Chennai Court February 1946 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. S.A.S. Ramaswamy Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1946
Reported in: AIR1946Mad508
Leach, C.J.1. The assessee is a Nattukottai Chetti who at all material 'times was carrying on a money-lending business in Eangoon. He guaranteed a loan granted by a bank in Rangoon to the Chettiar firm of S.A. RM. and as the loan was not repaid by the borrower, he was called upon to make good the amount, Rs. 19,670, under his agreement of guarantee. The assessee sought to deduct this sum as a loss when estimating his profits for the year of account 1939-40. The Income-tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner refused to allow the deduction, but on appeal to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, the assessee's contention was accepted. The tribunal's decision was based on a common practice among Nattukottai Chettiars. It is their custom to borrow from banks for the purpose of lending out the sums so obtained on higher rates of interest. The banks require such overdrafts to be guaranteed by other Chettiars. The Chettiars stand surety for one another in these borrowings. If a Chett...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras Vs. S. A. S. Ramaswamy Chettiar.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1946
Reported in: [1946]14ITR236(Mad)
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by the Honourable the Chief Justice.)The assessee is a Nattukottai Chetti who at all material times was carrying on a money-lending business in Rangoon. He guaranteed a loan granted by a bank in Rangoon to the Chettiar firm of S. A. RM. and as the loan was not repaid by the borrower, he was called upon to make good the amount, Rs. 19,670, under his agreement of guarantee. The assessee sought to deduct this sum as a loss when estimating his profits for the year of account 1939-40. The Income-tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner refused to allow the deduction, but on appeal to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, the assessees contention was accepted. The Tribunals decision was based on a common practice among Nattukottai Chettiars. It is their custom to borrow from banks for the purpose of lending our the sums so obtained as higher rates of interest. The banks require such overdrafts to be guaranteed by other Chettiars. The Chettiars st...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Chuckler Sevuttu Raman
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad129; (1946)2MLJ272
ORDERKuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. This is not a case in which the medical evidence indicates that it is not possible to make the accused know what the proceedings are. Of course somebody will have to take the trouble to speak to the accused in close range and explain him what all has taken place in Court as and when the proceedings go on. It is no doubt a difficult job, but then that will have to be done because the person is deaf. It cannot therefore be said that it is a case in which it is not possible to the Magistrate to make the accused understand what is going on in Court. Merely because the Magistrate will have to take some trouble in making the accused know what is going on, I will not be justified in passing any orders dispensing with the taking of any efforts to make the accused know what is going on. The medical evidence, according to the letter of reference, is that the accused person is only slightly deaf and there is evidence of one of the witnesses for prosecution who knew him...
Tag this Judgment!Penta Govindu and anr. Vs. Medida Venkatapathi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1946
Reported in: AIR1946Mad427; (1946)1MLJ407
Alfred henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This appeal relates to the succession to the estate of one Penta Kondayya, who died about the year 1880. He was survived by his wife Paddamma alias Papamma, who lived until the 1st September, 1926. The first appellant avers that he is the reversioner to the estate and has assigned to the second appellant a half share of the reversionary rights claimed by him. On the 23rd August, 1938, the appellants filed in the Court of the District Munsiff of Peddapuram, the present suit for possession of Kondayya's estate, which according to them consists of 30.83 acres of dry land in Peddapuram and 5.94 acres of wet land in Kattamuru. The first plaintiff's son was in possession of 20 acres of the dry lands and he was made the first defendant in the suit. The rest of the dry lands were in the possession of defendants 2 to 4. On the 25th April, 1883, the widow sold to her brother M. Kondayya, all the wet lands for a sum of Rs. 100.. On the 15th May, 1891, M. Kondayya...
Tag this Judgment!Maruthy, Karnavan and Manager of the Tavazhi Vs. Thayyil Pathumma (ins ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1946
Reported in: AIR1946Mad391; (1946)1MLJ285
Kuppuswami Aiyar, J.1. The only three points for consideration in this appeal are: (1) whether a petition under Section 33, Malabar Tenancy Act (Act 14 [xiv] of 1930), is not maintain-able at the instance of a person who cannot enter into a contract, being insane; (2) what is the correct value to be paid for the Kudiyiruppu; and (3) whether the lower Court is wrong in having treated the hudiyiruppu as a separable hudiyiruppu and allotting the part so separated to the tenant. In this case it is not a case of enforcement of a contract. No doubt the words 'offer' and 'acceptance' are used in the Act but that would not make the transaction a contract. It is the order of Court confirming the right in respect of the portion of a holding as separable hudiyiruppu that confess the right. It is true the petitioner was insane; but then she was represented by a guardian, and if a guardian could file a suit or contest a suit he could also file a petition under Section 38. In these circumstances, I ...
Tag this Judgment!Bhogavilli Parakala Rao and ors. Vs. Bhogavilli Subba Rao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1946
Reported in: (1946)1MLJ411
Happell, J.1. This petition relates to the Court-fee payable in respect of a suit for partition. The plaintiffs-petitioners filed O.S. No. 113 of 1944 in the Subordinate Judge's Court of Ellore for partition and impleaded eight persons as defendants. The first defendant is their father, the second defendant the mother of the first defendant, the third defendant sister of the first, the fourth defendant the husband of the deceased sister of the first defendant and defendants 5 to 8 are alleged to be alienees in respect of properties belonging to the family. In paragraph 3 of the plaint, it is stated that defendants 1 to 3 had been creating documents in collusion which alienated joint family properties, but that the properties had remained in the joint possession of the plaintiffs and the first defendant. It is also. asserted in this paragraph that any decrees obtained against the first defendant alone could not be enforced against the plaintiffs' interests in the joint family properties...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Govinda Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1946
Reported in: (1946)2MLJ165
ORDER1. By Clause 15 of the Letters Patent it is necessary that the Judge who has passed the judgment in a second appeal shall certify it as a fit case for appeal in order that an appeal under that clause may lie. It is suggested that Clause 44 somehow abrogates the effect of Clause 15. We are unable to appreciate this contention. The petition is rejected....
Tag this Judgment!The Public Prosecutor Vs. D. Khader Khan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad321; (1946)2MLJ461
Kuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. This is an appeal by the Crown against the order of the Joint Magistrate of Madanapalle, acquitting the accused in C.C. No. 86 of 1945, who was prosecuted for failure to pay the general sales tax for 1943-44 and 1944-45 in contravention of Rule 10 of the General Sales Tax Rules. The offence was punishable under Section 15(b) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939.2. There is no other evidence except that, of the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer to show that the accused was liable to pay the tax. Because he did not appeal against the levying of the tax, the prosecution wanted it to be inferred that the tax was leviable and that he was liable to pay the tax. As pointed out in Ramaswami Iyengar v. The Sivakasi Municipality (1936) M.W.N. (Cri.) 221, in which reference is also made to other cases decided by this Court, the burden is upon the prosecution to establish affirmatively that the accused was liable to pay the tax and that he failed to pay the same. It is a...
Tag this Judgment!P. Kuttiali and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1946
Reported in: (1946)1MLJ286
ORDERKuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. The petitioners have been convicted by the Joint Magistrate of Tellicherry and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 on each count in respect of purchases made by them of paddy and rice, in contravention of Clause 7 of the Madras Rationing Order. Both the Courts have found that they did purchase and that they committed the offence.2. What is urged before me is that the expression ' rationed article ' must be understood with reference to the use to which the article was to be put and not with reference to the place of the transaction in respect of the articles. The persons, who are said to have purchased the articles are persons living outside the rationed area, but the transaction took place within the rationed area. The object of the order is to prevent the violation of the rationing orders. The scheme of the order clearly indicates that it was intended to prevent unrestricted purchases and sales in the rationed area. Therefore, purchases and sales in the ra...
Tag this Judgment!Lingala Bugga Reddi Vs. Yennam Pedda Yerikala Reddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1946
Reported in: AIR1946Mad408; (1946)1MLJ307
Happell, J.1. The appellant obtained a decree against the father of the respondents in O.S. No. 169 of 1941 on 20th October, 1941. Subsequently the respondents and their father divided and this appeal arises out of an application by the appellant under Sections 50 and 53 of the Code of Civil Procedure to have the sons made parties to the execution application and to proceed in execution against their shares. The petition was allowed by the District Munsiff; but the District Judge of Kurnool allowed the appeal to him and dismissed the application.2. The question is whether in the circumstances of the case, the decree-holder was entitled to proceed against the coparcenary property in the hands of the respondents in execution or whether his remedy was not to proceed against this property by way of a separate suit. In my opinion, the decision of the District Judge is correct. It has no doubt been held that where the sons had been impleaded though exonerated the decree-holder could proceed ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »