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.
Vadula Satyanarayanamurty Vs. the Official Receiver, West Godavary and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ426
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit was for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,293-12-7 by selling the lands in the possession of the various defendants who have been impleaded as parties to the suit. The wife of the first defendant who is the 36th defendant obtained a maintenance decree in O.S. No. 41 of 1921, Sub-Court, Rajahmundry, against the first defendant. The decree also gave a charge against the properties of the first defendant which are items 1 to 42 of the plaint schedule. The plaintiff purchased on 13th February, 1931, under Ex. P an extent of five acres and 82 cents from the first defendant and the deed of sale executed in his favour contained also an indemnity in his favour charging items 30, 31, 32 and 34 for the amount of loss that might possibly accrue to the plaintiff in case the properties sold to him were to be sold in execution of the maintenance decree. The decree-holder in O.S. No. 41 of 1921, in fact, brought the properties purchased by the...
W.L. Knopp Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ482
P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. The question referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is:Whether in the circumstances of this case there is material to justify that the ventures in questions were ventures in the nature of trade.The assessee-applicant is a partner in a firm of stock brokers carrying on business in Madras. In the year of accounting--1st February, 1942 to 31st January, 1943--he sold shares in various companies on 12 occasions and as a result of these sales he made substantial profits amounting to Rs. 6,887-12-0. The Income-tax Officer included this amount in the assessment for the year on the ground that it represented profits arising from business. This view was upheld by both the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal.2. The material facts which can be gathered from the several orders in the case are as follows: From 1936 onwards the assessee had been in the habit of purchasing and selling shares. Between the 1st February, 1936 and 31s...
W. L. Knopp Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1948
Reported in: [1948]16ITR398(Mad)
RAJAMANNAR, C.J. - The question referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is : 'Whether in the circumstances of this case there is material to justify that the ventures in question were ventures in the nature of trade.'The assessee applicant is a partner in a firm of stock brokers carrying on business in Madras. In the year of accounting - 1st February, 1942, to 31st January, 1943 -he sold shares in various companies on 12 occasions and as a result of these sales he made substantial profits amounting to Rs. 6,887-12-0. The Income-tax Officer included this amount in the assessment for the year on the ground that it represented profits arising from business. This view was upheld by both the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal.The material facts which can be gathered from the several orders in the case are as follows : From 1936 onwards the assessee had been in the habit of purchasing and selling shares. Between the 1st February, 1936, and 31st...
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. D. Arokiaswami Chetti and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ439
P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. The question referred for our decision in this case is as follows:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the application of the assessee for renewal of registration satisfied the requirements of Section 26-A and the rules made thereunder and whether the firm is entitled in law to renewal of registration for purposes of the assessment for 1944-45 (accounting year ended 5th July, 1943).The three individuals who are the partners of the respondent firm executed a deed of partnership on the 30th August, 1939, in and by which it was declared that they shall carry on business in partnership for a period of three years from 28th May, 1939. It was inter alia provided in that deed that,On the expiration of three years, if there is no unity between the partners, after paying off all the liabilities of the firm, and after taking back the capital contributed by the partners, the balance of profit or loss shall be divided equally; if any dues to the firm ...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras Vs. D. Arokiaswami Chetti and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1948
Reported in: [1948]16ITR404(Mad)
RAJAMANNAR, C.J. - The question referred for our decision in this case is as follows :-'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the application of the assessee for renewal of registration satisfied the requirements of Section 26A and the rules made thereunder and whether the firm is entitled in law to renewal of registration for purposes of the assessment for 1944-45 (accounting year ended 5th July, 1943).'The three individuals who are the partners of the respondent firm executed a deed of partnership on the 30th August, 1939, in and by which it was declared that they shall carry on business in partnership for a period of three years from 28th May, 1939. It was inter alia provided in that deed that 'on the expiration of three years, if there is no unity between the partners, after paying off all the liabilities of the firm, and after taking back the capital contributed by the partners, the balance of profit or loss shall be divided equally; if any dues to the firm r...
Karamadai Naicken Vs. R. Raju Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ454
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. The second defendant is the appellant. The suit was instituted for recovery of a sum of Rs. 900 due under a mortgage, dated 9th March, 1922. The mortgage was executed by the first defendant in favour of one Mariyayi. Mariyayi died sometime in 1923 leaving behind her Chockalinga, her husband, and Kanakammal, a daughter and Ayyaswami Pillai, a son. Chockalinga died some time before 1931. The exact date of death is not known. The mortgagor intended to discharge the mortgage in 1931, and on the assumption that Ayyaswami, the son of the mortgagee, was entitled to the amount due under the mortgage, executed a deed of assignment of a usufructuary mortgage executed in his favour by a third party, in favour of Ayyaswami, This deed of assignment is Ex. P-2, dated 9th September, 1931. The mortgage debt due by that date was ascertained and was found to be Rs. 609. He executed a promissory note for a sum of Rs. 200 on that date. The consideration for the assignment by the us...
R. Srinivasan and ors. Vs. the Andhra Bank, Ltd.,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ569
Govinda Menon, J.1. In this petition, preferred against the order of the Sub-Judge of Tiruchirapalli passed under Rule 66 of Order 21, Civil Procedure Code, the chief point argued is that the lower Court acted with material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction in not fixing a market value for the property that is sought to be sold by the proclamation which was settled in accordance with the above provision of law. The learned Subordinate Judge after appointing a Commissioner to inspect the property and submit a report, regarding the market value of it, did not give a finding of his own about the matter, but directed that the proclamation should contain the statement, that the decree-holder values the first item, about whose price alone there is now any controversy, at Rs. 5,000, defendant 2 one of the judgment-debtors values it at Rs. 40,000, defendant 3 to defendant 5 at Rs. 1,00,000 and that the commissioner estimates the market value at Rs. 39,000. Other relevant facts are a...
Ponnambalam Pillai Vs. Panjaksharam Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ600
Govinda Menon, J.1 The view of the lower Court that the petitioner could take advantage of the 1 1/4 cawnies admitted to belong to him according to the compromise decree, which he now wants to set aside and claim more, overlooks the provisions of explanation (1)(b) to Order 33, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The subject-matter of the suit is the compromise decree one and entire. What the petitioner seeks to set aside is that decree and the same cannot be cut up into various divisible parts. Explanation (11) makes the position clear. If the respondents had placed 1 1/4 cawnies at the immediate disposal of the plaintiff then probably they could have contested that the plaintiff was possessed of means. On the other hand their counter-affidavit in lower Court stated that even in the 1 1/4 cawnies the plaintiff is now entitled to a vested right after the death of the respondents.2. As observed by Madhavan Nair, J., in Ramaswami Naidu v. Vaiyapuri Nadar (1934) 67 M.L.J. 581 in a suit...
Maramreddi Ramireddi, Minor by Guardian and Natural Mother, Nagabhusha ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ473
Horwill, J.1. Kamamma filed a suit for a declaration that she was the owner of certain property and for an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with her possession.2. The husband of Kamamma entered into an agreement with his brother whereby he was to enjoy the suit land for his lifetime, after which it was to pass to his brother absolutely. The widow claimed that that agreement was not binding on the estate, which she represented, and that in any event she had become the owner of the property by adverse possession. Her suit was dismissed. She in due course filed an appeal (A.S. No. 434 of 1945); but before she did so she had adopted the present appellant. He, however, was not made a party to the appeal; and some time after the appeal had been filed the widow died. The appellant then sought to be brought on record as her legal representative. Thereupon, two applications were filed; I.A. No. 773 of 1945 under Order 22, Rule 3, for the appellant to be brought on record a...
In Re: Amirthalingam Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-1948
Reported in: 1949CriLJ541
Govindarajachari, J.1. This is an application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Conncil against the judgment of this Court in B. T. No. 2 of 1943, dated 1st March 1948, confirming the conviction and sentence of the petitioner in sessions case No. 64 of 1947 in the Court of Session, West Tanjore Division, The petitioner was convicted of murder and sentenced to death.2. When the application was first filed it was stated to be under Clause 15, Letters Patent. It was then pointed oat by the High Court office that 01.15, Letters Patent would not apply to criminal cases. The learned advocate for the petitioner then quoted two other provisions of law, Section 223, Government of India Act, 1935, and Rule 2, Judicial Committee Rules, 1935.3. The High Court office again pointed out that the application cannot be maintained under those provisions either. The learned advocate then asked that the matter may be posted before Court for orders.4. As the question is one of jurisdiction we directed ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »