Chennai Court January 1946 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.
T. Ponnirula Pillai Vs. the Western India Oil Distributing Company Lim ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1946
Reported in: AIR1946Mad470; (1946)1MLJ264
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach1. The plaintiff in the action is the appellant. He sued on the Original Side of this Court for an account of moneys alleged to be due to him by way of commission. At all times material to the suit, the plaintiff was the chief agent of the defendant company for the sale of petrol and fuel oil in the southern part of the Madras Presidency. He was appointed under an agreement in writing and the period of the agency was fixed at ten years from the 29th May, 1933. The contract provided that the plaintiff was to have a commission on every gallon of petrol or oil sold, whether the sales were through dealers or effected by the company direct.2. The plaintiff was a shareholder in the company and in 1937 had failed to pay the final call due in respect of his shares. In these circumstances, the defendant forfeited his shares and filed a suit in the Bombay High Court to recover some Rs. 36,000, the amount of the final call. On the 15th November, 1937, the plaintiff filed ...
Mahankali Subba Rao Vs. Jalasutram Audinarayanamurty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1946
Reported in: AIR1946Mad388; (1946)1MLJ262
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. The respondents were adjudicated insolvents on their own petition I.P. No. 18 of 1935 on 16th October, 1935. This adjudication was. annulled by the learned Judge in chambers on 19th November, 1937, on the ground that the insolvents did not file their adjudication for discharge within the time-fixed by the Court. No order was made in regard to the property of the insolvents which had been vested in the Official Receiver. There was an application for review of this order by two creditors and allowing the application the learned Judge passed an order on the 17th of August, 1942, confirming his order of annulment and vesting the insolvents' properties in the Official Receiver under Section 37 for distribution amongst the creditors of the insolvent. On 26th January, 1943, the insolvents applied for reviewing the order dated 17th August and revesting the property in themselves alleging that all the creditors who had not obtained decrees except creditors Nos. 7 and 17 w...
V. Venkatarama Nayudu Vs. the Province of Madras, by Representative, t ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1946
Reported in: AIR1946Mad375; (1946)1MLJ253
1. The petitioner was formerly a police constable who served from 1909 until 1940 when he was dismissed by the District Superintendent of Police at Salem because of his conviction and sentence by the High Court for contempt of Court.2. The petitioner brought a suit for a declaration that his dismissal was wrongful in that it had been made without any notice to him and without any opportunity of showing cause; and he also asked for arrears of pay amounting in all to Rs. 972. The suit was brought in forma pauperis and without going into the question of pauperism, which was contested by the learned Government Pleader, the learned District Munsiff dismissed the suit under Order 33, Rule 5 (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure.3. The dismissal of the petitioner by the District Superintendent of Police was under Rule 77 of the Police Standing Orders. The rule is in these words:(1) No Police Officer, convicted of an offence and sentenced to imprisonment, shall be retained, in the service, withou...
S. Ranganathan and ors. Vs. A. Krishnayya, Arbitrator, Lloyds Road Are ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1946
Reported in: AIR1946Mad504
Leach, C.J.1. All these petitions can be dealt with in a common judgment. Except in C.M.P. No. 6057 of 1945 and the connected C.R.P. No. 1557 of 1945, the facts are the same.2. We will first deal with the petitions in which the facts are identical. Here the petitioners ask for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash proceedings before the arbitrator appointed under chap. 5, Madras Town Planning Act of 1920 and of a writ of prohibition against further proceedings being entered upon.3. On 19th August 1930, under Section 12, Madras Town Planning Act of 1920, as amended by Madras Act, 2[II] of 1930, the Provincial Government directed the Corporation of Madras to prepare, publish and submit for its sanction by 1st May 1931, draft schemes in respect of lands specified in three areas in the City of Madras, namely, the Lloyds Road Area, the Cathedral Road (South) Area, and the Mylapore Eastern Section Area, the boundaries of these areas being defined by the notification. The petitions befor...
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. the Motors and General Stores Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1946
Reported in: AIR1946Mad327; (1946)1MLJ220
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The assessee is a limited liability company. During the whole of the year of account (1942-43) it carried on business in electrical stores in the distribution of electricity. For part of the year, namely, from the 23rd January, 194210 the 31st March, 1942, it also carried on an oil mill business. Although the oil mill had only worked for two months and seven days in the year of account, the company claimed to be entitled to deduct the full allowance for depreciation contemplated by Section 10(2)(vi) of the Income-tax Act. The Income-tax Officer held that the company was only entitled to a proportionate allowance and this decision was accepted by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. On appeal by the assessee to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, the decision of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was reversed. The Tribunal held that on the wording of the section, the assessee was entitled to an allowance as if the machinery had been worked throughout ...
Ramasubba Aiyar Vs. Muthu Kr.Ar.Pl. Arunachalam Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1946
Reported in: AIR1946Mad423; (1946)1MLJ379
Rajamannar, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the decree of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Madura dismissing his suit for the recovery of Rs. 5,100 by the enforcement of a charge on the properties mentioned in the plaint schedule. These properties originally belonged to one Mecca Meera Levvai Rowther. He had executed in favour of one Srinivasa Ayyar, two mortgages on 21st December, 1910 and 25th September, 1912, for Rs. 2,000 and Rs. 3,000-respectively. The properties in suit and other properties were purchased by the plaintiff in 1920, from one Sikandar Rowther to whom the original owner had alienated these and other properties in 1918.2. One Syed Muhammad Rowther, a creditor of the original owner, brought a suit O.S. No. 24 of 1917 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Madura to recover an amount due to him and obtained an attachment before judgment of the properties of the debtor including the suit properties, which were actually attached in March...
In Re: Palaniswami Goundan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1946
Reported in: AIR1946Mad502; (1946)1MLJ406
ORDERKuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. The only point for consideration in this case is whether a police officer, who had filed what is styled as a ' final charge sheet' in which he has not laid a charge against one of several persons against whom information was received by him at the earliest stage of investigation, could file a further charge sheet against that person without disclosing that he had received any further information. No authority has been cited for the contention that such supplementary charge sheet cannot be laid. All that the section says is that the final charge sheet shall be filed after the investigation is closed, but there is nothing said in the Code as to when the investigation is to be considered to have ended. If a police officer after he lays a charge, gets information, he can still investigate and lay further charge sheets; and so there is no finality either to the investigation or to the laying of charge sheets in the sense in which it is sought to be understood in ...
Mettu Bhimudu Vs. Duggirala Pitchayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1946
Reported in: AIR1946Mad497; (1946)1MLJ462
yahya Ali, J.1. This is an application to revise the order of the District Munsiff of Ramachandrapuram rejecting the petitioner's application under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code for amending the plaint filed by him in O.S. No. 112 of 1944. The plaintiff alleged in the plaint that he was adopted in 1922 by his paternal uncle who was the first defendant. The first defendant had a daughter who was married to Surayya. It was averred in the plaint that the first defendant under the advice of his daughter was making attempts to alienate property belonging jointly to the plaintiff and the first defendant and that in doing so he had granted long term leases to the second defendant in respect of some of the joint family properties. That was urged as the ground for the plaintiff, as the adopted son of the first defendant, to ask for partition of his half share and separate possession thereof. The plaint as originally framed was upon this basis and the relief that was asked for wa...
Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras Vs. Motors and General Stores Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1946
Reported in: [1946]14ITR130(Mad)
LEACH, C.J. - The assessee is a limited liability company. During the whole of the year of account (1942-43) it carried on business in electrical stores and in the distribution of electricity. For part of the year, namely, from the 23rd January, 1942, to the 31st March, 1942, it also carried on an oil mill business. Although the oil mill had only worked for two months and seven days in the year of account, the company claimed to be entitled to deduct the full allowance for depreciation contemplated by Section 10(2)(vi) of the Income-tax Act. The Income-tax Officer held that the company was only entitled to a proportionate allowance and this decision was accepted by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. On appeal by the assessee to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, the decision of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was reversed. The Tribunal held that on the wording of the section, the assessee was entitled to an allowance as if the machinery had been worked throughout the year.At th...
In Re: Kudiyala Chandrasekhara Varaprasad Minor by Mother and Guardian ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad1; (1946)2MLJ104
Byers, J.1. This petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure relates to the levy of poundage by the learned Subordinate Judge of Tenali on the sale of numerous parcels of cloth by the receiver appointed in a partition suit. It was contended in the lower Court that no poundage was chargeable and that in any event it should be calculated only on the gross amount realised by the several sales held by the receiver, who sold the property in convenient lots to several purchasers at various times. The learned Subordinate Judge held that poundage was chargeable and he calculated it on the amount of each separate sale and not on the total of all the sales.2. In support of the first of these conclusions the learned Subordinate Judge relied on the decision in Balagurumurthi Chetiyar v. Muhammad Ismail : AIR1945Mad238 and learned Counsel has not pressed his objection to the levy of poundage.3. Dealing with the second point, Rule 200 of the Civil Rules of Practice and Circular Orders ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »