Chennai Court March 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.
In Re: Doraiswami Reddiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Mad894; (1951)1MLJ691
ORDERPanchapakesa Ayyar, J. 1. The two petnrs. in this case, the president & clerk of a co-operative stores in Vadipatti, have been convicted under Section 477(a), I. P. C. read with Section 109, I. P. C. for falsifying the accounts of the stores of Vadipatti by making two false & fraudulent entries in the account books of the stores (Ex. P. 12) regarding two false & fraudulent bills (Exs. P. 13 & P. 14 dated 16-2-1949 & 1-5-1949) about the alleged sale of cane jaggery& ground-nut on these days when really these things had been sold away before 27-1-1949 & the bills (EXS. p. 13 & p. 14) were bogus & false ones not relating to any genuine sales to the parties mentioned, or for the sums mentioned, or for the qualities mentioned, or on the date mentioned. They were sentenced by the First Addl. First Class Mag. Madura, to pay fines of Rs. 500 & Rs. 200 respectively. On appeal the learned Sess. J. of Madura reduced the fine on accused 1 to Rs. 400 & on accused 2, a clerk under his control &...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Excess Profit Tax, Madras Vs. A.S.T.F. Rod ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad35; [1951]20ITR247(Mad); (1951)2MLJ346
1. The question referred for our decision is:'Whether in the circumstances of the case the whole of the profits from the supply of sheep and goats to the military authorities accrued or arose in an Indian state and hence is exempt from liability to excess profits tax by virtue of the proviso to S. 5 of the Excess Profits Tax Act?'The facts are these. The assessee is a registered firm carrying on business as manufacturers and sellers of bone meal with their head office at Katpadi near Vellore and depots in many other places in British India. In May 1942, the assessee entered into a contract with the military authorities for the supply of live goats and sheep in weekly instalments at an agreed price. The assessee deposited a sum of Rs. 10,000 with the military authorities in British India as a guarantee for the due performance of his obligations under the contract under which deliveries had to be effected over a considerable period of time. The contract was entered into in British India....
Adapaka Sanyasamma Vs. Vimarsa Prakasa Vireswaswami Alias Visweswarasw ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad171; (1951)IIMLJ391
Raghava Rao, J.1. I have heard an able and interesting argument from Mr. Ramamurthi for the appellant. The question raised is whether or not the suit is barred by limitation. The trial Court held it was. The lower Appellate Court has held It was not.2. The suit was by a certain person appointed as trustee of a temple, by the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Board. If from the date of order of appointment time is reckoned the suit is obviously in time. It is said for the appellant that the suit is barred because under Article 134 (B) which is the article that matters there was cessation of trusteeship on the part of one Ramalmgaswami, the prior trustee, as early as 1922, which was the year in which he made his last alienation of the trust properties, that is to say of the temple itself.3. The terms of the third column of Article 134 (B) of the Indian Limitation Act are :'Time from which period begins to run. : The death, resignation or removal of the transferor.'The learned Subordinate...
Commissioner of Income-tax and Excess Profits Tax Vs. the ErIn Estate, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad542; (1951)2MLJ577
Viswanatha Sastri, J. 1. The question that has been referred to us is in these terms: 'Whether the asses see firm is a resident in British India within the meaning of Section 4-A (b) of the Income-tax Act.' 2. With reference to income-tax, the assessment years in question are 1939-40, 1940-41, 1941-42 and 1942-43. With reference to excess profits tax the chargeable accounting periods are 1st September 1939 to 31st December 1939, 1st January 1940 to 31st December 1940, 1st January 1941 to 31st December 1941, Though the assessments relate to different accounting periods, both before us and the Income-tax authorities as well as the Appellate Tribunal, the case has been presented on the footing that the essential facts and circumstances are the same throughput. The facts are shortly these. The assesses is a registered firm of seven partners carrying on the business of tea planters in Ceylon. The partnership owns tea estates compendiously styled: 'The Erin Estate'. Tea is grown on this esta...
Vajjula Anantharaman Vs. Adapala Subba Reddi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad597; (1951)IIMLJ419
Raghava Rao, J.1. The appellant in this secondappeal was the plaintiff in the original Court.His suit was for recovery of certain damagesand for an injunction. The damages related tothe value of the earth said to have been dugfrom this land by the first defendant with theconnivance of the second defendant, a tenantof the plaintiff. The earth dug was convertedinto bricks and the injunction was to restrainthe defendants from entering, removing or interfering with the brick kilns. The kilns aresituated in an area of 10 cents in a larger areaof 70 cents from out of which there was thedigging of the earth. The trial Court held thatthe plaintiff was entitled in damages to a sumof Rs. 400. How that was arrived at by thetrial Court was that Rs. 300 was considered byit to be the value of the earth removed. Rs. 50was regarded by it as the expense to be incurred by the plaintiff for manuring of theplots which were dug out and another Rs. 50was reckoned to be the charge for levelling upof the pits...
Commissioner of Income-tax and Excess Profits Tax Vs. the ErIn Estate.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1951
Reported in: [1951]20ITR412(Mad)
(The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VISWANATHA SASTRI, J.)The question that has been referred to us is in these terms :-'Whether the assessee firm is a resident in British India within the meaning of Section 4A (b) of the Income-tax Act.'With reference to income-tax, the assessment years in question are 1939-40, 1940-41, 1941-42 and 1942-43. With reference to excess profits tax, the chargeable accounting periods are 1st September, 1939 to 31st December, 1939, 1st January, 1940 to 31st December, 1940, 1st January, 1941 to 31st December, 1941. Though the assessments relate to different accounting periods, both before us and the Income-tax authorities as well as the Appellate Tribunal, the case has been presented on the footing that the essential facts and circumstances are the same throughout. The facts are shortly these. The assessee is a registered firm of seven partners carrying on the business of tea planters in Ceylon. The partnership owns tea estates compendiously styled 'T...
K. Peramanayakam Pillai Vs. S.T. Sivaraman and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad419; (1952)IMLJ308
1. The third defendant is the appellant in this second appeal. The facts are not seriously in dispute and are not complicated. The question raised is also a simple one, though the arguments before us ranged and covered a wider ground not strictly germane to the disposal of the case. The case itself was heard in the first instance by Panchapagesa Sastri J. who directed the papers to be placed before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for the case to be heard either by a Bench or a Full Bench in view of the conflicting decisions relating to the method of adjusting the equities between the alienee and the non-alienating coparcener under a sale, part of the consideration of which was applied for purposes binding on the family. The case then came up for hearing before a Full Bench of three Judges who referred the case to a fuller Bench of five Judges. When the matter was referred to the Fuller Bench, the case itself and not any particular question was referred and therefore the scope of the hear...
Rimmalapudi Subba Rao Vs. Noony Veeraju and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Mad969; (1951)1MLJ95
ORDERSubba Rao, J.1. Before we dispose of the application finally we think it is necessary to get an authoritative decision by a Full Bench on the meaning of the words 'substantial question of law' ocourring in Article 133, Constitution of India. In Mahadeva Royal v. Chikka Royal : AIR1942Mad368 , Pandrang Row and Abdur Rahman JJ. held that a question is a substantial question of law if the question of law affects the rights of the parties substantially. At page 310 the learned Judges say :'Mr. Venkatarama Sastri, the learned counsel for the respondent, contends that the contention in regard to their admissibility is flimsy and without any force and cannot be said to raise a substantial question of law. We were of opinion that there was no substance in the contention advanced by the learned Advocate General; but if the words 'substantial question' are to be understood in their being of substance to the parties, we must hold that the decision in regard to the non-admissibility of the do...
Mrs. H.i. Halligua Vs. Mohanasundaram and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Mad1056; (1951)IIMLJ471
Mack, J.1. Plaintiff, Mrs. H. I. Halligua, who belongs to the community of Cochin jews, sues defendant 1, a Madras taxi owner, for the recovery of Rs. 15,090-6-9 as general and special damages incurred as a result of injuries she sustained consequent on a collision between defendant l's taxi in which she was travelling, with a tram car in Mount Road, Madras, on 10th March 1947. Defendant 1 has impleaded the Kaiser-i-Hind Insurance Company Ltd., as defendant 2under third party procedure to make them liable under their policy of insurance. Both the defendants have sought to repudiate liability on the ground of absence of any negligence on the part of defendant 1's driver. The company seeks in any event to limit their liability to Rs. 2000 in accordance with a copy of the policy, Ex. D. 5, issued by them. The original policy issued to defendant 1 is not forthcoming.2. The following issues were framed.1. Was the taxi driven rashly and negligently where emerging from the petrol bunk? 2. Was...
The Dist. Mag. Vs. K. Subbanna
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Mad900; (1951)1MLJ570
ORDERPanchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. This petn. has been taken on file on a reference by the Dist. Mag., Chittoor, for quashing the charge Under Section 363, I. P. C. framed by the Stationary Sub-Mag., Madanapalle against one Subbanna for having kidnapped one Venkatalakshmamma, a girl of 16 years on 4-12-1949.2. The facts were briefly these. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Thambalapalle, filed a charge sheet in the Ct. of the Sub-Stationary Sub-Mag., Madanapalle, against accused Subbanna Under Section 366, I. P. C. for kidnapping Venkatalakshmamma, a fatherless minor girl of 16, from the guardianship of her mother, P. W. 2, on 4-12-1949, with intent that she might be compelled to marry him against her will. That case was taken on file by the Stationary Sub-Mag., Madanapalle, as P. R. C. No. 4 of 1950. As the girl had stated to P. W. 10, the Sub-Inspector of Police, that she loved the accused & was having sexual intercourse with him even before her marriage, in the fields & elsewhere & had willin...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »