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.
Podila Venkanna Vs. Chinchinada Venkanna and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Mad509
ORDERKrishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. These revision petitions arise out of orders setting aside a court auction sale on the ground of fraud and material irregularity in publishing and conducting the sale, and excusing the delay in filing the petition to set aside the sale. The auction purchaser is the petitioner. The first respondent who is one of the judgment debtors alleged that he was not served with the sale notice as he was absent at Rangoon and the decree-holder committed fraud in taking the sale notice to his village knowing that he was at Rangoon, that there was no proper proclamation and that the sale was vitiated by material irregularities. The decree holder contended among others that the petition to set aside the sale was barred by limitation as it was filed beyond 30 days of the sale. Two petitions were filed by the first respondent in the District Munsif's Court of Tanuku, E. A. No. 842 of 1941 which was a petition under Order 21, B. 90, Civil P. 0. to set aside the sale and E....
M.N. Murugappa Chetti and Sons, Tiruppur Vs. the Commissioner of Incom ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-1950
Reported in: AIR1952Mad828; [1952]21ITR319(Mad); (1952)2MLJ17
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1.The short question that arises for consideration in this reference is whether the managing agency commission earned by one Murugappa Chettiar is assessable to income-tax as the joint family income of Murugappa and his sons. The question formulated in this reference is as follows:'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in holding that the proportionate income of the managing agents Messrs. M. Nanjappa Chet-tiar and Sons was the income of the Hindu undivided family of Murugappa Chettiar and not the individual income of the karta?'The facts relevant for the disposal of this reference may be shortly stated: on the 12th of May 1932, Murugappa Chettiar and his brother Chikkanna Chettiar entered into a managing agency agreement with the Dhana-lakshmi Mills Ltd., whereunder Messrs. Nanjappa Chettiar and Sons, the name of the firm of which the two brothers are partners were appointed managing agents of the company subject to certa...
M. N. Murugappa Chetty and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-1950
Reported in: [1952]21ITR311(Mad)
The Judgment of the Court was delivered bySATYANARAYANA RAO, J. - The short question that arises for consideration in this reference is whether the managing agency commission earned by one Murugappa Chettiar is assessable to income-tax as the joint family income of Murugappa and his sons. The question formulated in this reference is as follows :-'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in holding that the proportionate income of the managing agents, Messrs. M. Nanjappa Chettiar & Sons, was the income of the Hindu undivided family of Murugappa Chettiar and not the individual income of the Karta ?'The facts relevant for the disposal of this reference may be shortly stated. On May 12, 1932, Murugappa Chettiar and his brother Chikkanna Chettiar entered into a managing agency agreement with the Dhanalakshmi Mills Ltd., whereunder Messrs. Nanjappa Chettiar and sons, the name of the firm of which the two brothers are partners, was appointed managing ag...
The Commissioner of Income- Tax Vs. Sri C.S. Rajasundaram Chetty,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Mad480; [1950]18ITR145(Mad)
Satyanarayana Rao, J. 1. The short question that is raised in this reference is whether the word 'child' occurring in Section 16 (3) (a), Income-tax Act includes also an illegitimate child. The question as formulated by the tribunal and referred to us is in these terms:'Whether the sum of Rs. 7236 the share income of Thyagarajan, the minor illegitimate son of the assessee, is liable to be included in the total income of the assessee under Section 16 (3) (a) (ii), Income-tax Act.' The assessee is a partner in a firm styled Rajasundaram Chetty and Sons, Madras. He has two minor children, Kalyanasundaram, a legitimate son and Thyagarajan, an illegitimate child.Both were admitted to the benefits of the partnership and the partnership itself was registered under Section 26-A, Income-tax Act. During the accounting year ending with March 1945, the profits of the firm credited in the accounts were Rs. 308 to Kalyanasundaram and Rs. 7236 to Thyagarajan. During the assessment year 1945-46, the I...
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ar. Pi. S. Pl Firm (Kedah) on Behal ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Mad645; [1950]18ITR935(Mad)
Viswanatha Sastri, J.1. The assessment years with reference to which this reference arises are 1940-41 and 1941-42, the respective accounting years being 1939-40 and 1940-41. With reference to both these years, the question that has been referred runs as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee firm was resident in British India during the year of account, within the meaning of Section 4-A (b), Income-tax Act?' With reference to the assessment year 1940-41, the following question has been referred :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessment of S.S.M. Muthukaruppan Chettiar (non-resident partner) under Proviso 2 to Section 23 (5) (a) of the Act was correct in law?' The facts that have led up to this reference are these: The assessee firm carries on a money, lending business out side British India at a place called Keddah. Its major partner was Ar. Pl. S. Pl. Palaniappa Chettiar on whose death his son Chidambaram ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sri K.M.A. Muthappa Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-04-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Mad638; [1950]18ITR328(Mad)
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. The question referred to us under Section 66 (1), Income-tax Act is as follows : 'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the finding of the Appellate Tribunal that the Income tax Officer was not entitled in law to include under Section 4 (1) (b) the sum of Rs. 6799 as remittance of profits that accrued earlier than the 'previous year' in the Taiping A. M. M. (joint) business is correct?'The assessee was carrying on money-lending business and is a resident in British India. He carried on money-lending business at Tapah and Taiping outside British India, The year of assessment is 1940-41 and the accounting year is the year ending 12th April 1940, corresponding to the year Pramadhi. During the accounting yean the accounts showed that the accrued income at Taiping A. M. M. (Joint) was Rs. 6342 and that at Tapah A. M. L. (Sole) was Rs. 19,783, so that the total accrued income came to Rs. 26,125. The total remittances as shown in the accounts were :...
In Re: Sowrirajan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-04-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Mad639
Govinda Menon, J.1. This is a reference by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge of East Tanjore at Mayuratm, under Section 307 Criminal P. C., wherein the learned Judge after differing from the unanimous verdict of guilty by the jury wants the Court to accept his opinion that the accused is not guilty of any offence whatever. In his letter of reference the learned Judge has given reasons for making the reference and a perusal of the same shows that he does not agree with the opinion of the jury regarding the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. In para. 4-the learned Judge says that it is very doubtful whether P. W. 1 knew prior to his giving the complaint on 9th January 1949 that it was the accused who committed the robbery. He goes on to state that it is also doubtful if P. W. 2 who professes to be an eye-witness was there on that afternoon. Dealing with the testimony of P. Ws. 9 and 4, the learned Judge was inclined to conclude that their evidence cannot be accepted. In short, ...
In Re: Manicka Nagendra Bagavathar (Prisoner)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Mad484
Govinda Menon, J.1. The learned Sessions Judge of Tiruchirapalli Division in a carefully worded judgment, has found the appellant guilty of the offence of murder in that he intentionally caused the death of his wife Yasodai Ammal by stabbing her with a knife, M. O. 1, and thereby committed an offence under Section 302, Penal Code on 4th July 1949. The prosecution case is simple and lies in a narrow compass. Though the appellant and the deceased had been married about 7 or 8 years previously they had not been continuously living together. The reason ascribed for this separate living is the fact that the deceased was not well and was suffering from a very mysterious disease and therefore sometime before the date of the occurrence she had been taken away from the residence of the appellant to that of her parents where she was living at the time when she was murdered. It is stated that during the period when the deceased was living with her parents the accused occasionally used to visit he...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›