Chennai Court November 1949 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.
Commissioner of Income and Excess Profits Tax Vs. Coimbatore Pioneer M ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad661; [1950]18ITR213(Mad)
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. The following question was referred to us by the Appellate Tribunal under Section 66(1), Income-tax Act :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the amendment of Article 12 of the Articles of Association of the Company can be said to be a transaction with the main purpose of avoidance or reduction of the liability to Excess Profits Tax within the meaning of Section 10-A, Excess Profits Tax Act ?' 2. The assesses in this case is a company incorporated under the Companies Act and carries on business at Coimbatore. During the accounting year from 1st July 1941 to 30th June 1942 the company was assessed to Excess Profits Tax and the resolution of the company amending Article 12 of the Articles of Association was set aside by the Excess Profits Tax Officer under Section 10-A, Excess Profits Tax Act. This decision, however, was reversed by the Appellate Tribunal who disagreed with the conclusion of the Excess Profits Tax Officer. Hence this referenc...
Ramakkammal Vs. C.G. Subbarathnam Iyer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-1949
Reported in: AIR1953Mad13; (1952)IIMLJ416
1. This is an appeal by the first defendant against the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore granting to the plaintiff a preliminary mortgage decree.2. On the 20th February 1989, the first defendant executed a deed which is described as a usufructuary mortgage deed for a sum of Rs. 4,000. The property comprised in the mortgage is a terraced building in Coimbatore. Under this document, it was stipulated that the mortgagee should in lieu of interest on the amount advanced enjoy the property mentioned, that is, the house as under a usufructuary mortgage. It further provided that:"Within a period of four years from this date, I shall pay you the above usufructuary amount and get return of the deed with endorsement of discharge thereon and along with the title deeds pertaining thereto. I shall also take possession of the under mentioned properties from you. If before the above period of four years I pay the principal sum you shall receive it. If I fail to pay the principal sum on t...
P.S. Rajagopala Chetty Vs. S. Abdul Shukkoor Sahib and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad396
Raghava Rao, J.1. The question in this case on facts not in dispute is whether, in execution of the personal liability clause of a decree creating that liability as well as a charge liability for payment of money, when the property charged is attached and sold pursuant to the attachment, a purchaser prior to the auction sale but after the date of the decree who has no notice of the charge at the time of his purchase is affected by the doctrine of lis pendens and is therefore bound to fail in a later suit against him in enforcement of the charge. The Court below answered the question in the negative; the plain-tiff, the charge-holder, appeals against its judgment and decree refusing to recognise his right as superior to that of the defendant who became the purchaser admittedly after the date of the decree in the former suit but before the plaintiff's purchase in execution of that decree.2. It is contended by the learned advocate for the appellant that notwithstanding the decree and subs...
A.M.M. Sayed Abdul Cader Vs. Commr. of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad715; [1950]18ITR310(Mad)
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. The Appellate Tribunal referred to us the following question under Section 66 (l), Income-tax Act:'Whether in the circumstances of the case the applicant can be held to be a 'resident' in British India in the 'previous year' under Section 4-A (a) (iii) on the ground that he was in British India in the previous year otherwise than on an occasional or casual visit.' The relevant clause of the section referred to in the question is as follows:'Section 4A (a) (iii) For the purpose of this Act any individual is resident in British India in any year if he having within 4 years preceding that year been in British India for a period of or for periods amounting in all to 365 days or more, is in British India for any time in that year otherwise than on occasional or casual visit.'The facts found or admitted are: the assessee, who was once a resident of Authoor, a village in the Tirunelveli district, left the place several years ago and went to Ceylon where be married a Ce...
Ammalu Alias Pachiammal Vs. Govindu Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad609
Raghava Rao, J.1. In this second appeal, the short question for decision is whether in the absence of a sale certificate the title to the suit property vested in the plaintiff's vendor. The sale was in execution of an award obtained by a co-operative society against defendant 1. Having purchased the property, the society sold it to the plaintiff, who has instituted this suit in ejectment. The defence is that for want of a sale certificate no title ever accrued to the society which could accordingly pass none to the plain-tiff. 2. The decisions against the appellant relied on by the Courts below are Velan v. Kumarasami, 11 Mad. 296 and Jagannath v. Baldeo, 5 ALL. 305 : 1883 A. W. N. 48, which it is contended by his learned counsel are cases of sales under the Code of Civil Procedure which are inapplicable to a sale under the Co-operative Societies Act. It is further contended by him that Rule 10, Sub-rule (5) of the rules framed under the Act enjoins the issue of a sale certificate whic...
Ummadi Bala Venkata Reddi and ors. Vs. Kanala Narayana Reddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad630
Balakrishna Ayyar, J.1. This is an appeal from an order of the District Judge of Cuddappah allowing an application by two creditors of an insolvent to set aside the sale held on 18th February 1944 by the Official Receiver of certain properties of the insolvent. 2. The appeal was filed without the leave either of the District Court, Cuddappah, or of this Court; and the preliminary objection has been taken that this appeal is not therefore competent. This objection is sound. Section 75(2) and (3), Provincial Insolvency Act, provide for appeals from two classes of orders, namely, those falling within Schedule 1 of the Act and those falling outside that schedule. In respect of orders falling under Schedule I an appeal lies as a matter of right. In respect of other orders the party has not an unqualified right of appeal; he has to obtain the leave either of the District Court or of this Court. In the present case admittedly no such leave has been obtained. An attempt was made to argue that ...
In Re: A.K. Gopalan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad259
ORDERPanchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. This matter arises from a petition under Section 56l(A), Criminal P. C., filed by one A. K. Gopalan, convicted in S. C. No. 23 of 1948 on the file of the Sessions Judge, North Malabar and sentenced to 5 years rigorous imprisonment. He has filed, criminal Appeal No. 243 of 1948 against that conviction and sentence, and that appeal is pending in this Court. His complaint is that when his advocate went on 25th August 1949 to interview him in Cuddalore Central Jail to take instructions from him regarding this appeal, a police officer of the C.I D. Department insisted on being present at the interview and taking verbatim shorthand notes of what he was telling the vakil, and that all this is illegal and that if the C. I. D. Officer takes such notes be would communicate them to his superior officers and to the counsel on the opposite side, thus breaking the rules regarding the confidential nature of such communications. He prays, therefore, that either this Court...
Ellappa Goundan and ors. Vs. Ellappa Goundan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad409
ORDERPanchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. The six petitioners in this case have all been convicted under Section 500, Penal Code, by the Additional First Class Magistrate, Chingleput, and have been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50 each, or, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months each.2. I have perused the entire records and heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, and see no reason whatever to interfere in revision. The prosecution had proved that these petitioners had assembled a panchayat of persons belonging to all the castes of the village, and not merely of the Vanniar caste, to which they and P. W. 1 belong, and had stated at that panchayat that P. W. 1's married daughter, living: in his house, was having illicit intimacy with an Adidravida and that he would not drive her out as requested and so should be outcasted and the village washerman and barber prevented from rendering service to him and the Amman koil honours, given to him till then, as Periathanakar, should n...
C.N. Annadurai Vs. the Government of the Province of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-1949
Reported in: (1950)2MLJ189
1. The petitioner is the editor and publisher of 'Dravida Nadu', a Tamil Weekly which is printed at and issued from Kancheepuram. He seeks to set aside the order of the Provincial Government, dated 25th May, 1949, directing him to deposit with the District Magistrate, Chingleput, on or before the 25th June, 1949, security to the amount of Rs. 3,000. The order was passed in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 7(3) of the Indian Press (Emergency Powers) Act, 1931, on the ground that the issues of the petitioner's journal dated 4th April, 1948If in spite of belonging to the same group and kinship being claimed on the basis of recognising the same flag and belonging to the same party, if in spite of worthy persons praising him as the Gandhi of Tamilnad, it should happen that the intrigue and the amazing enmity and communal frenzy of a selfish group will keep on attacking him, then we ask in What way is the Congress Ramaswarm in any far better position than the Dravida Ramaswami.2. ...
Muthuswami Goundan and anr. Vs. Dhanushkodi Nadar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad734
Govinda Menon, J.1. Defendants 1 and 3 in O. S. No. 153 of 1946 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Coimbatore, appeal against the decree of the learned Judge directing them to pay a sum of Rs. 2200 with future interest and costs to the plaintiff. There is a memorandum of cross objections by the plaintiff, objecting tothe dismissal of his suit with regard to his claim for Rs. 3500.2. The plaintiff claimed that he was the proprietor of a hotel by name, The Star Biriyani and Meals Hotel in Coimbatore which was run in his own name and with big own funds. The ownership of the building was in defendant 1, though originally the transactions were with both defendants 1 and 3. On the basis of the landlord's right to the building in which the plaintiff was conducting his hotel, defendant 1 filed O. S.No. 271 of 1943 on the file of the District Munsif's Court of Coimbatore, impleading only defendant 2 herein as a party defendant. The basis of the claim of defendant 1 was that the hotel...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »