Chennai Court February 1951 Judgments
G. Chandrasekhara Reddi Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Mad897; [1951]19ITR616(Mad); (1951)1MLJ565
Rajamannar, C.J.1. The applicant is a Chartered Accountant & has been practising as an auditor from 1923. He is a fellow member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants from 22-8-1950 (sic). He has been appearing on behalf of assessees before the Income-tax authorities in connection with assessment proceedings under the Act. Under Section 61(1), Income-tax Act, he was found guilty of misconduct as an auditor in connection with income-tax proceedings before the Income-tax Officer, Kurnool. Thereupon, the Central Govt. declared him not to be a fit & proper person to remain enrolled on the Register of Accountants & in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 14, Auditor's Certificate Rules, 1932, the Govt. removed his name temporarily for a period of one year from the said Register, by a notification dated 24-6-1949. On 8-7-1949, the Commissioner of Income-tax issued a notice to the petitioner why action should not be taken against him under the provisions o...
Tag this Judgment!Bysani Kamalamma Vs. Syed Ismail Ispahani E. Venkata Sastri
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Mad895; (1951)IMLJ676
Rajamannar, C.J.1. The only question which arises in this appeal is whether Order 37, Rule 4, Civil P. C. (hereinafter referred to as the Code) applies to the original side of this Ct. The resp. filed the suit (C. S. No. 280 of 1948) for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 15050 alleged to be due for principal& interest in respect of a cheque dated 9-3-1948 drawn by deft. 2 in favour of the deft. 1 & endorsed over by her in favour of the pltf. & which was dishonoured on 18-3-1948. The suit was filed under the provisions of Order 7, Original Side Rules. No application for leave to defend was made bythe defts. within the prescribed time & therefore the Master passed a decree on 22-9-1938 for the sum of Rs. 15462-8-0 with interest thereon at the rate of six per cent per annum from the date of the decree till date of payment & for the costs of the suit. On 12-1-1949 deft. 1 took out an application purporting to be under Section 151 & Order 37, Rule 4 of the Code praying that the decree drawn up b...
Tag this Judgment!Maddipati Ramanna Alias Tatabbayi and ors. Vs. Maddipati Subbarayudu a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Mad886a
ORDERChandra Reddi, J. 1. This appln. is filed Under Section 152 & Order 6 Rule 17, Civil P. C. for amendment of the plaint & the memo. of appeal sought to be filed in this Ct. in the following circumstances. The petnr. brought a suit in the Ct. of the subordinate Judge, Ellore for partition of the joint family properties between him & the resps. herein & for separate possession of half the share to be allotted to him. The suit as originally filed was valued under Article 17 B of Schedule II, Court Fees Act, & a fixed C. F. of Rs. 100 was paid on the basis of the pltf. being in joint possession of the suit properties along with the defts. The suit properties were valued at Rs. 11603 for the purpose of jurisdiction. On an objection taken as regards the C. P., the trial Ct. decided as a preliminary issue that the suit should not be regarded as one falling under Article 17 B of Schedule 2 but should be valued Under Section 7(5), Court Fees Act, on the ground that the allegations in the pl...
Tag this Judgment!M.B. Namazi Vs. Deputy Custodian of Evacuee Property and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Mad930; (1951)2MLJ1
Rajamannar, C.J. 1. This is an application by one N. B. Namazi under Article 226(1) of the Constitution to issue a writ of 'certiorari' to call for the records of the proceedings on the file of the Assistant Custodian of Evacuee Property, Madras in Nos. 224 & 224 A of 1949 & to quash the orders passed on the two matters respectively on the same day, 10-4-1950. The order in A. C. No. 224 A of 1949 declared one M.E. Namazi an evacuee under Section 2(d)(i) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Ordinance (XXVII (27) of 1949) & his one-fourth share in Messrs. Gani & Sons as evacuee property under Section 2 (f) of the same Ordinance. By the order in A. C. 224 of 1949 three persons, namely, Gani Namazi, M.B. Namazi the applicant herein & M.I. Namazi were declared to be intending evacuees under Section 19 of the same Ordinance.2. The undisputed facts are as follows: There was a firm known as Gani & Sons doing business for several years in the City of Madras. From 1943 the firm consisted of...
Tag this Judgment!Andavar and ors. Vs. Periathambi Padayachi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad257; (1951)2MLJ232
Balakrishna Ayyar, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. He sued for a declaration that he is the trustee and pujari of six deities mentioned in the plaint and for an injunction to restrain the defendants from obstructing him from enjoying the suit property and from exercising the rights and performing the duties of his office. It may, be mentioned at once that though in the plaint six deities are mentioned it has been found that the sixth of them namely, the deity called Thangammayee Amman is, if one may use that expression, a private deity and outside the scope of this litigation. 2. The defendants pleaded that the plaint deities have no temple, that there are not even idols for them, although pooja was being performed for them under a tree and that the management of the affairs of the plaint deities has been for a long time in the hands of the second defendant and his ancestors acting 'in consultation with the people of Paranam village and according to their advice.' 3. The learned D...
Tag this Judgment!Lingambhotla Subbayya Vs. the Subordinate Judge and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Mad864a; (1951)1MLJ514
Rajamannar, C.J. 1. The petnr. filed an appln. for eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent. Both the Bent Controller & the Appellate Tribunal found that there was default, but held that default by itself cannot be regarded as a valid ground to eject a tenant in a case where the tenant proves that by long practice the house owner did not insist on regular monthly payment of rent. The Appellate Tribunal thought that this conclusion was justified by the spirit of Act xv [15] of 1946. We have no hesitation in saying that both the Kent Controller & the Appellate Tribunal committed a clear error of law. There cannot be an agreement under which rent is payable at irregular intervals. It may be that, the landlord was not insisting on regular payments & was accepting without protest arrears of rent which had accumulated ; but when he choose a to apply Under Section 7 of the Act, he will be entitled to an order of eviction if he can prove that the tenant has not paid or tendered the...
Tag this Judgment!Muthu Naicken Vs. Mariappa Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-1951
Reported in: AIR1953Mad754; (1952)2MLJ172
Rajamannar, C.J.1. This revision arises out of an interlocutory order passed in a suit filed by the respondent for redemption of an 'othi' dated 3-5-1899. He prayed for a decree directing the defendants to receive the 'othi' amount of Rs. 300 and to deliver possession of the properties in Schedule A. 2. In the alternative he prayed for delivery of possession of item 2 of A. 2 schedule and partition of items 1 and 3 of A. 2 schedule into four shares and delivery of possession of three shares to him. This was because there was a claim on behalf of defendant 2 that he had become entitled to a fourth share in these two items. We are not concerned with the other prayers. He valued the reliefs A and B in the principal amount of the 'othi' and for the alternative relief of partition and possession, he valued the relief under Article 17-B, Court-fees Act. As higher court-fee was payable on the main relief of redemption of the entire property, that court-fee was paid and? no court-fee was paid ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Bora Narasimhulu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad165; (1951)1MLJ478
Chandra Reddi, J.1. After stating the facts and the plea of the accused, the Judgment proceeds as follows:) Rejecting this theory and accepting the prosecution case 'in toto' the learned Sessions Judge found the appellant guilty of the offences, of murder and sentenced him to death.2. The prosecution case rests mainly on the evidence of the boy Pydireddi who was the only Inmate of the house at the time of the occurrence. He was examined at the time of the preliminary enquiry but subsequently he could not be traced in spite of the deligent searches made by the concerned police authorities, P.W. 1, the aunt of the boy, stated that he was staying with her subsequent to the death of his parents and suddenly disappeared one day from the house when she had taken ill. P.Ws. 2 to 4 the police officers deposed that they searched for the boy at all places where he was likely to be found, in vain. They could not trace him either in the East Godavari district or in the Visakhapatnam district. In t...
Tag this Judgment!Meenakshiammal Vs. K.G. Krishnaswami Iyer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad90; (1951)2MLJ163
Chandra Reddi, J.1. These three revision petitions raise the same question relating to limitation and the petitioner is the same in all the three petitions. They arise out of the three execution petitions filed by the petitioner in S. C. Nos. 1926 of 1937,899 of 1938 and 900 of 1938 on the file of the District Munsif's Court of Madhurai. They were dismissed by the trial Court as being barred by limitation under the following circumstances.2. These execution petitions were filed by the present petitioner as an assignee of the decrees obtained by one K. G. Krishnaswami Iyer. The original decree-holder was adjudged an insolvent in I. P. No. 20 of 1943 and all his properties became vested in the Official Receiver of Madhurai. In the course of the administration of the estate the Official Receiver sold the properties in a public auction and they were purchased by the present petitioner. Subsequently the Official Receiver assigned these decrees to her by a document. Thereafter the assignee-d...
Tag this Judgment!Rajah of Vizianagaram Vs. the Official Liquidator, Vizianagaram Mining ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad136; (1951)1MLJ535
Govinda Menon, J. 1. All these appeals arise out of the winding up proceedings of the Vizianaga-ram Mining Company, Limited, which had been incorporated and registered under the Companies Act then in force in England on 8-12-1894; The main location of its business was in the Vizagapatam District of the then Presidency of Madras, where various minerals were mined by the Company. Its principal place of business for the address to be given under Section 277 of the Companies Act was Kodur. In that company, the Rajah of Vizianaga-ram was a share-holder and he had also leased out to the company the lands on which the mining was going on under three separate leases. While matters were in this state, O. P. No. 25 of 1946 was filed on the Original Side of this Court by the Rajah on 29-1-1946, for winding up the company, which was ordered on 6-3-1946- Thereafter, further proceedings relating to the winding up were transferred to the District Court of Vizagapatam and the petitions out of which th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »