Chennai Court March 1945 Judgments
In Re: Kandimalla Thirupelu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Mad424; (1945)2MLJ88
ORDERHappell, J.1. The order of the learned Sessions Judge directing the Taluk Second Class Magistrate of Pulivendla to hold a further inquiry and consider whether there are, or are not grounds for inquiring into a charge against the accused of a more serious character than the charge in respect of which they were committed cannot be supported. The Sessions Judge made the order because in the course of the examination of P.W. 1, it appeared that in connection with the transaction in which P.W. 1 was himself injured a certain Sultan had been killed. No charge-sheet, however, was framed in connection with the death of Sultan and the accused were not committed on any charge connected with his death. Under Section 436 of the Code of Criminal Procedure a Sessions Judge may direct further inquiry into the case of a person who has been discharged; and under Section 437 he can order the commitment of a person who has been discharged instead of directing a fresh inquiry. There appears, however,...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. the Shanmugham Rubber Estate Kaulal ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1945
Reported in: (1945)2MLJ93
1. The question in this reference is whether the respondent firm was resident in British India within the meaning of Section 4-A (b) of the Indian Income-tax Act. That section says that for the purposes of the Act a Hindu undivided family, firm or other association of persons is resident in British India unless the control and management of its affairs is situated wholly without British India. In other words, if the control and management of its affairs is partly within British India the family, firm or association of persons as the case may be, is deemed to be resident in British India for the purposes of the Act.2. The partners in the assessee firm are six Nattukottai Chettiars. The partnership was formed on the 19th December, 1935, for the purpose of acquiring and working a rubber plantation in Malacca known as the Shanmugham Rubber Estate. The partnership deed provided that two of the partners should in rotation have control of the partnership business. All the partners had money-l...
Tag this Judgment!Gnanasoundari Vs. Nallathambi Alias Jokiam Jebamalai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Mad516; (1945)2MLJ80
ORDERHappell, J.1. This is a petition to revise the judgment of the Special First Glass Magistrate, Devakottai, in Calendar Case No. 76 of 1944, by which he has acquitted the first and third accused in that case. The 1st accused was baptised a Roman Catholic and married his first wife in a Roman Catholic Church. The complainant P.W. 1 is a protestant and in 1930, after the death of his first wife, the 1st accused married her in a Protestant Church, the ceremony being performed by a Protestant Pastor. Two children were born of the marriage. On 19th May, 1942, the complainant executed a release deed Ex. 1, in favour of the 1st accused--the relevance of this deed will appear later. On 16th September, 1943, the 1st accused married the 2nd accused in a Roman Catholic Church, the ceremony being performed by the 3rd accused, a Roman Catholic Priest. Thereafter on 14th December, 1943, P.W. 1 filed a complaint in the Court of the Joint Magistrate of Ramnad charging the 1st and 2nd accused with ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras Vs. the Shanmugham Rubber Estate.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1945
Reported in: [1945]13ITR329(Mad)
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by the Honourable the Chief Justice).The question in this reference is whether the respondent firm was resident in British India within the meaning of Section 4A (b) of the Indian Income-tax Act. That section says that for the purposes of the Act a Hindu undivided family, firm or other association of persons is resident in British India unless the control and management of its affairs is situated wholly without British India. In other words, if the control and management of its affairs is partly within British India, the family, firm or association of persons as the case may be, is deemed to be resident in British India for the purposes of the Act.The partners in the assessee firm are six Nattukottai Chettiars. The partnership was formed on the 19th December 1935 for the purpose of acquiring and working a rubber plantation in Malacca known as the Shanmugham Rubber Estate. The partnership deed provided that two of the partners should in rotation have...
Tag this Judgment!Lingappa Goundan and ors. Vs. Ramaswami Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Mad244; (1945)1MLJ347
Somayy, J.1. The well shown in the plaint plan was reserved in common between three brothers who divided the rest of their common properties. The properties allotted to each brother was mentioned in a separate schedule and in each schedule we find the following:The above lands inclusive of trees, etc., together with the right to a third share in the well in S. No. 574.2. Till the events that gave rise to this suit, there were two picottas on the eastern side of the well and all the co-sharers have been using those picottas or baling-stands for baling out water from the well. The plaintiff's case is that he found some trouble in baling out water at the then existing baling-stands and therefore wanted to construct a baling-stand at the point AB on the southern portion of the common well. The land situated to the south and west of the common well belongs wholly to the plaintiff, and the point AB at which he wanted to erect a common baling-stand is on the southern side of the well. The def...
Tag this Judgment!Rashid Jamshed Sons and Co., by Its Proprietor, S.R. Ahestani Vs. Mool ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Mad371; (1945)2MLJ98
Somayya, J.1. The question involved in this appeal is whether a separate suit lies to enforce the reliefs granted by an award passed under the Indian Arbitration Act (X of 1940) or whether the procedure under Section 14 of the Act must be resorted to.2. There were disputes between the parties regarding certain contracts which they entered into for sale by the plaintiff-respondent and for purchase by the defendants-appellants of certain quantities of Japan camphor. The case of the respondent is that the appellants did not take delivery of the camphor contracted for, that subsequently he sold the camphor and sustained loss which the appellants would not pay, that the disputes between the parties were referred to the arbitration of the Madras Kirana Merchants Association in accordance with a clause contained in the contracts to that effect and that an award was passed by the arbitrators. The suit is for recovery of the sum adjudged by the arbitrators by the award. The defence is that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Alapati Ankamma Vs. Pavuluri Basava Punnayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Mad360; (1945)1MLJ386
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. The appellant held a decree passed on nth April, 1934, against respondent for payment of Rs. 615-10-8 due on a promissory note and Rs. 111-3-0 tor costs. In execution of another decree certain properties of the respondent were attached and sold, and out of the sale proceeds a sum of Rs. 788-13-2 was paid to the appellant on 30th August, 1941, by way of rateable distribution. In the meantime, however, the respondent applied on 30th June, 1941, for scaling down the appellant's decree in accordance with the provisions of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act, 1938, and the decree was scaled down to Rs. 344-1-5 with interest at six per cent, per annum from 1st October, 1937 and costs as originally awarded. This was on 30th October 1941. The respondent thereupon applied for festitution of Rs. 233-1-3 being the sum recovered by the appellant in excess of the amount of the decree and as scaled down, and the Courts below have allowed the claim. Hence the appeal.2. Two con...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: T.S. Swaminathan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Mad284; (1945)1MLJ449
Wadsworth, J.1. These appeals arise out of a case of alleged conspiracy to defraud the Government by misappropriation of magisterial fines case properties and other funds and to falsify registers, records and accounts in o'rder to conceal the defalcations committed in pursuance of this conspiracy. The appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 648 who will be referred to as the first appellant if a member of the Indian Civil Service who was during the relevant period Sub-Collector and Joint Magistrate of Rajahmundry. The appellant in Criminal Appeal No 826 who will be referred to as the second appellant, was his magisterial clerk. The first appellant at the time of the alleged conspiracy was an officer of more than twelve years' service drawing a pay of approximately Rs. 1,600 per mensem The second appellant was a senior clerk on a pay of Rs. 58. The period covered bv the conspiracy according to the charge is from 1st January, 1940, to the 17th April 1942. The first appellant was posted to Rajah...
Tag this Judgment!Penumatsa Rangaraju Vs. Sait Devichand Bhootaji Firm Partner Sait Sesh ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Mad439; (1945)2MLJ113
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. The short question for determination in this civil revision petition is whether the second defendant, petitioner herein, can be made liable on a promissory note executed by his partner, the first defendant. The Court below has found that the first defendant was the managing partner of a rice. mill business carried on in partnership with the second defendant and others under the name of Sri Kusumaharinadha Rice Mill at Amalapuram in East Godavari District, and that the money was borrowed for the purposes of the business. On these findings it has passed a decree for the sum claimed with interest and costs against both the defendants personally and also against the assets of the firm.2. The promissory note runs thus:Promissory note executed and delivered on 10th December, 1939, corresponding to Sunday, the 30th day of Karthika Bahula of the year Pramadi, in favour of Sait Devichand Bhutaji Garu, resident of Amalapuram, by Kalidindi Narayanaraju Garu's son Satyanaray...
Tag this Judgment!Kunnatan Vittil Chandu Kutty Nayar and anr. Vs. Karayat Gopalan Nayar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Mad426; (1945)2MLJ78
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The plaintiffs in this suit are brother and sister. With their brother Chathu alias Cheriyomana Nair, they formed a farwad. On the 25th August, 1939, the first defendant granted a kanom demise to the plaintiffs and Chathu in respect of the property in suit. In O.S. No. 747 of 1940 in the Court of the District Munsiff of Quilandi, the first defendant obtained a decree for possession of the property on the ground that he wished to cultivate it himself. He obtained possession but he did not continue to cultivate the land. In or about the month of August, 1942, he granted an oral lease of the property to the second defendant and on the 9th February, 1943, he executed a registered lease in his favour. Thereupon the plaintiffs filed the present suit under Section 21 of the Malabar Tenancy Act for restoration to them of the land from which they were evicted. Originally there were only two defendants; the jenmi and his lessee. Subsequently the heirs of Chathu ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »