Chennai Court November 1949 Judgments
In Re : N.P. Sethuram Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1949
Reported in: 1952CriLJ1004; (1951)IMLJ586
ORDERPanchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. The petitioner in this case is one Sethuram Naidu who was the first accused in C.C. No. 288 of 1947 on the file of the Joint Magistrate, Coonoor. The second accused in that case was one Madana Gopalan, the petitioner's younger brother. Both of them had been put up under Section 4(1)(a) and (i), read with Section 7, of the Prohibition Act, and were convicted by the Joint Magistrate of Coonoor. The petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for each of the offences, and the sentences were directed to run concurrently. He was also asked to pay a fine of Rs. 500 for each offence in addition to the sentence of imprisonment. His brother, the second accused, was fined Rs. 500 for each offence, as he was only aged 20 and a sentence of imprisonment was considered to be not called for.2. On appeal, the Additional Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, set aside the convictions and sentences of the second accused on both the counts, giving him th...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: S.V. Kishta Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad389
ORDERPanchapakesa Aiyar, J.1. The petitioner here was already once convicted and fined for not paying the assessment fixed for 1946-47. I do not think that the lower Court was justified in law or in equity in convicting him over again for not having paid that very assessment in full. The learned Public Prosecutor cannot say why the principle of 'autrefois acquit' should not be applied here and the petitioner acquitted. This is not like a continuing trespass, a fresh offence every day. Though the old section (Section 15, Madras General Sales Tax Act of 1939) prescribed an added penalty of Rs. 50 a day, for continued breach, over the maximum fine of Rs. 1000 for a breach, even that section did not say that a new prosecution can be launched every day and that a fresh fine upto Rs. 1000 and a penalty of Rs. 50 per day for every day of non-payment after the due date can be imposed. The new section (as amended by Madras Act XXV [25] of 1947) does not contain that provision at all. So, I set ...
Tag this Judgment!Rev. A. Rampus and ors. Vs. Alumuri Subba Reddi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad658
ORDERPanchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. This is a petition by four persons namely the Rev. A. Rampus, K. John, Mahomed Baig and Nagi Reddi against the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Cuddappah, attaching, under Section 145, Criminal P. C., certain lands (with trees) regarding which there was an imminent danger of a breach of the peace. The learned counsel for the petitioners does not press the attack on the attachment of the lands themselves. The only prayer of the petitioners, he urges before me, is that, even before the preliminary order was passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, petitioners 3 and 4, Mahomed Baig and Nagi Reddi, had felled some trees standing on the lands, and severed them, and that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate had no power to attach these severed trees as per the ruling of Bardswell J. in Panga Thathalu Reddi v. Panga Pedda Paramma, 1934 M. W. N. Cr. 77 : 1934 M. W. N. 405. I have looked into that ruling and I do not consider that it will apply to the facts of this...
Tag this Judgment!C. Ramaswami and ors. Vs. Kunjammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad832
Chandra Reddi, J.1. This civil revision petition raises a question relating to court-fee and jurisdiction. The plaintiff filed a suit for recovering possession of properties alienated by defendant 1 his mother and natural guardian. The suit is based on the allegations that defendant 1, who was an illiterate woman inexperienced in life was influenced by her brother to alienate the properties for very low consideration in his favour and in favour of some of his nominees and that the alienations were not therefore binding on him. The plaintiff valued the suit under Section 7(v), Court-fees Act, at Rs. 2689-6-0 and gave the same valuation for purposes of jurisdiction also and paid court-fee thereon. The defendants contended in the lower Court that the plaintiff should have asked for cancellation of the sale deeds executed by his mother as guardian and paid court-fee under Section 7(iv)(a). The trial Court took this matter up as a preliminary question and decided that the plaint should be c...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Rachakonda Nagarathnam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad629
ORDERPanchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. This is a petition filed by Mr. M. Seshachalapathi, under Section 151, Civil P. C., for a direction to refund the court-fee of Rs. 149-15-0 paid by the petitioner, Nagaratnam, in an unnumbered Second Appeal, S. R. No. 40609 of 1948, sought to be presented to this Court against A. S. No. 310 of 1947 on the file of the Sub-Court, Guntur. The facts are briefly these. Nagaratnam, Mr. Seshachalapati's client, wanted to file a second appeal against the judgment and decree in A. S. No. 310 of 1947, and, therefore, filed S. R. No. 40609 of 1948, with the correct court-fee of Rs. 149-15-0, due on the valuation given therein, on 22nd November 1948. That S. R. was returned to the petitioner on 10th February 1949 for the lodgment schedule receipt for Rs. 25 in two days. Nagaratnam did not file the lodgment schedule receipt at all. Instead, she negotiated with the other side, compromised with him, and settled the matter. She re-presented S. R. No. 40609 of 1948 only on...
Tag this Judgment!Jonnagadla Seethamma and anr. Vs. Jonnagadla Veerana Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad785; (1950)IIMLJ21
Rajamannar, C.J. 1. These two appeals arise out of the same suit O. S. No. 12 of 1945 originally instituted in the Court of the District Judge, Bellary, and thereafter transferred to the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Bellary and numbered as O. S. No. 3 of 1947. A. S. No. 739 is by the plaintiffs and A.S. No. 758 by defendant 1. The suit was for partition of immovable and movable properties and connected reliefs. Plaintiff 1 is the widow of one Rao Bahadur Papayya Setty who died on 21st October 1937. She was his second wife. Plaintiff 2 is his son and defendants 2 and 3 are his daughters by plaintiff 1. He had also by her two other daughters, namely, one Saraswatamma (P. W. 3) married on the date of the institution of the suit and one Triveni who died before suit. By his first wife, Papayya Setty had two sons, namely the defendant 1 and one Seetharama Setty. After his death, the members of the family continued to be joint till the end of august 1940 when Seetharama Setty l...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Anamallais Timber Trust Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1949
Reported in: AIR1951Mad551; [1950]18ITR333(Mad)
Satyanarayana Rao, J.(Case Referred No. 22/1945).1. At the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras, the Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, referred to us under Section 66 (1), Income-tax Act, the following two questions of law :'1. Whether in the circumstances of the case the Bench was correct in law in holding that the entire profits from sale of timber accrued or arose to the respondent company, and were received by the respondent company outside British India ? 2. If the answer to question (1) above is in the negative, whether the Bench was correct in law in holding that Section 42 (3) would apply to profits which were received in British India or profits which actually accrued or arose (and were not merely deemed to accrue or arise) in British India?' The reference arose on the following facts: The assessee is a company incorporated in Cochin State under the Companies Act as made applicable to that State. The company trades in timber and also has a saw mill at Chalakudi i...
Tag this Judgment!K.S.S. Soundarapandia Nadar and Bros. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad704; [1950]18ITR163(Mad)
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. The Appellate Tribunal, Madras bench, referred under Section 66 (1), Income-tax Act, the following question for the opinion of the High Court:'Whether there is any material for the finding that the dealing in forward contracts carried on by the applicants in the Rangoon grain market is a distinct and separate business from the dealing in ready goods of some commodities.' The facts re evant for the case are as follows: The applicants are an undivided Hindu family carrying on business in grains and rice at Tuticorin and Virudunagar. The mode adopted by them in the business is to buy grain and rice at Rangoon through their agents and import them to Tuticorin where the goods are sold. In the accounting year 1937-1938, they also carried on business in what are described as Satta contracts or forward contrasts of purchase and sale and dealing in differences Such contracts related also to the same commodities in respect of which they had also made ready purchases. In t...
Tag this Judgment!The Madras and Southern Maharattah Railway by Its General Manager Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad402
ORDERChandra Reddi, J.1. This civil revision petition raises the question whether a railway company can raise an objection under Section 60, Civil P. C., to the attachment of the provident fund amount payable to one of its employees. Respondent 1 who obtained a money decree against respondent 2 who was an employee in the Madras and Southern Maharatta Railway Co, applied to the Court of the District Munsif of Vizagapatam for a prohibitory order directing the petitioner to attach the amount due to the judgment-debtor from out of the provident fund that the judgment debtor was entitled to from the railway company on his retirement. The District Munsif directed the attachment of Rs. 503-5-4 and this order of attachment was made absolute on 22nd April 1946. The railway company, as garnishee thereupon filed an application for raising the attachment under Section 60, Civil P. C., on the ground that according to the Provident Funds Act, the Provident Fund payable to the judgment-debtor was exe...
Tag this Judgment!Chekka Suryanarayana, Receiver of R.B. Pydah Venkatachalapati Estate V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad407
Balakrishna Ayyar, J.1. On a mortgage executed by the mother of the respondent, a lady called Rajyalakshmi Amma, the receiver of the mortgagee's estate filed a suit after the death of the mortgagor and obtained a decree in O. S. No. 9 of 1929 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Ellore. The sale of the hypotheca fetched about Rs. 15,000/-. The balance due under the decree still amounted to about Rs. 28,000/- and for this sum a personal decree was passed on 9th August 1934 against the assets of the deceased in the hands of her heirs. In E. P. No. 70 of 1937 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Ellore it was found that the value of the assets of deceased Rajyalakshmi Amma in the hands of the respondent was Rs. 4000/-, and to recover this sum the receiver attached certain properties in her possession. The respondent then contended that those properties had been gifted to her by her father on 11th August 1934, that other properties belonging to the deceased consisting of some 154 acr...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »