Chennai Court August 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.
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Estate of Late Rm.Ar.Ar.Rm. Arunach ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1946
Reported in: (1946)2MLJ330
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This is a reference made at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras branch, under Section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act. The assessees are the receivers of the estate of a deceased Nattukottai Chettiar named Rm. Ar. Ar. Rm. Arunachalam Chettiar. Before his death the deceased had carried on a money-lending business in Rangoon and after his death it was continued by the receivers of his estate. The income from the Rangoon business for the year of account, 1940-41, was returned at Rs. 42,051. The remittances from Rangoon during that year far exceeded this sum. The Income-tax Officer placed the remittances into three categories. The first category consisted of remittances out of the income of the two previous years. The amount was Rs. 42,051. The second category represented remittances out of unassessed profits of former years. The amount here was Rs. 3,459. The third category represented the remittances ou...
The Official Liquidator Vs. N. Krishnaswami Iyengar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1946
Reported in: (1947)1MLJ234
Clark, J.1. This is a petition by the liquidator under Section 235 of the Act The first respondent was the Managing Director of the Company and the 2nd tc 10th respondents were Directors. The 11th respondent was the Company's auditor and the 12th respondent its head clerk. The first respondent is not appearing in these proceedings He was adjudicated insolvent and the 13th respondent who was the Official Receiver of his estate, was joined, but I am told that the insolvency has been annulled and accordingly the 13th respondent has no further interest in the matter.2. The liquidator claims that large amounts are recoverable from the respondents for misfeasances consisting for the most part in their having granted loans contrary to the bye-laws of the Company. It is alleged that these loans, which are now I understand, irrecoverable, were granted at the absolute discretion of the first respondent without any previous sanction by the Board and, accordingly that the first respondent is prima...
In Re: the Companies Act and S.S.R.S. Nidhi Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1946
Reported in: AIR1948Mad51
ORDERClark, J.1. This is a petition by the liquidator under Section 235 of the Act. Respondent 1 was the Managing Director of the Company and respondents 2 to 10 were directors. Respondent 11 was the company's auditor and respondent 12 its head-clerk. Respondent 1 is not appearing in these proceedings. He was adjudicated insolvent and respondent 13, who was the Official Receiver of his estate, was joined, but I am told that the insolvency has been annulled and accordingly respondent 13 has no further interest in the matter.2. The liquidator claims that large amounts are recoverable from the respondents for misfeasances consisting for the most part in their having granted loans contrary to the byelaws of the company. It is alleged that these loans, which are now, I understand, irrecoverable, were granted at the absolute discretion of respondent 1 without any previous sanction by the Board and, accordingly, that respondent 1 is primarily liable for these losses. It is claimed by the liqu...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras Vs. Rm. Ar. Ar. Rm. Arunachalam Che ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad196; [1946]14ITR760(Mad)
This is a reference made at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras branch, under Section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act. The assessees are the receivers of the estate of a deceased Nattukottai Chettiar named Rm. Ar. Ar. Rm. Arunachalam Chettiar. Before his death the deceased had carried on a money-lending business in Rangoon and after his death it was continued by the receivers of his estate. The income from the Rangoon business for the year of account 1940-41 was returned at Rs. 42,051. The remittances from Rangoon during that year far exceeded this sum. The Income-tax Officer placed the remittances into three categories. The first category consisted of remittances out of the income of the two previous years. The amount was Rs. 42,051. The second category represented remittances out of unassessed profits of former years. The amount here was Rs. 3,459. The third category represented remittances out of assessed profits of older years and...
Pentakota Latchanna and anr. Vs. Vugginna Kannayamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-15-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad120; (1946)2MLJ279
ORDERYahya All, J.1. The petitioners were first indicted under Sections 426 and 352 of the Indian Penal Code and the summons procedure was followed upto a certain stage. Subsequently the trying Magistrate felt that the evidence disclosed offences under Sections 379 and 352 of the Code and decided to adopt the warrant case procedure. It is admitted that thereafter the provisions of Chapter XXI were duly followed and ultimately the petitioners were convicted under Sections 379 and 352 of the Code. Objection was taken to this course and it was pointed out that under Sections 244 and 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the Magistrate was bound, at the stage when he attempted to convert the summons case into a warrant case when he found that no case had been made out under Sections 426 Indian Penal Code, to acquit the accused and he was not entitled to register a case under Section 379 and proceed under Chapter XXI. With regard to this contention at one time it found acceptance in this Co...
Syed Ahmed and anr. Vs. Julaiha Bivi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-15-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad176; (1946)2MLJ335
Patanjali Sashtri, J.1. The only question raised in this appeal relates to the validity of a wakfnama executed by one Mahomed Hussain Rowther, a Hanafi Mussalman, since deceased. His widow, the first respondent herein, sued her co-heirs for partition of his estate and for accounts, impugning the validity of the wakf, and the Subordinate Judge of Mayavaram who tried the suit has upheld her claim, finding that the wakf was not valid either under the Mahomedan Law as it was understood before the Mussalman Wakf Validating Act (No. VI of 1913) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) or under the Act. From that decree the first defendant who is one of the trustees of the wakf has brought this appeal.2. The wakfnama (Ex. I) is in Tamil and is called ' wakf charity deed.' It has five schedules A to E attached to it, of which schedule D specifies the ' particulars of charity to be conducted,' and the remaining schedules describe the properties, lands, and houses, to which it relates. It recites th...
Pipireddigari Gopala Reddi and anr. Vs. N. Lakshmi Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad124; (1946)2MLJ281
ORDERHappell, J.1. The question in this criminal revision case is whether the petitioners were rightly convioied of offences under Section 341 of the Penal Code. The facts as found are these. The petitioners apparently objected to P.W. 1 driving a cart along a path which passed in front of their house. On the day on which the offence is said to have been committed, P.W. 1 was seen by the accused to pass at about 11 a.m. and then when he returned at about 12-30 p.m. they stopped the cart and unyoked the bulls. P.W. 1 who was sitting on the shaft fell down when the bulls were unyoked. The bulls ran away and P.W. 1 proceeded on his way on foot. Accepting the evidence the learned Magistrate convicted the accused of offences under Section 341, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced them each to pay a fine of Rs. 50.2. The argument advanced by Mr. V.C. Gopalaratnam for the petitioners is that there was no wrongful restraint within the meaning of Section 339, Indian Penal Code, because, although th...
In Re: Venkadari Thippayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad118; (1946)2MLJ280
ORDERHappell, J.1. In C.C. No. 127 of 1945, in the Court of the Additional First Class Magistrate of Kurnool one Vandari Changalrayudu was charged with an offence in contravention of the Defence of India Rules. The case was taken up for trial and the Tahsildar of Nandyal, Mr. K. M. Ahmed Sahib Bahadur, gave evidence as P.W. 4. After he had given evidence but before the case was closed, Mr. Ahmed was appointed Additional First Class Magistrate of Kurnool to succeed the Magistrate who was trying C.C. No. 127 of 1945. He proceeded with the trial of the case and convicted the accused. The accused appealed to the Sessions Judge of Kurnool and the learned Sessions Judge set aside the conviction on the ground that Mr. Ahmed should not have heard the case after he had himself given evidence in it, and directed that it should be re-heard by any other competent Magistrate. Subsequent to the passing of this judgment, in appeal, the learned Sessions Judge learnt that Mr, Ahmed had taken up and con...
Kota Navaneethammal and anr. Vs. Wupputur Kamalammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad131; (1946)2MLJ380
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. In a suit tried on the Original Side the appellants challenged the validity of the adoption of the second defendant by Lakshmana Perumal, the -half-brother of the second defendant's mother. In the trial Court the factum of adoption was not disputed and in this Court it has been expressly admitted that the second defendant was adopted by Lakshmanaperumal on the 28th January, 1943. The adoptive father died on the 2nd April, 1944. The suit was filed on the 1st August, 1944, by Navaneethammal, the youngest half-sister of Lakshmanaperumal, and her son. Lakshmanaperumal had three half-sisters. The eldest, who is the sixth defendant, is the mother of the second defendant. The second is the seventh defendant, who supports the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs contended that the adoption was invalid because it offended against the rule of Hindu law which says that there can be no valid adoption unless a marriage were possible between the person for whom the adoption i...
Mylavarapu Ramakrishna Rao, Secretary and Treasurer of the Above Mills ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-1946
Reported in: (1947)1MLJ75
Clark, J.1. The applicant claims to be the Secretary and Treasurer of Sri Krishna Jute Mills, Ltd., Ellore. He is admittedly a shareholder in that Company, as also is the respondent. The respondent was admittedly the Secretary and Treasurer of the Company until the 16th April, 1945. He claims still to be the Secretary and Treasurer, but the applicant claims that he has a better right to those offices and that would appear to be the real substance of the dispute between these two gentlemen. It is common ground that the Secretary and Treasurer of this Company is also a director of the Company ex-offices.2. The applicant's grievance arises in the following circumstances :--He claims that a requisition signed by no shareholders including himself for the holding of an extraordinary general meeting of the Company to consider certain proposals was disregarded by the Directors of the Company. That requisition is stated to have been deposited in the office of the Company on the 30th Jam arty, 1...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »