His purchase was, of course, subject to the first mortgage. On the 12th October, 1929, he, obtained symbolical possession.2. In 1926, the first defendant filed a suit (O.S. No. 568 of 1926) to enforce his mortgage without impleading the plaintiff. He obtained a decree. On the 11th November,...
Periyannan Kaladi Vs. Ramaswami Pallavarayan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Mad499; (1945)1MLJ267
Kuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. The appeal has to fail as the decision of the lower Courts that the petition is barred by limitation is correct. The appeal arises out of a petition filed partly under Order 21, Rule 90 and partly under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside a sale held in execution of a decree. The only point on which the appeal has been argued is that the sale was invalid because notice had not been issued to the judgment-debtor before a fresh proclamation was settled. The properties were sold in execution of a decree and they were then described in two lots. The sale had to be set aside because the decree-holder did not deposit the purchase money.' Before a fresh proclamation had to be ordered, a direction was given that the properties in one 6i the lots should be sold separately and individually and not as in one lot. Consequently, a fresh sale proclamation had to be settled. No notice was sent to the judgment-debtor before this fresh proclamation was set...
Vali Venkataswami Chettiar Vs. Minor Ramalingam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Mad157; (1945)1MLJ233
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The question referred is in the following terms:Is the claim for a supplemental decree in a suit for sale barred by time where the bond provides that the mortgage money shall be paid whenever demanded and the suit is brought more' than six years from the date of the bond but within six years from notice of demand?The reference arises out of an application to the District Court of South Arcot for a personal decree in a mortgage suit. The property hypothecated had been sold, but the amount realised was not sufficient to discharge the full liability. The application was opposed on the ground that the personal remedy had become time barred and this plea was accepted. The mortgage was executed on the 2nd June, 1931, and the suit to enforce payment was not filed until the 22nd February, 1938. In the order of reference the relevant portion of the deed has been translated as follows : I shall pay before the 31st March of each year the interest accruing on this...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›