Chennai Court August 1947 Judgments
In Re: Karumuri China Mallayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-1947
Reported in: (1947)2MLJ359
ORDERRajamannar, J.1. The charge against the petitioner was that on 25th October, 1945, he was found storing large quantities of mill made cloth for sale without a licence in contravention of Clause 4 of the Madras Cloth Dealers) Control Order, 1944. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Rajahmundry, discharged the petitioner under Section 253(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the ground that there was no 'legal evidence on record,' justifying the presumption that the cloth found with the accused was stored for sale. There was an application by the Crown to revise the order of discharge and the learned Sessions Judge' set aside the order and directed the District Magistrate by himself or by any other Subordinate Magistrate to make a further enquiry into the case of the accused. The petitioner seeks, to revise the order of the learned Sessions Judge.2. There can be no doubt that on 25th October, 1945, at about 6 p.m. the Textile-Control Officer, Rajahmundry, seized a large quantity of cl...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. the Nattarasankottai Electric Suppl ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-1947
Reported in: (1947)2MLJ463
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. This is a reference by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (Madras Bench) under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. It arises out of an application made by the Nattarasankottai Electric Supply Corporation, Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the company) for refund of income-tax under Section 48 of the Act.2. The company raised a loan in 1935-36 by issuing mortgage debentures of the total Value of Rs, 83,000 divided into 830 debentures of Rs. 160 each, bearing interest at 6 1/2 per cent, per annum, subject to tax payable on the 1st April and on the 1st October of each year. The existing and future property and assets of the company were charged with payment of the principal and interest due under the debentures. In August 1941, the company having arranged to purchase electrical energy in bulk from the Government Hydro Electric Works sold its superfluous plant and machinery for Rs. 28,000 and odd, and it was decided with the consent of the debenture holde...
Tag this Judgment!Telikicherla Kandala Srimannarayana Charyulu Vs. Koyal Kandadai Bhavan ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-1947
Reported in: (1948)1MLJ336
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. The only ground on which the learned Subordinate Judge remanded the suit for a re-trial after framing additional issues is that contained in paragraph 5 of the judgment. He says:The evidence tendered by appellant in this Court is voluminous and consists of several very old' documents and serious questions of custody, proof, admissibility and relevancy are hinted by the respondents. The appellate Court cannot continue the trial on these lines. I therefore remand the suit for fresh disposal in the light of the following directions.In my view the mere fact that evidence was tendered before the appellate Court would not1 justify any remand of the case. The powers of the appellate Court to admit additional evidence in appeal are contained in Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure as amended by this Court. Under that rule, whenever additional evidence is allowed to be produced by an appellate Court, the appellate Court is bound to record reasons for its admi...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras Vs. Nattarasankottai Electric Suppl ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-1947
Reported in: [1947]15ITR495(Mad)
PATANJALI SASTRI, J. - This is a reference by the Income-tax appellate Tribunal (Madras Bench) under section 66 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. It arises out of an application made by the Nattarasankottai Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the company) for refund of income-tax under section 48 of the Act.The company raised a loan in 1935-36 by issuing mortgage debentures of the total value of Rs. 83,000 divided into 830 debentures of Rs. 100 each, bearing interest at 6 1/2 per cent. per annum, subject to tax payable on the 1st April and on the 1st October of each year. The existing and future property and assets of the company were charged with payment of the principal and interest due under the debentures. In August, 1941, the company having arranged to purchase electrical energy in bulk from the Government Hydro-Electric Works sold its superfluous plant and machinery for Rs. 28,000 and odd, and it was decided with the consent of the debenture holders...
Tag this Judgment!The Public Prosecutor Vs. Badulla Sahib and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Mad262; (1947)2MLJ351
Govinda Menon, J. 1. The Public Prosecutor, Madras, appeals against the acquittal of the respondent (accused) by the learned Sessions Judge of Chittoor of an offence under Clause 3-A of the Madras Silk Control Order (1943) read with Rule 81(4) of the Defence of India Rules.2. The facts are not in dispute. On 20th April, 1945, between 3-30 a.m. and 4-30 a.m., at Kothakotta, when the house of the respondent was searched by the Inspector of Police, Madanapalle, he was found in possession of raw silk in bags weighing 734 lbs. and two palams without a licence for such possession as required by the Madras Silk Control Order, 1943. He was prosecuted before the Additional First Class Magistrate of Madanapalle and was convicted for contravening the provisions of Clause 3-A of the Madras Silk Control Order, 1943, and sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 and in default to rigorous imprisonment for 9 months. The quantity of silk was ordered to be co...
Tag this Judgment!The Public Prosecutor Vs. Kachi Mohideen Maraikayar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Mad218; (1947)2MLJ456
Yaha Ali, J.1. This is an appeal by the Public Prosecutor against the acquittal of the respondents who are father and son, running a grocery shop at Rameswaram. They had been charged under Rules 27-A and 29 framed under Section 20(2) of the Madras Prevention of Adulteration Act, 1918. They admittedly kept for sale gingelly oil, which on analysis by the Government Analyst was found to contain 95 per cent, of groundnut oil. The oil was according to the defence being sold not as food but for lighting purposes. The entire attempt during the trial was to establish this but the learned Public Prosecutor contends that even as for lighting purposes no person is entitled to add groundnut oil to gingelly oil or to sell or offer or expose such a mixture. The prohibition contained in Rule 27-A is against the addition of any groundnut oil or any other oil to gingelly oil intended for sale and against sale of any gingelly oil to which any such addition have been made. The rule does not make any refe...
Tag this Judgment!Kolathukara Vaiyapuri Goundan Vs. Kuppuswami Goundan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1947
Reported in: (1948)1MLJ330
ORDERYahya Ali, J.1. The petitioner has been convicted under Section 427 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 30. There was a piece of land which was unoccupied and both the complainant, P.W. 6, and the petitioner were trying to obtain it under an assignment but in the meantime each was using it in his own way occasionally. Ten days prior to the occurrence P.W. 6 sowed some cholam and very tender crops sprouted. The cattle belonging to the petitioner is said to have been driven into that land and the result was that the tender crop was destroyed. The question is whether this amounts to an offence under Section 427 of the Indian Penal Code. It is necessary to constitute an offence under Section 427 of the Indian Penal Code that there should have been an intention to cause wrongful loss or damage to the public or to any person. There might have been an intention to cause loss to the village munsiff, P.W. 6, by allowing the cattle to enter and graze on the land whe...
Tag this Judgment!Pulla Madduleti Reddi Vs. Rahiman Bi, Lunatic by Guardian, Hakim Sayed ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1947
Reported in: (1947)2MLJ587
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. This appeal and the civil revision petition arise out of a suit for partition instituted by the legal representatives of the daughters of one Rahman Sahib. Rahman Sahib had three daughters and two sons. The plaintiffs are the descendants of the daughters and they are entitled to three-sevenths share in the estate of Rahman Sahib. The fourth defendant is one of the sons of Rahman Sahib and he died during the pendency of the suit and his interests are represented by the 14th defendant, his son. Mahboob Sahib was the second son of Rahman Sahib ; he died and his sons, defendants 1 to 3, were impleaded-as parties to the partition suit. In the suit the plaintiffs claimed division of 12 items of property, items 1 to 12. Of these items the eastern portion of item 1 and the southern portion of item 6 were purchased by the fifth defendant on the 10th July, 1935, under Ex. D-4 from defendants 1 to 3. When the suit was taken up for trial the plaintiffs abandoned their claim...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Ravipudi Venkanna and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Mad261; (1947)2MLJ356
ORDERYahya Ali, J.1. There were five accused in this case. They were convicted by the Additional First Class Magistrate, Bapatla, under Sections 454 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to four months rigorous imprisonment and also fined Rs. 100 each under each of the counts. The convictions were confirmed by the Sessions Judge, Guntur, on appeal. The fourth accused has not preferred a revision against the order of the appellate Judge. The revision case filed by accused 1 to 3 is Cr. R. C. No. 635 of 1946 and the case filed by the fifth accused is Crl. R. C. No. 636 of 1946. The convictions of the petitioners rested mainly on confessional statements made by the petitioners and on the evidence relating to the identification of the property which was discovered in pursuance of that confession. The property consisted of currency notes and ornaments. Applying the principle laid down by the Privy Council in Pulukuri Kotayya v. King Emperor all the four confessional statements have...
Tag this Judgment!The Associated Oil Mills Ltd. Vs. the Provincial Government of Madras ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-1947
Reported in: (1947)2MLJ429
Govindarajachari, J.1. These two appeals are directed against the judgment and decree of the District Judge of North Arcot, Vellore, acting as an arbitrator under Section 19(1)(6) of the Defence of India Act. C.M.A. No. 667 of 1945 is by the Associated Oil Mills, Ltd., Katpadi, hereinafter referred to as the claimant and C.M.A. No. 732 of 1945 is by the Government of the Province of Madras. It is convenient to deal with the latter appeal first.2. The only point taken in this appeal on behalf of the Government is that in his award concerning the loss of income to the claimant the District Judge should have confined it to the period from 1st June, 1942 to nth September, 1942, and should not have given any amount for loss of income for the period between 11th September, 1942 and 15th October, 1942. About 4 acres and 15 cents of land belonging to the claimant in the village of Ammanur in Arkonam taluk was requisitioned by the Government for military purposes with some superstructures stand...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »