Chennai Court December 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.
In Re: M.R. Venkataraman
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad441
ORDERPanchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. These are two petitions for revising the order of the Additional First Class Magistrate, Cuddalore, in C. C. Nos. 552 and 568 of 1949, directing the trial of the petitioners in those two cases to take place in the civil debtor's yard of the Cuddalore Central Jail and dismissing the petitions put in by these petitioners to hold the Court in the Additional First Class Magistrate's own Court house or other suitable Court house and not in the civil debtor's yard. C. C. No. 552, of 1949 is a case concerning 80 accused, including the petitioner in Cri. B. C. No. 1624 of 1949, and the offences therein are offences under Sections 147, 332, 353 and 149, Penal Code. C. C. No. 568 of 1949 is against 26 accused, including the petitioner in Cri. R. C. No. 1625 of 1949, and comprises, offences under Sections 147, 332 and 149, Penal Code. Some of the accused in both the cases are detenus, and some others are convicts. The petitioner in both these criminal revision cases ...
Hosur Kasipathy, Ex. Property Guardian of the Minors Mutchala Kesava R ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad506
ORDERKrishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. The guardian of the property of the minors is the petitioner in this civil revision petition. By an order of the District Judge, Anantapur, dated 10th December 1941 in Order p. No. 8 of 1941 the petitioner was appointed as the guardian of the property, and under the terms of the order he was directed that he should on no account keep in his hands more than Rs. 100 after making allowance for the monthly expenditure and that he should deposit into Court all sums over and above Rs. 100 as and when the cash balance with him exceeded the said amount. The petitioner filed a memo on 20th March 1946 for fixing his remuneration and prayed that a re-smuneration of 5 per cent be fixed on the gross realisations, as the remuneration that was fixed in the order was insufficient in view of the heavy work which he did on behalf of the estate. The learned District Judge made an order on 29th March 1946 that 'the remuneration is fixed at five per cent on the realisation.' ...
Rajam Bharathi Vs. Damodaran Naidu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad730
ORDER1. This is a petition to revise the order of the Chief Judge of the Court of SmallCauses, Madras, setting aside the election of the petitioner from 25th Division of the City. The disputed election was held en 30th September 1948 and it was declared that the petitioner Mrs. Rajam Bharathi was the successful candidate, it having been found that she had polled 726 votes as against 459 secured by her closest competitor Mr. Damodaram Naidu. Mr. Damodaran Naidu thereon filed a petition under Rule (2) of the rules framed under Section 59(2), and Section 347 (1), City Municipal Act to have the election set aside. In para 3 (a), of his petition he alleged that on the day of polling a son of the petitioner named Dorai, who was a student in the Pachaiappa's College, went to the polling booth and claiming to be Sir A. Lakshmanaswami Mudaliar, Vice Chancellor of the University, asked for a voting paper in his name. Mr. Damodaran Naidu, who was then present at the booth, pointed out that Dorai ...
Challa Appayya and anr. Vs. Desetti Chandra Ayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad817
ORDERBasheer Ahmed Sayeed, J.1. Upon the facts set out in para. 6 of the learned District Munsiff's judgment, I think the conclusion that the learned District Munsif has come to is right and his decision will have to be upheld. The plaintiffs in this case filed a suit to recover a sum of Rs. 110-5-6 which sum had been recovered from the plaintiffs by the Bobbili estate as and towards arrears of rent due in respect of lands for which the plaintiffs' maternal grandfather was pattadar. The plaintiffs are the heirs of their maternal grandfather who held lands under Bobbili estate in patta No. 44. That maternal grandfather of the plaintiffs had sold away the lands in the zamindary about 20 years ago to the defendants by Exs. D-1 and D-2 in the present suit out of which the petition has arisen. Ever since the said gale the defendants had been in enjoyment of the lands and the plaintiffs have had nothing to do with the same. The defendants did not pay rent for Faslis 1342, 1343, 1344 and 1345...
Talipatigala Estate by Partner, V.S. Sivalingam Chettiar Vs. Commissio ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad781; [1950]18ITR320(Mad)
Viswanatha Sastri, J. 1. In R. C. No. 55 of 1946 two questions have been referred to this Court for our opinion: (1) Whether in the circumstances of the case and on evidence and correspondence produced, the firm of Talipatigala Estate could be held to be controlled and managed in British India and is therefore resident and ordinarily resident in British India under Section 4A,Indian Income-tax Act? (2) Whether the proceedings under Section 34 could be initiated against a firm which was not assessed previously when one of the partners of the firm had been individually assessed on his share in the firm? In R. C. No. 59 of 1946 it is first of the two questions above stated that has been referred to us for our opinion. 2. The facts common to both these references ate these. Talipatigala, a rubber Estate in Ceylon, was purchased by three persons some years ago and during the relevant period was owned by two of the original purchasers, the third having conveyed his interest to the others on...
Banglore Woollen, Cotton and Silk Mills Co. Ltd., by Agents Binny and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-1949
Reported in: AIR1951Mad361; [1950]18ITR423(Mad)
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. The following questions wera referred to us by the Appellate Tribunal under Section 66(1), Income-tax Act :'1. Whether in the ciroumatances of this case, it is correct to hold that profits were received in British India within the meaning of Section 4 (1) (a) of the Act on the ground that some sale proceeds of goodi were received in British India.2. Whether in the circumstances of this case the applicant company had any business connection in British India within the meaning of Section 42 (1) of the Act.3. If the answer to question (2) is in the affirmative, whether any profits could reasonably be attributed to purchases of raw materials made by the managing agents in British India which would mean an 'operation' within the meaning of Section 42 (3).'2. The year of assessment is 1939-40 and the accounting year is the period ending with 31-12-1938. The accounts of the assesses were kept on mercantile basis. The assesses is the Bangalore Wollen and Cotton and Silk...
Thachil Maruth Kunhikkavu Alias Ammini Amma and ors. Vs. Kizhakka Pura ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad512
Panchapagesa Sastri, J.1. This civil miscellaneous second appeal arises out of execution proceedings. A preliminary objection is taken that no appeal lies. The appeal purports to be under Section 47, Civil P. C. Respondent 2 obtained a decree against the appellants and others and in execution thereof there was a court auction sale on 11-9-1946. The properties were purchased by a stranger and the execution petition was posted to 14-10-1946 for confirmation of sale. Meanwhile, Madras Act XVII [17] of 1946 had come into force. Defendants 1, 4 and 5 who are the appellants here deposited two years rent and interest into Court and applied in E. A. No. 1075 of 1946 under Section 4 of the Act for stay of confirmation of sale. The trial Court rejected the petition because the sale had already taken place on 11-9-1946 and in the view of the trial Court Section 4 of Act XVII [17] of 1946 had no application to such a case. The sale was duly confirmed on 21-11-1946 and satisfaction of the decree wa...
In Re: Kulandai thevar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad592
Govinda Menon, J.1. The appellant has been sentenced to death by the learned Sessions Judge of Ramnad division for having caused the death of four unfortunate and innocent children and sentenced to terms of imprisonments for having caused grievous hurt etc., under Sections 324 and 326, Penal Code, to eight other persons, namely, P. Ws. 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, 11 and 15 and another. It is unnecessary to dwell at any length about the details of the prosecution story, or the evidence of the witnesses examined at the trial. For, the appellant has admitted throughout that he has caused the death of the children and has also caused grievous hurt to the witnesses aforesaid. Immediately after the murders, he rushed to the police station with the blood-stained aruval in his hand, surrendered himself and gave the weapon into the hands of the police officer. He made a statement to the police and thereafter he was sent before the Taluk Magistrate of Ramnad who recorded a statement (EX. p. 17) in the nature...
Gudimalla Satagopacharyulu Minor by Mother and Guardian, Vedala Ramanu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad608
Horwill, J.1. A preliminary mortgage decree was passed by the District Judge of Masulipatam on 14th October 1942; and the decree was assigned to the present decree-holder on 27th October 1942, The final decree was passed on 4th April 1944; and on some date subsequent to that the decree was transferred from the Court of the District Judge of Masulipatam to that of the Subordinate Judge of Masulipatam. The certificate required under Order 21, Rule 6 was sent with it to the effect that the decree had been satisfied to the extent of Rs. 472-8-0. Notice was given to the appellant, who then raised an objection that during the pendency of the suit, even before the preliminary decree had been passed, the mortgage debt had been satisfied, but that the parties for their convenience allowed the decree to be passed and then arranged for the decree to be assigned to the appellant's paternal aunt's husband. That assignment was actually made, as already stated on 27th October 1942. In order to bring ...
Ghulam Kadir and anr. Vs. the Municipal Council Negapattinam Represent ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Mad460
Panchapagesa Sastry, J.1. This civil miscellaneous second appeal arises out of a petition filed by defendants 7 and 10 in O. S. No. 355 of 1939 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Negapatam, to set aside a court sale held on 23rd November 1948 and confirmed on 29th December 1942. Both the lower Courts have dismissed the petition. Hence this appeal.2. The Municipal Council, Negapatam, respondent 1 herein obtained the aforesaid decree for recovery of Rs. 18-1-6 being the arrears of property tax for T. S. No. 155. The decree also gave a first charge over the properly. The property originally belonged to one Vanjoor Animal. Defendants 2 to 10 were impleaded as her heirs and as persons in possession and enjoyment. Defendant 11 was impleaded as he claimed some interest in the property. An ex parts decree was passed in the first instance on 19th April 1940. Defendants 7 to 10 were described as minors represented by guardian, defendant 2. They were, however, majors at the time of the i...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »