Chennai Court January 1950 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.
Karuppiah Ambalam Vs. Andiappan Servai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Mad462
ORDER1. The petitioners were discharged under Section 209, Criminal P. C., by the Court of first instance which was the Additional Sub-Magistrate of Tirupathur. On an application by the prosecution the learned Sessions Judge of Ramnad has set aside the order of discharge and directed the Magistrate to pursue a course of action which may best be described in the words of the learned Judge himself, and they are in the following terms ;'I allow the revision petition, set aside the order of the lower Court and direct that a charge be framed against the accused under Section 477, Penal Code.' Neither Mr. Jayarama Iyer for the respondents nor the Public Prosecutor has been able to find any provision of law in the Criminal Procedure Code which would justify a Sessions Judge directing a Magistrate who has held a preliminary enquiry to frame a charge. Section 437, Criminal P. C., provides that on finding that an accused who is exclusively triable by a Court of Session has been improperly discha...
M. Mohamed Ibrahim Sahib Vs. Bazhul Asu Habu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Mad503
ORDERGovinda Menon, J.1. Having rightly and correctly held that there are no materials for setting aside the order of discharge under Section 307, Penal Code the learned Sessions Judge, in my opinion, was not justified in ordering a farther enquiry with regard to the alleged offence under Section 323, Penal Code. The learned Judge holds that the order of the Magistrate implies a discharge with regard to Section 323. If that is so, simply because the Magistrate has not used words 'the accused is discharged under Section 323' the learned Judge had no jurisdiction to set aside the order of discharge.2. Moreover, the learned Judge himself concedes that the Magistrate has disbelieved the witnesses and nothing contra has been said against that procedure. I do not think that it is open to the learned Judge to bisect the order of discharge into two component parts, confirm one part and set aside the other. The order of discharge must be taken and read as a whole and as it appears that the Magi...
Gadey Venkata Ratnam (Deceased) and ors. Vs. Gadey Sitaramayya and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Mad634
Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. Appellant 1 here (since deceased) was the plaintiff in O. S. No. 20 of 1944 on the file of the Sub-Court, Coconada. He had filed that suit for a declaration that he was the nearest reversioner of one Gadi Venkataratnam and for the recovery of the suit properties, which had belonged to the said Venkataratnam, from respondent 1 who was claiming to be the validly adopted son of Venkataratnam, and from the other respondents who were alienees or tenants in respect of the properties. He had attacked the adoption of respondent 1 as invalid, and the will dated 13th December 1896, said to have been executed by the said Venkataratnam, as not genuine and as not executed in a sound and disposing state of mind and as therefore not conferring any authority on Viyyamma, Venkataratnam's widow, to adopt. He had contended further that, even if the will was genuine, the adoption was not in accordance with the authority conferred in the will, and that Ex. D. 9, the agreement dated...
Rajammal and ors. Vs. Kannammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Mad695
ORDERBasheer Ahmed Sayeed, J.1. This petition is against the order of the learned District Judge of North Arcot at Vellore refusing to grant the application of the petitioner to amend the written statement or in the alternative to receive additional written statement under Order 8, Rule 9 and Order 6, Rule 17 and Section 151, Civil P. C.2. The case of the petitioners is that the respondent in this petition obtained a decree from the District Munsif's Court of Arni granting her maintenance from out of the properties of her father, and in the hands of his heir. The respondent is a widow and she was not able to get any maintenance from her own husband's estate. Relying on the contention that she did not get any maintenance from her own husband's estate, the District Munsif decreed maintenance to the respondent to be paid from out of the properties in the hands of the petitioners. The petitioners before me have filed an appeal against that decision and that appeal being 182 of 1948 is stil...
The Anglo-french Textile Co. Ltd. by Agents, Best and Co. Ltd. Vs. the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad597; [1950]18ITR888(Mad); (1950)1MLJ547
Viswanatha Sastri, J.1. The following two questions have been referred to us for decision :(1) Whether in the circumstances of this case, the assessee company had any business connection in British India within the meaning of Section 42 (1) of the Act? (2) Whether any profits could reasonably be attributed to the purchase of entire cotton made in British India by the Secretaries and Agents of the assessee company, within the meaning of Sections 42 (1) and 42 (3), Income-tax Act The facts giving rise to this reference are these: The Anglo-French Textile Co., Ltd., a public limited company incorporated in the United Kingdom, owns a spinning and weaving mill located at Pondicherry in French India. The mill manufactures yarn and cloth at Pondicherry. The year of account for the company is the calendar year. In the year 1939 no sales of yarn or cloth manufactured by the company were effected in British India, though in the previous years, such sales were effected. It is, however, common gro...
Anglo-french Textile Co. Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax, No. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Mad600; [1950]18ITR897(Mad); (1950)2MLJ798
Viswanatha Sastri, J. 1. The questions that have been referred to us are three in number. It is however conceded by the learned counsel for the assessee that the third question has been answered against the assessee by the decisions of the Federal Court and the Judicial Committee which are binding upon us. We therefore answer the third question referred to us by stating that the provisions of Section 4 (1) and Section 4-A (c) (b), Income-tax Act are not ultra vires the Indian Legislature. 2. The other two questions which remain to be considered are these : 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case Section 42 (1) and (3) of the Act alone and not Section 4 of the Act have application to the income accruing or arising by reason of sales in British India of manufactured goods where the manufacturing process took place outside British India? The question as here stated has been the result of an agreed amendment of the question originally framed by the Appellate Tribunal,...
In Re: S. Cariapppa
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Mad453
ORDERChandra Reddi, J.1. This reference by the Sessions Judge of Goorg cannot be accepted for the following reasons. The irregularity that is said to have been committed by the Magistrate consisted in his failure to examine the accused under Section 349, Criminal P. C., after a court witness was examined. This court witness supported the defence version but the trial Court did not accept the evidence of this witness. Apparently the Magistrate did not question the accused under Section 342, Criminal P. C., as there was nothing to be explained by the accused in the evidence of the court witness who supported the defence version. So the failure to examine the accused under Section 342, in the circumstances cannot be said to have in any way prejudiced the accused. 2. In the order of reference, the learned Sessions Judge relying on the decision reported in Hooghly Chinsura Municipality v. Keshab, A. I. R. 1983 Cal. 347; (1983) Cri. L. J. 649 states that failure to comply with the provisions...
The Anglo French Textile Co. Ltd. by Agents, Best and Co. Ltd. Vs. the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Mad647; [1950]18ITR906(Mad)
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. The assesses in this case is the Anglo-French Textile Co., Ltd., by agents, Best & Co., Ltd., Madras. The method by which this company's business is being managed has been fully dealt with in the judgments delivered by us this morning in R. C. Nos. 25 and 27 of 1947 and need not be repeated. The question that is referred to us in this reference under Section 66 (1), Income-tax Act, by the Appellate Tribunal is as follows:'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case when an assessment has been made under Section 23 (1), Income-tax Act, determining the assesses company's income as 'nil' and when proceedings under Section 34 were subsequently started to assess the income which the Income-tax Officer believed to have escaped assessment, the assessee company is entitled to claim that the loss of profits and gains (including depreciation allowance) sustained by it in the previous year should be determined in the course of such proceedings.' In response t...
Kolandayammal Vs. Sinnavelappa Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1950
Reported in: AIR1952Mad27; (1951)2MLJ438
Subba Rao, J. 1. The plaintiff-respondent in this case challenges the constitutional validity of the Provincial Insolvency Amendment Act, 1948, in so far as it affected the agricultural land. The facts are in a small compass and may briefly be stated. 2. The plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3 are the sons of the first defendant. The 14th defendant is the wife of the first defendant. They constituted members of a joint Hindu family of which the first defendant was the manager. He became heavily involved and was adjudged an insolvent in I.P. No. 63 of 1931 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore. The plaint schedule properties were sold in his insolvency by the Official Receiver. Some items were purchased by one Srinivasa Ayyar on 24th July 1933 under Ex. p-2 and other properties by the fourth defendant under Ex. P-4, dated 12-12-1935. Defendants 4 to 13 are the alienees or their successors-in-interest. Usufructuary mortgage interest in the second item devolved on the...
D. Mohideen Sahib and Co., Excise Contractors Vs. Commissioner of Inco ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-16-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Mad451; [1950]18ITR200(Mad)
Viswanatha Sastri, J.1. The question that has been referred to us for our opinion is as follows : Whether the Bench was correct in law In refusing to register the applicants as a firm under Section 26A, Income-tax Act ?' Seven persons entered into an agreement for and bad been carrying on, an arrack business for several years. For the assessment year, 1944-45 an instrument of partnership executed on 20th March 1944 by these seven persons was sought to be registered with the Income-tax Officer under Section 26A of the Act. The arrack shops stood, some in the names of some of these individuals and some in the names of strangers. The Income tax Officer refused registration on the ground that the firm as such was not a licensee, that the conditions under which the arrack licenses were issued prohibited the sale, transfer or sub-renting of the licence without the Collector's permission, that such permission bad not been obtained in this case, that the agreement of partnership entered into b...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »