Chennai Court April 1947 Judgments
Sri Sri Satyabhigna theerthaswamy Varu of Uttaradi Mutt by Alur Markap ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1947
Reported in: (1947)2MLJ182
Govindarajachari, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition involves a question of court-fee. The plaintiff asked for an injunction restraining the defendants from felling certain trees and shrubs in certain lands. He valued the injunction at Rs. 100 under Section 7(iv)(d) of the Court-Fees Act and paid a court-fee of Rs. 11-3-0. The suit was dismissed and the plaintiff filed an appeal in the District Court, Guntur. He valued the appeal similarly and on objection being taken by the court-fee examiner, the learned District Judge directed the plaintiff to value the suit as one for declaration and consequential relief by way of injunction in respect of the land in which the trees stood. This order is objected to by the plaintiff in this Civil Revision Petition.2. It seems to me that the point involved is very simple. The relevant provision under the notification of the High Court in R.O.C. No. 911/40-B-1, dated 7th August 1943, is paragraph (2) of the Appendix which is as follows:In suits for inj...
Tag this Judgment!Yamujala Mangamma and anr. Vs. Kalyanapu Appadu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Mad315; (1948)1MLJ247
Shahabuddin, J.1. These revision petitions arise out of O.S. Nos. 97 and 98 of 1943 in the Court of the District Munsiff of Vizianagaram which had been filed with regard to two different plots of land in Seetharamudupeta Agraharam of the Vizianagaram taluk. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 98 was one Mangamma, who claimed to be the owner of the plots and treated the defendants in that suit as tenants holding over. The other suit was filed by Mangamma's lessee against the sub-lessees. The defence in both the suits was that the suit land was part of an estate, that the defendants had therefore occupancy rights and the Civil Court had no jurisdiction. The learned District Munsiff accepted this contention and returned the plaints for presentation to the Revenue Court. The District Judge on appeal confirmed the order in O.S. No. 98 of 1943, but with regard to the other suit while accepting the finding of the trial Court that the land concerned in it formed part of an estate, he was of the opinion ...
Tag this Judgment!Nallendra Konar Vs. Venkatachala Konar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Mad172; (1947)2MLJ201
Frederick William Gentle, C.J.1. This is an application to excuse the delay, if any, in the presentation of an appeal. On the 21st September, 1945, the applicant presented an application to the lower Court asking for (a) a copy of the judgment and (b) a copy of the final decree. So far as the application related to the supply of the copy of the judgment, it was clearly in time. No copy of the judgment was furnished it would seem, because there had not been deposited in the Court by the applicant the full proportion of the stamp duty payable by him. Even so, that was no reason why he should not have been supplied with a copy of the judgment. In the absence of the copy of the final decree being included in the application, he was entitled to the copy of the judgment, and the inclusion of the copy of the decree did not in any way affect his right to have a copy of the judgment. The postponement of the furnishing of the full amount of the stamp paper is stated by him to be on account of th...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. K.M.N.N. Swaminathan Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1947
Reported in: (1947)2MLJ221
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. This reference by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, under Section 66 (I) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, arises out of the assessment for the year 1939-40 made under Section 34 on one K. M.N.N. Swaminathan Chettiar, Karaikudi (hereinafter referred to as the asssessee) who was the karta of his joint family till the 21st January, 1940, when there was a partition of the family property among the members. For the year 1939-40 the assessee was separately assessed as the karta of the family and in his individual capacity in respect of the income of the family and his own private income respectively, but this reference concerns only the assessment of the family income. Before the Income-tax Officer the assessee contended that the income which had accrued to the family without British India in 1938-39 should not be included in the assessment as he, and therefore the family, was 'not ordinarily resident'. The contention, though rejected by the Income-ta...
Tag this Judgment!Koduri Pulleswara Rao and Viswanatham Vs. the Commissioner of Income-t ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Mad170; (1947)2MLJ216
Frederick William Gentle, C.J.1. This is a reference made at the instance of the assessees by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act. The question referred for the opinion of this Court is the following:Whether in the circumstances of the case the Bench had the power in law to order the resumption of the assessment proceedings from the stage indicated in the Bench's order. 2. The facts are the following : The assessees are the agents of the Standard Vacuum Oil Company, Ltd., for the distribution of petrol and oils of various kinds and descriptions. In respect of the year of account the assessees returned a loss of Rs. 731 on their business, as reflected by their books, and it would seem that the assessees obtained from their customers at the time sales were transacted signed vouchers giving the price paid for the goods supplied.3. The Income-tax Officer was not satisfied either with the assessees' books or vouchers. He took the view that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Koduri Pulleswara Rao and Another Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1947
Reported in: [1947]15ITR425(Mad)
GENTLE, C.J. - This is a reference made at the instance of the assessee by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 66 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act. The question referred for the opinion of this Court is the following :-'Whether in the circumstances of the case, the Bench had the power in law to order the resumption of the assessment proceedings from the stage indicated in the Benchs order.'The facts are the following :- The assessees are the agents of the Standard Vacuum Oil Company, Limited, for the distribution of petrol and oils of various kinds and descriptions. In respect of the year of account the assessees returned a loss of Rs. 731 on their business, as reflected by their books, and it would seem that the assessees obtained from their customers at the time sales were transacted signed vouchers giving the price paid for the goods supplied.The Income-tax Officer was not satisfied either with the assessees books or vouchers. He took the view that the assessees were tra...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras Vs. K. M. N. N. Swaminathan Chettia ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1947
Reported in: [1947]15ITR430(Mad)
PATANJALI SASTRI, J. - This reference by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, under Section 66 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, arises out of the assessment for the year 1939-40 made under Section 34 on one K. M. N. N. Swaminathan Chettiar, Karaikudi (hereinafter referred to as the assessee), who was the karta of his joint family till the 21st January, 1940, when there was a partition of the family property among the members. For the year 1939-40 the assessee was separately assessed as the karta of the family and in his individual capacity in respect of the income of the family and his own private income respectively but this reference concerns only assessment of the family income. Before the Income-tax Officer the assessee contended that the income which had accrued to the family without British India in 1938-39 should not be included in the assessment as he, and therefore the family, was 'not ordinarily resident.' The contention, though rejected by the Income-tax O...
Tag this Judgment!The Crown Prosecutor Vs. Krishnan Alias Karikara Krishnan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1947
Reported in: (1947)2MLJ128
Yahya Ali, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 411-A(2), Criminal Procedure Code, from the acquittal of the three respondents of the murder of Nammalwar and of other offences comprised in the charge. The three respondents were tried in Sessions Case No. 6 of 1946 of the First Criminal Sessions of this Court and six charges were framed against them. The first charge was one of murder against all the accused read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code. The second charge was under Section 326, Indian Penal Code, against the first accused. The third and fourth charges were under Section 326 read with Section 114, Indian Penal Code, against the second and third accused. The fifth charge related to the simple hurt committed by the second accused, and the sixth charge was under Section 323 read with Section 114, Indian Penal Code, against the third accused. The jury by a majority of 7 to 2 found the first and second accused not guilty in respect of all the charges against- them, and by a verdict...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Sri Vidyarathna Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Krishnapur Mutt
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Mad50; (1947)2MLJ154
ORDERYahya Ali, J.1. The petitioner was convicted by the Sub-divisional First Class Magistrate, Koondapur, of offences under Clause 3-A of the Madras Rationing Order, 1943, and Clause 19(b) of the same order and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 on cash on the two counts. On appeal, the Sessions Judge of South Kanara confirmed the conviction under Clause 3-A and set aside the conviction under Clause 19(b).2. The contention raised by Mr. V. T. Rangaswami Aiyangar is that having regard to the reasoning employed by the learned Sessions Judge in acquitting the petitioner of the offence under Clause 19(b) of the order he ought to be acquitted under Clause 3-A also. The point made by the learned Sessions Judge in acquitting him under Clause 19(b) was that it appeared from the evidence that to attend to the secular matters concerning the mutt and its properties the petitioner who is the head of the mutt had appointed a manager who was signing the necessary returns and keeping the accounts ...
Tag this Judgment!Murugappa Chettiar Vs. Thirumalai Nadar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Mad191; (1947)2MLJ310
Rajamannar, J.1. This case came up to this Court once before in S.A. No. 1740 of 1943. The only question is whether attachment was actually effected in accordance with law of the properties in suit purchased by the father of defendants 1 and 2 from the third defendant on 26th October, 1928. There was an order for attachment before judgment obtained by the plaintiff in a suit, O.S. No. 524 of 1927, in the District Munsiff's Court of Tenkasi. The plaintiff eventually obtained a decree in the suit on nth February, 1928, and purchased the properties in execution and a sale certificate was issued to him on 17th March, 1533. If the attachment had been validly made then undoubtedly the title acquired by the father of defendants 1 and 2 would not prevail against the title obtained by the plaintiff at the Court sale. It is clear from Ex. G, that there was an order for attachment before judgment made by the Court in I.A. No. 1419 of 1927 in O.S. No. 524 of 1927. The question is whether in pursua...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »