Chennai Court March 1952 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.
Andiappa Pillai and ors. Vs. the State of Madras, Through the Secretar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1952
Reported in: (1953)1MLJ112
Subba Rao, J.1. This is an application for issuing a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Government of Madras, notifying the village of Athankothangudi, under Madras Act XXX of 1947. The simple question is whether the village is an estate within the meaning of the Act. It would be an estate if originally the entire village was granted to the petitioners' ancestors. The only document filed in the case is the Inam Fair Register. The Inam Fair Register shows the history of the grant. The village was situate in the Zamindari of Ramanadhapuram. Half of the village was granted for the support of Sri Adi Jagannadhaswami in Tiruppullany and the remaining half as Dharmasanam.2. The former grant was a permanent one and the latter was a hereditary grant. Column 11 of the Inam Fair Register indicates that the name of the grantor in regard to one half is not known, whereas the name of the other grantor is given as Raghunatha Sethupathi. Column 8 shows that one half was granted to Dharmasan...
In Re: K.S. Imam Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1952
Reported in: AIR1954Mad86; (1952)IIMLJ185
ORDERSomsundaram, J.1. Pakenham Walsh J. has held in --'Lakshmana Mudaliar v. Emperor' : AIR1932Mad497 , following -- 'Up'endranath Bis-was v. Emperor', AIR 1914 Cal 603 (B) that the provision of Section 233, Criminal P. C., applies to summons cases also. I agree with the view that the principle governing charges in war-rant cases is equally applicable to summons leases. The lower appellate Court was, there-fore, justified in holding that the trial in this case is vitiated by misjoinder. But considering the facts that these offences were committed in or about May 1950 and as the offences themselves are of a trivial nature, I do not think that ends of justice require that the petitioners should undergo three separate trials hereafter. In this view I quash the further proceedings in the case....
In Re: Behara Lachanna Patnaick One of the Partners of Behara Lachanna ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad332; (1952)IIMLJ174
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. This is a revision by accused 1 in C. C. No. 121 of 1950 on the file of the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Srikakulam.2. The prosecution is for an offence under Section 15 (b), Madras General Sales-tax Act. Accused 1, 2 & another who is the son of accused 1 are partners of a firm called Behara Latchanna Patnaick and Sons and Kallepalli Chiranjeevi. The firm was doing business for a very long time & the notice of assessment for the year 1946-47 was served on them on 12-7-1940. Notice was served on Satyanarayana, the son of B.L. Patnaick. Then accused 1 & his son Satyanarayana who themselves constituted a separate firm presented a petition to the Commercial Tax Officer, Vizagapatam admitting the liability and paying half the amount assessed and stated therein that the firm was dissolved on 1-10-1948 and asked for the notice to be issued for the half share of the other partner to accused 2 in the case. For failure to pay the taxes assessed a complaint wa...
Gadipudi Seethamma Vs. Gudipudi Annapurnamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad544; (1952)1MLJ744
Govinda Menon, J.1. While not disagreeing with the lower court regarding its conclusion on issues 1 and 2 decided in favour of the respondents, we think that this appeal can be disposed of on a much shorter ground. The learned Subordinate Judge framed an additional issue as to whether the plaintiff was entitled to maintain the suit pleading the illegality and invalidity of the awards and decrees in O. S. No. 30 of 1942, O. S. No. 297 of 1942 and O. S. No. 701 of 1943. On that issue, the learned Judge after a consideration of Ss. 31, 32 & 33, Arbitration Act of 1940 concluded that the suit was not maintainable. In the view of the learned Judge, the plaintiff was agitating a question which she ought to have agitated by means of the procedure laid down under the provisions of the Arbitration Act. In fact, she is agitating the existence and validity of the reference to the arbitration and the award passed in pursuance of such arbitration. The lower court relied upon the decision in - 'Rash...
Akhandala Kurup Vs. Damodara Kurup and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1952
Reported in: AIR1952Mad810; (1952)1MLJ145
ORDERGovinda Menon, J.1. The only question that has to be decided is as regards the court fee payable onthe plaint. The learned Subordinate Judge, relying upon earlier decisions of this court, such as -- 'Kuppuswami Goundan v. Mari Goundan', 1943 1 Mad. L. J. 249 and -- 'Ramaswami v. Kunjammal', 1950 1 M.L.J. 408 came to the conclusion that the piaintiff is not bound to set aside the partition deed and that he can simply ignore the existence of an earlier partition. In these circumstances. Section 7(iv-A) of the Court-fees Act is not an impediment to the valuing of the suit. Nothing has been urged before me by the respondents to show that this conclusion arrived at by the learned Judge is not sustainable either on the principle decided in the cases mentioned, or under any other statutory provision. 2. The petitioner's Counsel urges that whenonce he is able to ignore the existence of the previous partition of 1938, it is as if there hasbeen no partition at all which would result in the ...
Jakka Devayya and Sons, Tenali Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad315; [1952]22ITR264(Mad); (1952)2MLJ555
Satyanarayana Rao, J. 1. These two referred cases arise from the same facts, and the assessee in both is the same. R.C. No. 1 of 1950 relates to the assessment for 1944-45, the accounting year being the year ending on 24-3-1944. In R.C. No. 1 of 1950 the question referred to us for decision by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is 'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a proper construction of the deeds of partnership and partition dated 32-6-1943, the finding of the Tribunal that cloth business continued to belong to the Hindu undivided family is erroneous in law.' R.C. No. 2 of 1950 arises out of proceedings for registration of the partnership of Jakka Devayya and Sons under Section 26A of the Income-tax- Act, and the question referred to us for decision under Section 66(1) Income-tax Act by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is, 'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was a valid partnership in respect of the cloth business which co...
Ramaswami Udayar Vs. Raju Udayar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad333; (1952)2MLJ212
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. The petitioner in this case was convicted by the Stationary Sub-Magistrate. Vridhachalam, for an offence under Section 498. I. P. C, and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 200, and this was confirmed in appeal by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ulundurpet.2. The - facts are these. P. W. 1, the complainant in this case married C. W. 1 on 1-7-1946. They seem to have lived amicably for about three years. On 30-7-1949, C. W. 1's father and her aunt, that is her father's sister, both came to the village of P. W. 1 and took C. W. 1 to Vridhachalam for the Adipuram festival, promising to send her back in two or three days. But she never came back. Enquiries instituted by P. W. 1 revealed that she was living with the accused in a village called Eranji in Kallakurichi taluk. P. W. 1 thereupon instituted a complaint against the wife (C. W. 1), her father and the accused for an offence under Section 498, I.P.C. and for an offence under Section 379, I.P.C. alleging that the jewels w...
P. Vincent and ors., Coimbatore (by Manager Mr. Paul Vincent) Vs. Comm ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad336; [1952]22ITR285(Mad); (1952)2MLJ545
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. Under Section 66 (1), Income-tax Act the Appellate Tribunal referred to this Court two questions for decision. They are:'1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the assesses is entitled to claim registration as a firm under Section 26A, Income-tax Act on the basis of the partnership deed, dated 21-8-1942, and/or on the deed of family arrangement, dated 7-8-1942 and/or the deed, dated 24-3-1948? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the cases, the provisions of Section 9(3) of the Act are attracted to the income from property. We may at once point out that question 2 arises only out of the assessment and does not arise out of the order under Section 26A of the Act. The reference that was sought for was only against the order under Section 26A and not against the assessment order. Therefore question 2 should not have been referred by the Appellate Tribunal to this Court. The argument was therefore confined before us to question ...
O.M. Ahmed Sahib Vs. Commr. of Income-tax, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad340; (1952)IIMLJ282
Satyanarayana Rao J. 1. The question referred to us for decision under Section 66(1), Income-tax Act by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is: 'Whether on the facts of the case, the loss of Rs. 7875 claimed, but which had not been determined in the assessment for the year 1942-43 can be set off in the assessment for the year 1843-44 under Section 24(2), Income-tax Act?' The assessee is a merchant carrying on business in yarn and cloth. He apparently started his business only in 1941-42 and in the course of the assessment for the year 1943-44 the Income-tax Officer discovered that the assessee was doing business in the assessment year 1942-43 also, though he did not submit a return of income; & therefore he issued a notice to the assessee under Section 34 of the Act read with Section 22 (2) on 21st September 1945. The assessee submitted a return of his income, but it was discovered thereafter by the Income-tax Officer that there was no income at all during that period. During the assessm...
Devaraja Bhatt Vs. V.S. Raja and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad356; (1952)2MLJ179
Govinda Menon, J.1. The proceedings out of which this appeal arises are absolutely devoid of merits and were rightly dismissed by the learned Subordinate Judge.2. The appellant who was defendant 3 in O. S. No. 78 of 1946 on the file of the Sub-Court, Coimbatore, and who was a party respondent in A. S. No. 129 of 1948 on appeal therefrom to this Court, now contests that the compromise decree passed by this Court by means of which he was directed to surrender possession of the suit premises is null and void and should be treated as if it did not exist.3. Defendant 1 was a lessee under the plaintiff and defendants 3 to 13 were sub-tenants under defendant 1. What was originally let to defendant 1 was a piece of vacant land on which defendant 1 erected buildings at considerable cost. A portion of those premises was let to the defendant 3. In and by virtue of the compromise it was directed that the plaintiffs do purchase the rights of defendant 1 in those buildings and get possession of the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »