Chennai Court January 1951 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.
The Indian Mutual Life Assocn. Ltd. Vs. the Comr., Corpn. of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Mad876a; (1951)1MLJ706
Rajamannar, C.J. 1. This is an appeal against the order of Bajagopalan J., dismissing an appln. by the applt. the Indian Mutual Life Assocn. Ltd., made Under Section 45, Specific Relief Act. The applt. prayed that the Comr. Corpn. of Madras, be directed to correct the assessment books maintained by him under Rule 1, Schedule IV, Madras City Municipal Act, by deleting the name of the appct. in the said books from the list of companies liable to payment of co.'s tax & thereby bring the assessment books in conformity with the order passed by the learned Chief Judge of the Ct. of Small Causes in taxation appeal No. 2 of 1947 dated 24-2-1948. 2. The immediate cause for the appln. was the demand by the Corpn. of Co.'s tax for the first half year 1949-50. There was a prior assessment of Co.'s tax on the applt. Co. in 1942-43, & the Co. eventually succeeded in obtaining a decision from the Ct. of Small Causes in Appeal (T. A. No. 22 of 1947) that the applt. was not liable to be assessed Under ...
R.G.N. Price, Official Liquidator of the Andhra Paper Mills Co., Ltd., ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Mad987; [1951]21CompCas251(Mad); (1951)IIMLJ185
Rajamannar, C.J.1. This is an appeal against the order of Panchapakesa Sastry J. made in chambers in the winding up of the Andhra Paper Mills Co, Ltd (in liquidation). The material facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as follows:2. The company was incorporated under the Indian Companies Act in January 1929 with an authorised capital of Rs. 23,00,000 but with a paid up capital of about Rs. 12,00,000. The company appears to have been under-capitalised, and it became necessary to borrow by way of debentures, first in 1935 a sum of Rs. 6,00,000 and again in 1938 a sum of Rs. 5,00,000. The debentures were secured by two deeds dated 20th September 1935 and 19th September 1938. Under these debenture trust deeds, practically the entire premises of the Mills and all the machinery, plants, fittings, etc., attached to the Mills were mortgaged, to secure payment of the amounts due to the debenture holders. There were other provisions in the debenture deed which conferred rights on t...
Meesala Seethayya Vs. Kallidi Venkanna and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Mad1010; (1951)2MLJ299
ORDERSatyanarayana Rao, J.1. This revision petition is against the order in E. P. No. 112 of 1948 in S. C. No. 38 of 1935 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Amalapuram. In Section C. No. 38 of 1935 the first respondent who is the decree-holder obtained a decree against five persons on the foot of a promissory note dated 10th October 1933 executed by defendants 1 to 3 in the suit. The fifth defendant is the son of the third defendant. During the pendency of the suit, defendants 1, 2 and 3 were adjudicated insolvents on 2nd October 1935, and the Official Receiver was impleaded in the suit as the sixth defendant in I. A. No. 70 of 1936 dated 24th February 1936. The decree actually passed was that defendants 1 to 3 from out of the properties in the hands of the Official Receiver, i.e., the sixth defendant, and defendants 4 and 5 from out of their joint family property should pay the plaintiff the sum of Rs. 470 with interest. During the pendency of the insolvency, the third defendant...
Nallamuthu Pillai and ors. Vs. R. Aravamudhu Iyengar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-04-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad263; (1951)IIMLJ205
Panchapagesa Sastry, J. 1. Defendants are the appellants. Plaintiffs-respondents brought the suit for a declaration of their title to the suit property and for recovery of possession of the same from the defendants with past and future profits. According to the plaint they became entitled to the suit property plot No. 19 in what is known as the eastern extension scheme, Madhurai, in the following manner. Originally the first defendant was the owner of Town Survey No. 2512/1 of about 32 cents and 2512/2 of 73 cents. He had borrowed from the plaintiff's father a sum of Rs. 5,000 on the 1st September 1923 and had agreed to give a mortgage over the above properties, in addition to the promissory note which he executed. It was stated, by the plaintiffs that without giving the mortgage as agreed to, the first defendant conveyed the properties to one Kuthuva Ransachari by a deed of sale of March 1924 directing him however to discharge the promissory note debt in favour of the plaintiff's fath...
Chunchu Narayana and ors. Vs. Karrapati Kesappa
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-04-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Mad721; (1951)IMLJ296
Govinda Menon, J.1. The petnr seeks per-mission to appeal to the S. C. against the judgment of this Ct in Cr. R. C. No. 566 of 1950 under Article 134(1)(c), Const Ind, which is in the following terms: 'An appeal shall lie to the S. c. from any judgment or final order or sentence in a criminal proceeding of a H. C. in the territory of India, if the H. C. certified that the case is ft fit one for appeal to the S. C.' The words of this article are analogous to the provisions of Section 109(c), C. P. C., which says that an appeal shall He to the S. C. from any decree or order if the case is certified as a as one for appeal to the S. C. Since Article 134(o), has come into force only about a year ago, our attention has been invited only to one or two cases dealing with the interpretation of Article 134(1)(c), but various cases on the applicability or the interpretation of Section 109(c), C. P. C. have been brought to our notice & in the absence of any positive authority we should be guided b...
R. Chatterjee Vs. Sub Area Commander H.Q. Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-04-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Mad777; (1951)1MLJ258
Govinda Menon, J. 1. During the Second World 'War, the petnr. was an emergency commissioned officer holding the rank of a Captain in the Indian Army between the years 1943 to 1946. In September 1946, he was released from service & reverted to civilian occupation; but in pursuance to the policy later on adopted by the Govt. of India of instituting short service commissions to fill up vacancies caused in the Army by the retirement of British Army officers, applna. were called for from ex-army men & the petnr. was one of the appcts. who was entertained on short service commission. He was appointed to the rank of a lieutenant. on 6-7-1948 & the condition of his service was that he was bound to serve for one year in the first instance, which period may be extended for a specific period at the discretion of the Govt. of India with the consent of the officer concerned. Before the expiry of the period of one year, in pursuance to the direction from the Army Headquarters to the Headquarters of ...
Dinasari Ltd. Vs. HussaIn Ali and Sons and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-04-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Mad879; (1951)1MLJ476
Govinda Menon, J.1. The written agreement on which the applt. relies is not admitted by the resp. It is not an agreement as contemplated Under Section 2(a), Arbitration Act. It has been held by Kania J. (as he then was) in Shriram Hanutram v. Mohanlal & Co., I. L. R. (1940) Bom. 249 that the existence of an admitted agreement is a necessary pre-requisite for an arbitrator undertaking to decide the dispute. Here in this case the written agreement is denied & it is not open, therefore, to the arbitrators to decide whether the agreement as such exists or not. If the arbitrators have no jurisdiction to decide that point, it necessarily follows that they are not competent to function as well. In such circumstances the suit cannot be stayed Under Section 34, Arbitration Act. The decision of the lower Ct. is correct & the appeal is dismissed with costs....
Puthiyatuth Parvathi Alias Kunhi Kava Amma Vs. Nelliyoth Makkam Amma ( ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-02-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Mad187; (1951)IMLJ497
Viswanatha Sastri, J.1. The plaintiff in the Court below, here petitioner, seeks a revision of the order of the District Munsif of Badagara re. quiring her to pay court-fee in a suit for recovery of possession of land held under a kanom demise together with arrears of rent, not only on the principal amount of the kanom but also on the arrears of rent claimed by her. The kanom amount was Rs. 60 while arrears of rent sought to be recovered and on which additional court-fee was directed to be paid was Rs. 1145-7-0. The plaintiff prayed that the amount due to her for arrears of rent should be set off against the amount of the kanom and the value of the improvements due to the defendants and that the latter should be directed to restore possession of the demised land and pay whatever might be found due to her on accounts being taken. There has been a difference of opinion in this Court as regards the proper method of valuing suits of this kind for purposes of court-fees and jurisdiction. Th...
The Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras Vs. S.V.R.N. Palaniappa Chettia ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-02-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad92; [1951]20ITR170(Mad); (1951)1MLJ202
1. In pursuance of the direction of this Court under Section 66 (2) of the Income-tax Act, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal referred the following question of law to this Court : "Whether when a Hindu undivided family on a partition is succeeded to by one or more of its members in respect of the family's share in the business of a foreign firm and the family was assessed in respect of that share under the Act of 1918, the firm not having been assessed, is the family entitled to relief under Section 25 (4) of the Income-tax Act as amended by the Amendment Act of 1939".The facts are not in dispute. The assesses was an undivided Hindu family and as a partner carried on a money lending business at Muar in the Federated Malay States. The profits of the money lending business received by the joint family in British India were assessed to income-tax under the Act of 1918 and subsequently. There was a partition in the family and at that partition, the share of the family in the said business ...
S.N.A.S. Annamalai Chettiar Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-02-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad271; [1951]20ITR238(Mad); (1951)2MLJ335
1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal referred the following question of law for the opinion of this Court:"Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in holding that the Hindu undivided family was not entitled to the benefits of Section 25(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, after partition on 28-3-1939."2. The applicant was a member of a Hindu undivided family till the date of the partition on 28-3-1939. The family consisted of Chockalinga,. the father and Annamalai the son, the assessee The family was carrying on money-lending business at Penang under four different vilasams or styles (1) S. N. A. S. (Penang), (2) A. N. (Penang),. (3) S. N. A. S. A. (Penang) and (4) S. N. A. S. A. (Trust.) It had also a share in S. N. A. S. Bagan Datoh. In the partition of the family properties S. N. A. S. (Penang) and the family's share in Bagan Datoh was allotted to the father and the son took the remaining three assets or activities, i.e., S. N. A. S. A. (Penang), A. N....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »