Chennai Court April 1947 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.
Bava C. Gopalaswami Mudaliar Vs. Sri Tyagarajaswami Devasthanam by Its ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Mad43; (1947)2MLJ235
Rajamannar, J.1. This is a civil revision petition in which the holder of a decree in the Court of Small Causes, Madras, which was transferred for execution to the Court of the District Munsiff, Tiruvarur, applies to revise the order of the District Munsiff, dismissing his application to amend his execution petition. A preliminary objection was taken on behalf of the respondent that an appeal lay against the order and if this objection is upheld there can be no doubt that this civil revision petition must fail and the appeal would lie to the District Judge, East Tanjore.2. Mr. Sundaralingam for the petitioner relies upon the ruling in Beerankutty v. Ameth Mammu : (1936)71MLJ256 to support his contention that the order dismissing his application for amendment is incidental and interlocutory and therefore an appeal was incompetent. In that case Venkatasubba Rao, J., held that no appeal lay against an order allowing an amendment of an execution petition. The learned Judge held that the qu...
A. Abboy Chetty and ors. Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-1947
Reported in: (1947)2MLJ215
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. This is a petition under Section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act praying that this Court should direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to refer the following questions to this Court for decision:(1) Whire it was found that for the assessment year 1942-43 the business of A. Gopalaswam Chetty and Co., was the sole business of A. Gopalaswami Chetty, had he Income-tax Officer jurisdiction to give an inconsistent and different finding on the same materials and evidence that for the succeeding assessment year 1943-44 the same business belonged to a firm of A. Gopalaswami Chetti and A. Ramanujulu Chetti.(2) Whether the finding given by the Income-tax Officer regarding the ownership of the business of A. Gopalaswami Chetty and Co., in the assessment year 1942-43 was not final and conclusive so as to preclude the Income-tax Officer from coming to a different finding in the succeeding assessment year in the absence of fresh facts or materials, the previous finding est...
Sri K.M.N.N. Swaminathan Chettiar Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Mad189; (1947)2MLJ230
Frederick William Gentle, C.J.1. This reference is made at the instance of the assessee by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 66(I) of the Indian Income-tax Act. The question referred for the opinion of this Court is the following:Whether on the facts of the case, namely, that the Manager of the Hindu joint family was outside British India for more than two years during the period of seven years preceding the previous year, the applicant, the Hindu joint family, was not ordinarily resident for the assessment year 1940-41 within the meaning of Section 4-B(a) of the Indian Income-tax Act The assessee is a Hindu undivided family. In the year 1940-41 an assessment was made on the income of the family which had accrued outside British India during the previous year. During the seven years preceding that year the kartha of the family was in British India for more than two years and also he was outside India for the same period. Taxation of income accruing within British India do...
K. M. N. N. Swaminathan Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-1947
Reported in: [1947]15ITR418(Mad)
GENTLE, C.J. - This reference is 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, on the facts of the case, namely that the manager of the Hindu joint family was outside British India for more than two years during the period of seven years preceding the previous year, the applicant, the Hindu joint family, not ordinarily resident for the assessment year 1940-41 within the meaning of Section 4B (a) of the Indian Income-tax Act ?'The assessee is a Hindu undivided family. In the year 1940-41 an assessment was made on the income of the family which had accrued outside British India during the previous year. During the seven years preceding that year the karta of the family was in British India for more than two years and also he was outside India for the same period. Taxation of income accruing within British India does not arise. The...
A. Abboy Chetty and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-1947
Reported in: [1947]15ITR442(Mad)
ORDERPATANJALI SASTRI, J. - This is a petition under Section 66 (2) of the Indian Income-tax Act praying that this Court should direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to refer the following questions to this Court for decision :-'(1) Where it was found that the assessment year 1942-43 the business of A. Gopalaswami Chetty Co., was the sole business of A. Gopalaswami Chetty, had the Income-tax Officer jurisdiction to give an inconsistent and different finding on the same materials and evidence that for the succeeding assessment year 1943-44 the same business belonged to a firm of A. Gopalaswami Chetty and A. Ramanujulu Chetty.(2) Whether the finding given by the Income-tax Officer regarding the ownership of the business of A. Gopalaswami Chetty & Co., in the assessment year 1942-43 was not final and conclusive so as to preclude the Income-tax Officer from coming to a different finding in the succeeding assessment year in the absence of fresh facts or materials, the previous finding st...
Adapa Sattemma Vs. Adapa Ramayya Alias Tatayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1947
Reported in: AIR1947Mad438; (1947)2MLJ151
ORDERWilliam Gentle, J.1. This is a revision petition under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. The petitioner was the plaintiff. She is the widow of a man named Narayudu, a son of the defendant. Before his death the family was living joint and the defendant was the kartha of the family. The deceased son and the petitioner had two daughters one of whom had been married before the son's death and the second daughter had to be married. It is not in dispute that the cost of the marriage is an obligation to be borne by the family and to be discharged by the defendant out of the income from the family property. The defendant, as kartha of the family, refused, or at any rate failed, to meet the obligation which occasioned; the plaintiff borrowing money to discharge the necessary expenses. Her suit was for a sum of Rs. 250 to be reimbursed by the defendant, the expenses to which she had been put. It is conceded that the suit is one under Section 69 of the Contract Act by a pe...
In Re: Venkatasubbiah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Mad63; (1947)2MLJ160
Yahya Ali, J.1. The petitioner was an Assistant Goods Clerk in the Chidambaram railway station. He is said to have received from P. W. 1 a sum of Rs. 15 as a reward for his having accepted and consigned some parcels. The defence was that that sum was received as a loan. That defence, being manifestly puerile, was rightly rejected by both the Courts below. P.W. 1 's version has been corroborated by his master and other witnesses. There can therefore be no doubt that the sum of Rs, 15 was received by the petitioner as an illegal gratification for doing an official act.2. Two ingenious arguments are raised by Mr. N. Somasundaram for the petitioner. The first is that the phrase ' motive or reward ' in Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not cover a case where the payment is made in respect of past favours. The term ' reward ' in the phrase is manifestly intended to apply to a past service. What is forbidden generally is receiving any gratification as motive to do or a reward...
Sankaralingam Pillai Vs. thenpalaniyandavar Temple, Through Its Truste ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Mad199; (1947)2MLJ258
Widsworth, J.1. This revision petition arises out of an order under Section 44 of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act. The petitioner was the first respondent in the lower Court. Under a settlement deed dated 10th December, 1926, he acquired certain property and by the same settlement deed a charge was created in favour of the temple now represented by the contesting respondent for an annual payment out of the income of the land of 11/3 kottahs of paddy worth at that time approximately Rs. 18. The charge was to come into operation on the death of the settlor who died in 1935. The charge was not enforced by the temple until the present proceedings began. Meanwhile, the present petitioner in May 1938, usufructuarily mortgaged the property to the second respondent herein and the third respondent in the Court below, and on 26th May, 1942, he sold the property to the third respondent in the Court below subject to the usufructuarily mortgage. On 14th November, 1942, the present petitio...
In Re: R. Sivarama Padayachi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Mad241; (1947)2MLJ424
ORDERHappell, J.1. The petitioners have been convicted for an offence in contravention of Section 3(1) of the Food Grains Control Order read with Rule 81(4) of the Defence of India Rules and have been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100 each.2. The point taken in support of this revision petition is that the Madras Food Grains Control Order came into force only on the 1st January, 1945, whereas the offence charged under the order was committed on the nth May, 1944. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor was disposed to argue first that a prosecution for the offence could be properly made under the Madras Food Grains Control Order because of the provisions of Section 10 of that order. Section 10 however applies only to orders made in pursuance of the provisions of the Food Grains Control Order, 1942, and seems to have no application to Section 3(1) of the Madras Food Grains Control Order. The lood Grains Control Order, 1942, which was repealed by Madras Order of 1945 on the 1st January,...
Kanagasabhai Pathar Vs. Poornathammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1947
Reported in: AIR1947Mad458; (1947)2MLJ97
Rajamannar, J.1. The point of law which arises in this revision petition does not appear to be covered by authority and must be decided on the language of the relevant statutory provisions. The respondent to this petition obtained a decree against one Apparasu Pathar in O.S. No. 382 of 1943 in the Court of the District Munsiff of Chidambaram for delivery of possession of a portion of a house. It is common ground that the original owner of the house was one Saradambal Ammal who died sometime before the institution of the suit. The respondent claimed title to the property as the purchaser from one Thaiyanayaki Ammal, the mother of the said Saradambal Ammal. The suit was based on a rent deed executed by the defendant Apparasu and after contest was decreed in the respondent's favour. In execution of the decree, the respondent obtained possession. The petitioner in this Court thereupon filed an application under Order 21, Rule 200 of the Code of Civil Procedure for delivery of possession al...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »