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.
The Official Receiver of Ramnad Vs. P.L.P. Devarayan Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ415
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. The Official Receiver of Ramnad is the appellant. The matter arises in execution of the decree in O.S. No. 52 of 1934. The first respondent obtained a decree in O.S. No. 52 of 1934 against the second respondent and his two sons. The decree is dated the 16th October, 1934. The second respondent was adjudicated an insolvent on the 14th September, 1935, in I. P. No. 77 of 1934. In 1936 the Official Receiver took possession of two villages belonging to the joint family. In 1942 the sons instituted a suit for partition, O.S. No. 74 of 1942, Sub-Court, Devakottai, to which they impleaded as parties their father, the Official Receiver and some of the creditors. The creditors, however, were dismissed from the suit very early before the trial of the suit and there was a preliminary decree in the suit on the 30th September, 1943. The Official Receiver has in his hands an amount which represents the collection of rents from the two villages for the years from 1936 to 1945....
P. Chellaiah Pillai Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ418
Yahya Ali, J.1. The question referred by the Income-tax Tribunal to this-Court for decision under Section 66 (1) of the Income-tax Act is:Whether in the absence of any evidence to show that the land was used for agricultural purpose the grazing fee of Rs. 2,873-8-0 realised from the letting out of the lands would constitute agricultural income.The reference was made at the instance of the assessee and counsel for the applicant at the outset pointed out that in the way in which the question has been formulated by the Bench, he has been virtually stated out of the case. The frame of the question is such that the only possible answer that can be given in its present form would' be against him. Having regard to the facts of the case and the various contentions that have been placed before us, we consider it necessary to re-formulate the question in order to furnish the correct answer to the real question that arises from the order of the Tribunal. The counsel for the department has no obje...
P. Chellaiah Pillai Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-1948
Reported in: [1948]16ITR350(Mad)
YAHYA ALI, J. - The question referred by the Income-tax Tribunal to this Court for decision under Section 66 (1) of the Income-tax Act is :-'Whether in the absence of any evidence to show that the land was used for agricultural purpose the grazing fee of Rs. 2,873-8-0 realised from the letting out of the lands would constitute agricultural income.'The reference was made at the instance of the assessee and counsel for the applicant at the outset pointed out that in the way in which the question has been formulated by the Bench, he has been virtually stated out of the case. The frame of the question is such that the only possible answer that can be given in its present form would be against him. Having regard to the facts of the case and the various contentions that have been placed before us. We consider it necessary to re-formulate the question in order to furnish the correct answer to the real question that arises from the order of the Tribunal. The counsel for the department has no o...
M.V. Shanmugavel Nadar and Sons, by Partner, M.V.S. Singaravel Nadar V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ409
P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. The question for decision in this case is:Whether there is a change in the persons carrying on the business within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940, when the business which was previously carried on and owned by the Hindu undivided family and a stranger is on disruption of the family being carried on and owned by a partnership composed of the members of the quondam family and the stranger.2. The facts of the case which appear from the statement of the case are as follows:The appellants are a registered firm of 8 partners. This partnership commenced from the 25th February, 1942. Prior to 25th February, 1942, there was a partnership between two parties of which one was P. Pachayappa Nadar and another was the Hindu undivided family of M.V. Shanmugavel Nadar Sons. This family consisted of 7 male members. A partition in the family took place and the seven members individually became partners along with P. Pachayappa Nadar on 25th Febru...
Alla Annapurnamma Vs. P.L. Swami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ475
Horwill, J.1. The respondent sued the appellant for a settlement of the accounts of the profits, income and expenditure of the Sri Krishna Talkies, Guntur, in which he claimed a three-annas share. The defendant's answer to the plaintiff's claim was that the plaintiff had owed her a sum of Rs. 750, for which and interest she had filed a suit for Rs. 929-8-0, asking for a charge on the three-annas share of the plaintiff for the suit amount. The suit resulted in a compromise, according to which the defendant was to be given a charge on the three-annas share until the 31st July, 1940. If, by that date the plaintiff had paid Rs. 600, it would be accepted in full satisfaction of the decree against him. If he did not, then the plaintiff's three-annas share in the suit property would become extinguished and the defendant in full satisfaction of the suit claim would take the three-annas share. The learned District Munsiff held that since the plaintiff had not paid the Rs. 600 within the stipula...
M. Vs. Shanmugavel Nadar and Sons V. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1948
Reported in: [1948]16ITR355(Mad)
RAJAMANNAR, C.J. - The question for decision in this case is : 'whether there is a change in the persons carrying on the business within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940, when the business which was previously carried on and owned by the Hindu undivided family and a stranger is on disruption of the family being carried on and owned by a partnership composed of the members of the quondam family and the stranger.'The facts of the case which appear from the statement of the case are as follows :-'The appellants are a registered firm of 8 partners. This partnership commenced from the 25th February, 1942. Prior to 25th February, 1942, there was a partnership between two parties of which one was P. Pachayappa Nadar and another was the Hindu undivided family of M. V. Shanmugavel Nadar Sons. This family consisted of 7 male members. A partition in the family took place and the 7 members individually became partners along with P. Pachayappa Nadar on 25th February,...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›