Chennai Court February 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.
F.P.S. Albuquerque Vs. the Catholic Bank Ltd. by Its Secretary, Mr. C. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1946
Reported in: AIR1946Mad352; (1946)1MLJ244
Wadsworth, J.1. The appellant was indebted to the respondent bank and the parties referred their dispute regarding the debt to an arbitrator who, on 3rd January, 1938 gave an award in favour of the bank holding that the appellant had to pay Rs. 54,492-4-0. This award was registered on the 20th January, 1938 and on the 31st January, 1938, it was filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, South Kanara, on the assumption that the procedure laid down in Schedule II to the Code of Civil Procedure would apply. A decree was passed and against an order for execution of this decree there was an appeal which was eventually decided by a Full Bench of this Court on the 25th January, (1944) 1 M.L.J. 290 The Full Bench held that because the creditor was a limited company registered under the Indian Companies Act, the award must necessarily come under the provisions of the Indian Arbitration Act of 1899 and not under the Code of Civil Procedure. As a consequence of this decision the arbitrator at t...
Palaniammal Vs. Arumugham Chetti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1946
Reported in: AIR1946Mad481; (1946)1MLJ277
Chandrasekhara Aiyar, J.1. The wife, who was the petitioner in the trial Court and respondent in the District Court, has preferred this appeal against the order of remand in a matter relating to the execution of a decree for maintenance that she had obtained.2. When she sought to execute the decree, she was met by an objection from the husband that, as they resumed co-habitation after the decree, the decree had become ineffective and that it was unexecutable. The District Munsiff overruled the defendant's objection and allowed execution to proceed. He held that the husband was barred by res judicata from setting up any contention to the effect that the decree had ceased to be effective and he based this finding on the fact that, in a prior execution petition filed by the wife, when notice went to the husband under Order 21, Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, he did not come forward with any such objection and execution was proceeded with by attachment of certain properties in resp...
Kesava Pandithan Vs. Govindan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1946
Reported in: AIR1946Mad287; (1946)1MLJ259
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The real question in this appeal is whether a member of a joint Hindu family who is disqualified from enjoying his share in the family estate by reason of the fact that he is deaf and dumb is entitled to take and enjoy the whole estate when he becomes the sole surviving member of the family.2. On the 27th September, 1939, one Muniyan, who' had been deaf and dumb from birth, settled upon the plaintiff, the husband of his sister, property which had formed the estate of the joint family of which he was a member. The joint family consisted of himself and his brother Manickam, who died in or about the year 1919. The first and second defendants are the sons of Mari, the divided brother of the father of Muniyan and Manickam. On the death of Manickam, they took possession of the property as his heirs, Muniyan being excluded by reason of his affliction. As the result of the settlement the plaintiff sued in the Court of the District Munsiff of Kallakurichi for a...
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ve.K.R. Savumiamurthy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1946
Reported in: (1946)1MLJ297
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. This reference arises out of an. assessment to income-tax and excess profits duty made on the respondent as the manager of a Hindu undivided family of the year 1940-41.2. The family was carrying on business at Kaketiruppupudur (Ramnad district) in British India and in Ceylon and its income from both these sources has been taxed on the footing that the family was ' resident ' and ' ordinarily resident ' in British India. In each case the income taxed was of the' previous year,' which was the Tamil year Pramathi ending 12th April, 1940, for the Indian business and the financial year ending 31st March, 1940, for the foreign business, the assessee's accounts in the two places having been made up to those dates respectively. There was no dispute that the family was ' resident ' in British India within the meaning of Section 4(1)(b) read with Section 4-A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, as. amended by the Income-tax (Amendment) Act (VII of 1939.) The assessee, howev...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras Vs. V. E. K. R. Savumiamurthy.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad147; [1946]14ITR185(Mad)
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by Patanjali Sastri, J.)This reference arises out of an assessment to income-tax and excess profits duty made on the respondent as the manager of a Hindu undivided family for the year 1940-41.The family was carrying on business at Kakatiruppupudur (Ramnad District) in British India and in Ceylon, and its income from both these sources has been taxed on the footing that the family was 'resident' and 'ordinarily resident' in British India. In each case the income taxed was of the 'previous year,' which was the Tamil year Pramathi ending 12th April 1940 for the Indian business and the financial year ending 31st March 1940 for the foreign business, the assessees accounts in the two places having been made up to those dates respectively. There was no dispute that the family was 'resident' in British India within the meaning of Section 4(1)(b) read with Section 4-A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, as amended by the Income-tax (Amendment) Act, VII of 19...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›