Chennai Court August 1948 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.
Kanjanur Sri Agneswaraswami Devasthanam by Its Superintendent, Chithia ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ413
Horwill, J.1. The appellant, basing his right to possession of the suit property on a lease executed in 1935, filed the suit out of which this civil miscellaneous appeal arises. The District Munsiff decreed the suit. In appeal, the learned Subordinate Judge came to somewhat different conclusions on questions of fact; and admitted in evidence certain documents tendered by the defendant. He then said:I should think that the matter requires re-consideration as to whether the defendant is entitled to a permanent tenancy so long as he pays rent or so long as he renders services. I find that in the interests of justice the suit should be remanded.The learned advocate for the appellant attacks this order on two grounds: (1) that the documents were improperly admitted, and (2) that in any event, the provisions of Order 41, Rule 23 were not complied with and that the remand order was wrong.2. The order admitting the documents was this:I find that these documents are material for the purpose of ...
Shankaranarayana Kadambalithaya Vs. Vasudeva Achuta Hebbara and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ553
Rajagopalan, J.1. It is unfortunate that the respondents are not represented. All the same, I do not think it necessary in the circumstances to issue notice to the Government Pleader, though the question for decision is the adequacy of the court-fee originally paid on the plaint.2. It is not even necessary to canvass the correctness of the decision of the learned District Munsiff on the adequacy of the court-fee paid on the plaint. The contention of the learned advocate for the petitioner was that, whether the court-fee originally paid was sufficient or not, the learned Munsiff had no jurisdiction to-demand any additional court-fee at the stage at which he passed that order. After objections had been taken to the court-fee paid the matter was placed before the learned District Munsiff, and he directed that the question should be heard in open Court and decided. ' Call on Bench 26th February, 1946' was the order he passed. Apparently he heard the plaintiff's vakil and adjourned it from ...
Penukonda Rathakrishnamurthy Vs. Balasubramania and Co. and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ601
Mack, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment of Kunhi Raman, J., on the Original Side in two petitions filed under the Arbitration Act, one to make the award a decree of the Court and the other to set it aside on the ground that the arbitrators had wrongly decided a point of law regarding limitation in holding that the claim of the appellant, P. Rathakrishnamurthy, was in time.2. The facts are these : The appellant and Balasubramania & Co. (the first respondent) are both yarn merchants and members of the Madras Yarn Merchants' Association. They have admittedly subjected themselves as members to a set of arbitration bye-laws which have laid down a rather elaborate procedure for the reference of disputes arising between the members out of forward and other contracts to arbitration. Rule 4(a) of the Arbitration bye-laws is as follows:In the forward (Vaida) F.O.R., or Ex-godown contract forms supplied by the Association, the following arbitration clause shall be inserted and it shall ...
M. Abdul Rahim Vs. the Official Assignee of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ656
P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. This is an appeal against an order of Clark, j., passed in insolvency on the Original Side of this Court. One Syed Yousuff Sahib was adjudicated insolvent on 22nd October, 1930. On 20th September, 1934, he purchased a house for Rs. 800 and on 22nd May, 1943, he conveyed it to his brother-in-law, the appellant before us. The consideration was a sum of Rs. 750, but of which Rs. 350 were paid in cash and the appellant undertook to pay the balance in discharge of a mortgage which the insolvent had executed in favour of one Bijraj Sowcar on 6th April, 1937. On 5th July, 1943, the appellant in his turn sold the property to one Mahomed Badsha Sahib for Rs. 600, out of which a sum of Rs. 400 was Utilised to pay off the mortgage in favour of the Sowcar. Contemporaneous with the sale by the appellant to Mahomed Badsha Sahib, there was an agreement by Mahomed Badsha Sahib to re-convey the property to the appellant. In pursuance of this latter agreement, the appellant paid ...
In Re: Periyaswami Asari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-1948
Reported in: 1949CriLJ240; (1948)2MLJ452
ORDERMack, J.1. This is a tragic case. The appellant in this jail appeal has been convicted under Section 302, Penal Code, of the murder of his own mother and sentenced to transportation for life. The facts are these.2. The appellant's father died about 16 years ago. His mother then lived in concubinage with one Krishna Pillai for the past 15 years. The appellant is only 19 years old. On the morning of 19th February 1948, at about 8 a. m. the appellant appeared with a blood stained knife before the village Munsif and made a statement to the effect that he had stabbed his mother half an hour before with a knife in her chest. In a confession statement he made to the Taluk Magistrate a few days later he explained that his mother settled all her property on Krishna Pillai, that he bad been asking her for a long time for his share and his brother's share in her property and also asking her to arrange for his marriage. He complained that far from agreeing she would not even cook for him and ...
Chekku and ors. Vs. Mukthiar Managers of Poomulli Mana Krishnan Nambud ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ406
Panchapagesa Sastri, J.1. These two appeals raise one common point and it is sufficient to deal with one of them. I will take A.A.A.O. No. 15 of 1947.2. This is an appeal by the tenant who is the judgment-debtor in O.S. No. 462 of 1943. The landlord obtained a decree for the sale of his holding for arrears of rent due up to the year 1118 of the Mayalaylam, era. E.P. No. 4 of 1946 was filed by the landlord in execution of the said decree. Subsequent to this suit there was another suit instituted by the landlord against the same tenant for recovery of arrear for the years 1119, 1120 and 1121, of the Malayalam era. That suit O.S. No. 287 of 1946 also was for sale of the holding. The tenant made a deposit of two years' rent for the years preceding the commencement of the Madras Act XVII of 1946, in O.S. No. 287 of 1946. The deposit was made on 4th December, 1946, well within two months' period from the commencement of the Act. The Act came into force on 8th October, 1946. On 6th December, ...
R.A. Coodzer and Company Vs. the Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ442
P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. The question for decision is 'whether under the circumstances of the case the commissions paid to Luckman & Company, and Bhatta & Company are '' interest, salary, commission or remuneration' paid by a firm to a partner within the meaning of Section 10(4)(b) of the Income-tax Act.'2. The assessee is a firm composed of three partners, Lakshmana Iyer, Bhatt and Ganapati Iyer. The firm was constituted by a deed of partnership dated 10th March, 1942. It was the Manufacturers' Representative of Kiwi Polish, etc. Of the three partners, Lakshmana Iyer and Bhatt are also the respective proprietors of commission agency businesses known as Luckman & Company and Bhatt & Company respectively. Even before the constitution of the partnership in question, they were doing commission agency business as well as canvassing business in the said names and their business included also canvassing and selling other goods.3. The question for decision relates to two sums of Rs. 2,642 and ...
G.M. Madappa Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ483
Yahya Ali, J.1. This is a reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in pursuance of the order of this Court in C. M. P. No. 4484 of 1946. We shall set out the question at a later stage. The reference arises out of the assessment for 1942-43 relating to the accounting period commencing from 10th October, 1940, and ending on 29th September, 1941. During that period, two items of cash receipts were brought into the account, namely, a sum of Rs. 10,000 on 26th March, 1941, and a sum of Rs. 5,000 on 2nd April, 1941. The two cash credits were discovered in the personal account designated as the ' cash chest account.' The Income-tax Officer assessed the aggregate sum of Rs. 15,000, as part of the total income of the assessee earned during the accounting year. On appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, it was argued on behalf of the assessee that the 'cash chest account' had been in existence since 1931, the previous credits had gone to make up the opening balance of Rs. ...
P.A. Raju Chettiar and Brothers, Jewellers Vs. the Commissioner of Inc ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ430
Yahya Ali, J.1. The question referred to this Court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 66 of the Income-tax Act for decision is--Whether the firm purported to have been brought into existence by the deed of partnership, dated 14th August, 1941, can in law be registered under Section 26-A of the Indian Income-tax Act.The proved facts are these. Raju Chettiar and Ramaswami Chettiar who were brothers constituted a joint Hindu family and carried on business as jewellers. Ramaswami died in 1934 (that date is now mentioned by the applicant's advocate while the Tribunal said that the date was not ascertainable). The widow Ranganayaki Ammal and two minor sons Viswanathan and Ranganathan survived Ramaswami. The family was being assessed in the status of a Hindu undivided family upto the assessment year 1940-41. On 19th August, 1940, there was a partition of the undivided family and that partition was recognised by the Income-tax department under Section 25-A. On the same date a ...
The Commissioner of Income-tax and Excess Profits Tax Vs. Chari and Ra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ525
P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. The question of law referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in accordance with the direction of this Court in C.M.P. Nos. 5830 and 5831 of 1946 is as follows:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of this case while the opening stock had been valued on the average cost basis, in accordance with the method of accounting regularly followed by the assessee in the past, the method of valuing some items of the closing stock on the average cost basis and the others on the market basis of the relevant account year is in conformity with law and principle and whether the true profits of the year can be properly deduced from such basis of valuation.The assessees are dealers in dye-stuffs and chemicals comprising numerous items. In valuing their opening and closing stock, the method followed by them was to take the average cost or market value, whichever was lower, in respect of each separate article of the stock. For the relevant period, the average cost of t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »