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: K. Palani Moopan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad172; (1951)1MLJ679
Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. This is an appeal filed by Palani Moopan, the fourth accused in S. C. No. 64 of 1950 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Coimbatore. He is a boy aged 19 years and has been convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under Section 304, paragraph 2, Indian Penal Code, while acquitting him of the offence under Section 302, I.P.C., and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years. There were four other accused in the case. They have all been acquitted.2. The facts are briefly these. The appellant and the deceased Palani Moopan were agnates and 'pangalis.' Owing to misunderstandings over a lease of land and a manure pit there was a sudden and unexpected quarrel just at sunset time on 1st February 1950 between the five accused on one side and the deceased and P.W. 5 on the other and all the five accused are said to have fallen upon P.W. 6 and the deceased. According to the first information report, the dying declaration and the evidence o...
Manepalli Sitaramanjaneyalu Vs. Pachigolla Krishnayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad283; (1951)2MLJ231
Rajamannar, C.J.1. This application arises out of a proceeding under the Rent Control Act. The tenant is the petitioner. The respondent landlord filed a petition for eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent for the month from 10th August 1949 to 9th September 1949 (H. R. C. 395 of 1949). This petition was not disposed of till 6-2-1950 when it was dismissed. Meanwhile on. 11-12-1949 the respondent filed another petition for eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent for the month from 10th September 1949 to 9th October 1949. This petition was allowed by the Rent Controller and the decision of the Rent Controller was affirmed by the appellate tribunal and the tenant seeks to have the order of eviction quashed.2. Mr. Venugopalachari for the petitioner argued that till the disposal of the first petition for eviction, a second petition for eviction could not be filed, because if the first petition was eventually rejected, then, under the provisions of Section 7 (6) of ...
The Fringford Estates Limited, Calicut Vs. the Commissioner of Income- ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad47; [1951]20ITR385(Mad); (1951)2MLJ452
Viswanatha Sastri, J.1. The question that has been referred to us is whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 11242 derived by the assessee company on sale of timber was assessable Income.2. The facts that have led up to this reference are these. The assessee is a limited company. Its main business is to cultivate and sell tea, coffee, cardamom etc. in its estates. It purchased a tract of land part of which had already been cultivated with tea, the rest of it being a jungle capable of being cleared and maae fit for plantation. The company cleared the jungle of trees in order to make the land fit for cultivation and sold the trees in order to make the land fit for cultivation and sold the trees in the open market. The accounts of the company showed an income of Rs. 11242 received from sales of timber cut down from the jungle and sold. The Clearing operations started in 1939 and the trees that were cut were stocked i...
Mrs. A. Ananthalakshmi Ammal, by Power-of-attorney Holder, A. Ramachan ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Mad927; [1951]21CompCas210(Mad); (1951)2MLJ586b
Rajamannar, C.J. 1. This appeal relates to the affairs of a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act called the Hindustan Investment & Financial Trust Ltd., Madras. The managing director of the company convened the annual general meeting of the company for 31-12-1950 by notice dated 14-12-1950. On 26-12-1950 one Mrs. Ananthalakshmi Animal, a shareholder of the company, who is the appellant before us, filed an application (No. 4988 of 1950) on the original side of this Court for the appointment of an independent chairman to hold & conduct the annual general meeting to be held on 31-12-1950, with power to scrutinize all the proxies & record the proceedings of the meeting. The application first came up before the Judge sitting in the Christmas vacation (one of us, Somasundaram J.) who made an interim order on 27-12-1950 adjourning the meeting to 28-1-1951 and posting the application for final disposal after reopening of the Court. The application itself was eventually disposed ...
The Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax Vs. Jivaraj Topun and Sons
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Mad952; [1951]20ITR143(Mad); (1951)2MLJ172
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. Under Section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act read with Section 21 of the Excess Profits Tax Act, at the instance of the Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred to us the following question :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal's decision that the proceedings initiated under the Excess Profits Tax Act against the Hindu undivided family by issuing notice on 8th August 1944 on a member of the disrupted family and assessing the family's income to excess profits tax thereon partition and disruption having been accepted by the department on 18th March 1943--was valid in law ?'The assessee is a Hindu undivided family, viz. Messrs. Jivaraj Topun and Sons, Madras. The chargeable accounting periods with which we are concerned in this reference are (1) from 1st September 1939 to 11th November 1939, (2) from 12th November 1939 to 30th October 1940 and (3) from 31st October 1940 to 14th October 1941. ...
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Janab S. Khaderwalli Sahib Adoni
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Mad994; (1951)2MLJ183
Viswanatha Sastri, J. 1. The question that has been referred to us is in these terms :'Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that there was no 'definite information' under Section 34 of the Income-tax Act which would enable the Income-tax Officer to start proceedings against the assessee under that section?'The assessee was a partner in a registered firm consisting of three individuals one of whom was a minor. The assessee was asked to furnish a return of his income and in that return he stated that the annual value of his house property was Rs. 494 and did not show any other income. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the Income-tax Officer made enquiries as regards the acquisition of house property by the assessee during the year of account, and he came to the conclusion that a sum of about Rs. 16000 invested by the assessee on the purchase of house property came from his share of the profits of the partnership of which he was a member. On this basis, he added this s...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras Vs. Janab S. Khaderwalli Sahib.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1951
Reported in: [1951]20ITR208(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 Tribunal was right in holding that there was no definite information under Section 34 of the Income-tax Act which would enable the Income-tax Officer to start proceedings against the assessee under that section ?'The assessee was a partner in a registered firm consisting of three individuals one of whom was a minor. The assessee was asked to furnish a return of his income and in that return he stated that the annual value of his house property was Rs. 494 and did not show any other income. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the Income-tax Officer made enquiries as regards the acquisition of house property by the assessee during the year of account and he came to the conclusion that a sum of about Rs. 16,000 invested by the assessee on the purchase of house property came from his share of the profits of the partnership of which he was...
Commissioners of Income-tax Vs. Raman and Raman Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Mad905; [1951]19ITR558(Mad); (1951)1MLJ684
Viswanatha Sastri, J. 1. The following question has been referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax : 'Whether on the facts & in the circumstances of the case, the litigation expenses of Rs. 1392 incurred by the assesses company are allowable as business expenditure under Section 10(2) (xv), Income-tax Act ' The assessee is Raman & Raman Ltd., a private limited company carrying on business at Kumbakonam in the Tanjore district & will hereafter be referred to as 'the company.' The company owns a number of motor buses plying for hire in specific routes in the Tanjore district. Another bus service run under the name of Chamundeswari Bus Service had five buses plying between Kumbakonam in the Tanjore district & Karaikkal in the French territory. On 9-3-1944 the company through its Managing Director entered into an agreement for the purchase of the five buses of the Chamundeswari Bus Service with one T.D. Ralasubramania Pillai in wh...
M.R. Kalyana Krishna Ayyar Vs. Lakshmi Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad548; (1952)2MLJ38
ORDERGovinda Menon, J. 1. On a court-fee slip of the inspect-big Court-fee Examiner, the learned Subordinate Judge of Palghat held that in the suits out of which these civil revision petitions arise, the plaintiff should pay court-fee under Section 7, Clause (iv) (a) of the Court-fees Act, on the Basis of the cancellation of the decrees referred to in the plaints in those suits. The plaintiff contends that the order of the learned Subordinate Judge directing the payment of court-fee on the above basis, is without jurisdiction and seeks to revise the orders of the lower Court. 2. Both the suits are for recovery of possession of immovable properties on the strength of title with rents or mesne profits. The plaintiff is the executive officer of the Mangalam Anchumarthi temple in Palghat taluk, appointed by the Hindu Religious Endowments Board and seeks to recover possession of the properties mentioned in the plaints on the strength of the title of the temple. In the plaints it is stated t...
Vadrevu Suryanarayana Vs. Kocherlakota Venkata Subbarao and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1951
Reported in: AIR1951Mad943; (1951)2MLJ76
Rajamannar, C.J. 1. This appeal raises an interesting question of law concerning the scope of the prohibition contained in Section 66(1), Civil Procedure Code which runs thus:'No suit shall be maintained against any person claiming title under a purchase certified by the Court in such manner as may be prescribed on the ground that the purchase was made on behalf of the plaintiff or on behalf of some one through whom the plaintiff claims.' The appeal was first heard by our brother Panchapagesa Sastri J. who referred it to a Division Bench.2. The contesting parties are the appellant who was the first defendant in the Court below and the first respondent, the plaintiff. The suit was for specific performance of an agreement dated 12th March 1939 executed by the first defendant to convey the suit properties to the plaintiff whenever he chose to ask him to convey them without demanding any consideration. The averments in the plaint were extremely vague. After stating that the first defendant...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »