Chennai Court September 1951 Judgments
In Re: Rajagopala Aiyangar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad289; (1951)2MLJ593
1. This is a most tragic case in which the appellant, one Rajagopala Aiyangar aged 30, has been found guilty of clubbing his wife and four children shortly after midnight in their house in Kivalur. The four children clubbed murderously on their heads with an iron pestle succumbed to their injuries, but his wife Mathura-valli survived. She had eight injuries mainly on the head and face with suspected fracture of the skull. After sometime in hospital she was discharged with the wounds healed, but her mental faculties impaired, and, according to Dr. Mrs. Mathew, unable to say anything about her family or what happened to her children. She was not examined as a witness in this case. The learned Sessions Judge of East Tanjore has found the appellant guilty of the quadruple murder of his four children and sentenced him to death. He also found him guilty under Section 307, I.P.C., of attempting to murder his wife and sentenced him to transportation for life.2. The facts of this distressing ca...
Tag this Judgment!Canara Industrial and Banking Syndicate Ltd., Udipi Vs. Commissioner o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad584; [1952]22CompCas47(Mad); [1952]21ITR96(Mad)
1. At the instance of the assessee the question referred to this Court under Section 66 (1) of the Income-tax Act is: 'Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the premium received by the assessee at the time of issue of cash certificate is a revenue receipt and assessable to income-tax.' The assessee is the Canara Industrial and Banking Syndicate Ltd., Udipi, which is a scheduled Bank with its head office at Udipi. The Syndicate issued cash certificates after the manner of postal cash certificates from the year 1933. The certificates are of five years' currency and were originally issued at a lower price but from 1937 they were issued at the prices of Rs. 8, 80, 400 and 800 and are repay-able on maturity at Rs. 10, 100, 500 and 1000 respectively. They can be cashed at any time before maturity and the certificate contains a table showing the amounts repayable after different periods during the currency of a certificate of the price of Rs. 8. The said table proportionately hol...
Tag this Judgment!Pentakota Ayodharamayya and ors. Vs. Pentakota Venkata Krishnam Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad656; (1952)IMLJ504
Chandra Reddi, J.1. This second appeal arises out of E. A. No. 188 of 1946. in O. S. No. 103 of 1940 in the Court of the District Munsif of 'Visakapatnam, for restitution.2. In a suit for partition instituted by the sons of one Goteti Subba Rao, the present first respondent was directed to put the appellants in possession of 44.3/4 cents of land which was found to be in excess of the property to which he was entitled and which, according to the trial Court, belonged to the appellants. An appeal was filed by the present first respondent against this direction which was dismissed by the Subordinate Judge of Vizagapatam. But this Court in S. A. No. 2154 of 1944, reversed the decisions of the Courts below holding that 'those portions of the lower Court's decree which do not relate to the plaintiffs shall be deleted and the rights of the defendants inter se be and hereby-are left to be adjudicated upon, if necessary, in a different litigation.'3. Consequently, the first respondent, in addit...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Raju V. Chandra Chudamani Dev Bahadur Varu and ors. Vs. Madras Sta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad589; (1952)IMLJ206
Rajamannar, C.J.1. These applications are directed against, the orders issued by the Government under Section 3 (2) of Madras Act XXX of 1947 reducing the rates of rent payable in respect of the estates of the several applicants. Two main grounds were taken in these applications, namely, (1) that Madras Act XXX of 1947 was 'ultra vires' and in any event became void after the Constitution and (2) that the Act did not apply to the properties owned by the applicants because they did not fall within the definition of 'estate' in Section 5 (2) of the Madras Estates Land Act, I of 1903.2. The first ground has since been disposed of by our judgment In 'RAMAKRISHNA RANGARAO v. STATE OF MADRAS', C M P No. 894 of 1951 (Mad) etc. adverse to the applicants. The second ground remains.3. The Act applies to all estates as defined in Section 3 (2) of the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908 (Section 1 (2)). The applicants deny that their properties fall within this definition. There is no provision in the Ac...
Tag this Judgment!M.G. Narayanaswami Naidu and anr. Vs. M. Balasundaram Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-1951
Reported in: AIR1953Mad750; (1952)1MLJ487
1. Both these appeals arise out of the decrees of the Sub-Court, Madura in O. S. No. 1 of 1946, wherein a preliminary decree for the framing of a scheme, after removing the appellant from ithe office of trustee was passed on 22-2-1847 and A. S. No. 319 of 1947 is preferred against that decree. Against the scheme actually framed, A. S. No. 799 of 1948 has been filed and the two appeals were heard together.2. One Narayanaswami Naidu who died long ago created a disposition of property for the object of conducting a mandagapadi in the town of Madurai and the person who conducts it now is the first defendant, who is Narayanaswami Naidu's grandson, i.e. the son of Govindaswami Naidu, one of the sons of Narayanaswami Naidu by his second wife. The plaintiff in the lower Court is another grandson of Narayanaswami Naidu being the son of Venkatasami Naidu, the uncle of the first defendant. The other defendants are the descendants of Venkataswami Naidu. It is not necessary to set out in detail the...
Tag this Judgment!Mohamed Ali Sarafali and Co., Madras Vs. the Commissioner of Excess Pr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad658; [1952]21ITR369(Mad); (1952)1MLJ656
Satyanarayana Rao, J. 1. Two questions were referred to us for decision by the Appellate Tribunal under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act.'1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the loss in respect of the transactions 3, 5 and 6 accrued or arose in an Indian State, within the meaning of proviso 3 to Section 5 of the Excess Profits Tax Act? 2. Whether the splitting up of the loss relating to 308 bales into two-thirds as representing the contracting for the sale of goods and one-third as representing delivery and receipt of the price is erroneous in law.' (2) The facts as they appear from the statement of the case were: The assessee is a registered firm and carried on business at Madras in cotton and other goods. It carried on business in cotton in Hyderabad State as-well as in British India. The accounts relating: to the cotton business also were maintained at Madras. During the relevant chargeable accounting periods, the assessee bought cotton through Sa...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Shahzadi Begum Alias Luthfunnisa Be ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-26-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad232; [1952]21ITR1(Mad); (1952)1MLJ51
Satyanakayana Rao J. 1. The question referred to us under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is:'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, rejecting the appeal on the ground that it was time barred was not an order under Section 31 of the Indian Income-tax Act and against which no appeal lay to the Tribunal.'2. The following facts relevant for the consideration of the question are taken from the statement of the case by the Appellate Tribunal. The assessees are the joint receivers appointed by the High Court for the management of the estate of the late Md. Umar Sahib of Madras. The receivers were, however, discharged after the application for reference under Section 66(1) was filed before the Tribunal and in their place, the heirs of the deceased were brought on record as respondents. For the accounting year 1943 a return of the income was made treating the estate as one sing...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income-tax and Excess Profits Tax, Madras Vs. the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-26-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad231; [1951]20ITR605(Mad)
Satyanarayana Rao, J. 1. Under Section 66(1) of tile Indian Income-tax Act, the Appellate Tribunal referred to us the following question for decision :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 26000 received by the assessee from Jupiter Pictures Ltd', is a revenue receipt assessable under the Indian Income-tax Act?'The assessee, the South India Pictures Ltd., is a private limited company. Its business consisted of distribution of films. The right of distribution in some instances was acquired by them by advancing money to producers; in other cases they purchased the pictures for exhibition and distribution. The dispute in the assessment year relates to a sum of Rs. 26000 which the assessee received as compensation for the termination of three contracts relating to the distribution of three pictures and which was paid by the producers to the assessee. The agreements were dated 17th September 1941, 16th July 1942 and 10th May 1945. In all the three cases,...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Madras Represented by the Secretary to Government, Develo ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-26-1951
Reported in: (1951)2MLJ619
1. These three appeals under the Letters Patent are against the judgment of Krishnaswami Naydu J. disposing of three applications for the issue of writs of 'mandamus' directing the State of Madras to refer certain industrial disputes between the workers and the managements of the industrial concerns to an Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. These three petitions were filed by the workers of Messrs. Spencer and Co., Ltd., Express Newspapers Ltd., & the Swadesamitran Ltd. The facts which led to these applications are fully set out in the order under appeal and it is sufficient to mention only the material and salient facts which are necessary for the disposal of these appeals. It is common ground that the workers in these companies, made certain demands on the respective managements and these demands were not acceded to and the Commissioner of Labour as the_ Conciliation Officer appointed under the Industrial Disputes Act, XIV of 1947 commenced conciliation proceedings under Section 12...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: M.S. Mohiddin
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-26-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad561; (1952)2MLJ11
Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. This is an appeal by one Mohideen, who was a tram movement Inspector in the M. & S. M. Railway and had jurisdiction over all stations between Guntakkal and Bezwada and Macherla, against his conviction, under Section 151, I. P. C., by the Sessions Judge, Guntur, for having received Rs. 30 'mamool,' or bribe, from P. W. 7, the station master, Perecherla, for showing favour to him and not sending reports against him and bringing into trouble, and the sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment. He had been charged also with the offence of criminal misconduct 'in the discharge of his duty by habitually accepting or obtaining or attempting to obtain illegal gratifications like that from P. W. 1 Chelapathi Naidu, while he was station master at Bethamcherla, for showing favour by not sending reports against him, and of bargaining to obtain a bribe of Rs; 200 from P. W. 3 for enabling him to, transport green chillies illegally and actually securing a part payment of R...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »