Chennai Court September 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 Corporation of Madras Vs. the ScIndia Steam Navigation Co. Limited ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-1948
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ108
Horwill, J.1. This appeal is by the Corporation of Madras against a decree of the Additional Judge, City Civil Court, granting a declaration that the amount to which the plaintiff, the Scindia Steam Navigation Company, Limited, hereinafter called the Company, was assessed is not legally payable by it and an injunction restraining the Corporation from taking any coercive steps to realise the amount to which the Company was assessed.2. Under section no of the City Municipal Act, companies are liable to pay half-yearly tax in accordance with the rules laid down in Schedule IV of the Act. According to Rule 7, Schedule IV, companies are ordinarily liable for a tax on the basis of their paid-up capital; but in cases where the head or principal office is not in the City of Madras, but elsewhere, the tax is assessed on the gross income derived from or received in the City. Since the company has its headquarters at Bombay, the Corporation sought to assess the company at the rates specified in R...
Singaravelu Alias Singaram Chettiar Vs. Pattammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ519
P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. The respondent is the appellant's wife. In C.S. No. 77 of 1944 on the Original Side of this Court, she obtained a decree against the appellant which directed him to pay her a sum of Rs. 50 per month as maintenance on or before the 10th of each month. She filed E.P. No. 55 of 1948, to recover the arrears of maintenance due under the decree from January 1946 to February 1948. The appellant raised an objection that subsequent to the passing of the decree, the respondent was leading an unchaste life and she was therefore not entitled to enforce the decree as she had forfeited her rights thereunder by her unchastity. The First Assistant Registrar before whom the application first came up for hearing overruled this objection of the appellant on the ground that the decree conferred on the respondent an unconditional and absolute right for maintenance. There was an appeal and the learned Judge sitting in Chambers confirmed the order of the First Assistant Registrar. He ...
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Siddareddy Venkatasubba Reddy and B ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-03-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ581
P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. The question referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for our decision, on the application of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras, is as follows:Whether the total sum of Rs. 4,090 paid by the respondents in the year 1937-38 under the documents dated 1st March, 1935, 19th May, 1937, 25th February, 1937, and 2nd October, 1936, is allowable as a deduction under Section 10(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act?The respondents are a registered firm carrying on business at Gudur. According to the statement of the case their business was, ' to win mica and sell it after refinement.' They entered into four agreements in writing, bearing the dates mentioned in the question, with persons who owned certain patta lands in Nellore district, and who had also obtained what are described as patta land agreements from the Government for mica mining. The four documents relate to different mines, namely, the Kubera mine, the Lakshminarasimha mine, and the Deepadurga mine. ...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras Vs. Siddareddy Venkatasubba Reddy a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-03-1948
Reported in: [1949]17ITR15(Mad)
RAJAMANNAR, C.J. - The question referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for the our decision, on the application of the Commission of Income-tax, Madras, is as follows :-'Whether the total sum of Rs. 4,090 paid by the respondents in the year 1937-38 under the documents dated March 1, 1935, May 19, 1937, February 25, 1937, and October 2, 1936, is allowable as a deduction under Section 10(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act ?'The respondents are a registered firm carrying on business at Gudur. According to the statement of the case their business was 'to win mica and sell it after refinement'. They entered into four agreements in writing, bearing the dates mentioned in the question, with the persons who owned certain patta lands in Nellore District, and who had also obtained what are described as patta and land agreements from the Government for mica mining. The four documents relate to different mines, namely, the Kubera Mine, the Lakshminarasimha Mine, and the Deepadurga Mine. ...
Dr. C.S. Krishnaswamy Ayyar Vs. Mohanlal Binjani and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ559
ORDERSatyanarayana Rao, J.1. This is an application by a tenant to issue a writ of certiorari to call for the records in H.R.A. No. 665 of 1947 in L. Dis. No. 2800 of H.R.C., 1947, on the file of the Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras and to quash the order passed by the learned Judge on the 10th March, 1948, reversing the order passed by the House Rent Controller, Madras.2. The petitioner is a tenant of house No. 13, North Mada Street, Mylapore and was let into possession by the previous owner before the respondent purchased it by a sale deed dated 7th November, 1946. He was paying a monthly rent of Rs. 75 at the date of the purchase by the respondent. On the 15th December, 1946, the respondent issued a notice, Ex. D-3, through his lawyer to the petitioner calling upon him to vacate the house and also to at torn to him and to pay the arrears of rent for the month of November, 1946. Upon receipt of this notice the petitioner sent Ex. P-1, dated 31st December, 1946, along with a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›