Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad538; [1950]18ITR225(Mad)
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. The only question (that has been referred to us by the Appellate Tribunal under Section 66 (1) of the Act is whether in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the partnership deed cannot be registered. 2. One V.M. Narayanaswami Mudaliar carried on business in handloom cloth and piece goods. In respect of this business, he was assessed as the karta, of an undivided Hindu family up to the assessment year 1941-42. In 1942 he died leaving six minor sons and a widow. During the assessment years 1942-43, and 1943-44, the income was assessed on the basis of the income of an undivided Hindu family represented by the widow Radha Ammal. The assessment year with which we are now concerned is the year 1944-46 and the accounting year is the year ending 16th November 1943. During the accounting year the widow entered into two partnerships in respect of the two heads of business with two different persons. One was with one Arnmugha Mudal...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad640; (1950)IIMLJ17
Somasundaram, J.1. This is an appeal against (be order in E. A. No. 627 of 1946 in E. P. No. 138 of 1943 in O. S. No. 20 of 1936, on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Madura.2. The circumstances under which this appeal is preferred are these. O. S. No. 20 of 1936 was filed by the plaintiff, respondent 2 herein, for recovery of the amount due under a mortgage executed by defendants 1 to 4 in the suit. Defendants 5 to 8 and 9 to 12 are purchasers of portions of the hypotheca. Defendant 13 is a purchaser of three houses from defendant 9 and defendant 14 is a purchaser of one of the three houses from defendant 13. Defendant 29, the contesting respondent 1 in this appeal, is the legal representative of defendant 14. On 13th September 1937, a preliminary mortgage decree was passed in O. S. No. 20 of 1936. Petitions for scaling down the debt under Madras Act IV [4] of 1938 were filed by the mortgagors, defendants 1 to 4 and the purchasers defendants 5 to 8 and defendants 9 to 12. The...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1953All283
Raghubar Dayal, J.1. This is a judgment-debtor's appeal against an order of the Civil Judge, Bareilly, partly dismissing his objection to the execution of a decree against him in favour of the respondent to the effect; that the application for the execution of the decree was time barred.2. The simple money decree in suit was passed on 11-5-1932 for Rs. 7500. The decree allowed instalments of us. 25 a month. It provided :'If the defendant fails to pay three consecutive instalments, the plaintiff will he at liberty to realise the whole decretal amount in one lot.'Instalments falling due on 11-7-1932 or thereafter were not paid.3. The decree-holder applied on 5-9-1934 for the execution of the decree with respect to the entire decretal amount. This application was dismissed without satisfaction. Three other applications with similar prayers were similarly disposed of. The present application is the fifth application for execution, and was presented on 21-4-1945. It may be just noted here t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1951Mad361; [1950]18ITR423(Mad)
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. The following questions wera referred to us by the Appellate Tribunal under Section 66(1), Income-tax Act :'1. Whether in the ciroumatances of this case, it is correct to hold that profits were received in British India within the meaning of Section 4 (1) (a) of the Act on the ground that some sale proceeds of goodi were received in British India.2. Whether in the circumstances of this case the applicant company had any business connection in British India within the meaning of Section 42 (1) of the Act.3. If the answer to question (2) is in the affirmative, whether any profits could reasonably be attributed to purchases of raw materials made by the managing agents in British India which would mean an 'operation' within the meaning of Section 42 (3).'2. The year of assessment is 1939-40 and the accounting year is the period ending with 31-12-1938. The accounts of the assesses were kept on mercantile basis. The assesses is the Bangalore Wollen and Cotton and Silk...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad512
Panchapagesa Sastri, J.1. This civil miscellaneous second appeal arises out of execution proceedings. A preliminary objection is taken that no appeal lies. The appeal purports to be under Section 47, Civil P. C. Respondent 2 obtained a decree against the appellants and others and in execution thereof there was a court auction sale on 11-9-1946. The properties were purchased by a stranger and the execution petition was posted to 14-10-1946 for confirmation of sale. Meanwhile, Madras Act XVII [17] of 1946 had come into force. Defendants 1, 4 and 5 who are the appellants here deposited two years rent and interest into Court and applied in E. A. No. 1075 of 1946 under Section 4 of the Act for stay of confirmation of sale. The trial Court rejected the petition because the sale had already taken place on 11-9-1946 and in the view of the trial Court Section 4 of Act XVII [17] of 1946 had no application to such a case. The sale was duly confirmed on 21-11-1946 and satisfaction of the decree wa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad592
Govinda Menon, J.1. The appellant has been sentenced to death by the learned Sessions Judge of Ramnad division for having caused the death of four unfortunate and innocent children and sentenced to terms of imprisonments for having caused grievous hurt etc., under Sections 324 and 326, Penal Code, to eight other persons, namely, P. Ws. 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, 11 and 15 and another. It is unnecessary to dwell at any length about the details of the prosecution story, or the evidence of the witnesses examined at the trial. For, the appellant has admitted throughout that he has caused the death of the children and has also caused grievous hurt to the witnesses aforesaid. Immediately after the murders, he rushed to the police station with the blood-stained aruval in his hand, surrendered himself and gave the weapon into the hands of the police officer. He made a statement to the police and thereafter he was sent before the Taluk Magistrate of Ramnad who recorded a statement (EX. p. 17) in the nature...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad608
Horwill, J.1. A preliminary mortgage decree was passed by the District Judge of Masulipatam on 14th October 1942; and the decree was assigned to the present decree-holder on 27th October 1942, The final decree was passed on 4th April 1944; and on some date subsequent to that the decree was transferred from the Court of the District Judge of Masulipatam to that of the Subordinate Judge of Masulipatam. The certificate required under Order 21, Rule 6 was sent with it to the effect that the decree had been satisfied to the extent of Rs. 472-8-0. Notice was given to the appellant, who then raised an objection that during the pendency of the suit, even before the preliminary decree had been passed, the mortgage debt had been satisfied, but that the parties for their convenience allowed the decree to be passed and then arranged for the decree to be assigned to the appellant's paternal aunt's husband. That assignment was actually made, as already stated on 27th October 1942. In order to bring ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1950Cal193
ORDER1. This Rule was issued at the instance of two persons who have been convicted by a Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta under Section 4, Influx from Western Pakistan (Control) Ordinance, 1948, and Rule 12, Permit System Rules, 1948, framed thereunder, each being sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months.2. As far as the facts are concerned, on 18th October 1948, the petitioners went from Calcutta to Delhi and then on 23rd October 1948, they went to Lahore from Delhi under Temporary Business Permits NOS. 210 and 211 granted by the High Commissioner for Pakistan, in India at New Delhi. They wanted to return and on 2nd November 1948 they were granted two Temporary Permits being Nos. M. B. 28650 and 28651 by the Deputy High Commissioner for India in Pakistan at Lahore in which the object of the visit was stated to be 'returning back to Calcutta: pending verification,' and these permits were made valid for two months. It is not disput...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1951All250
Raghubar Dayal, J.1. This is a J.D.'s appeal against the order of the Ct. below disallowing his claim about the non-saleability of certain land in, view of Section 17, U. P, Debt redemption Act.2. The facts leading to this appeal briefly are? that Baghubir Gir & Chunni Gir brothers executed a simple mtge. bond for Rs. 2,100 in favour of Badam Gir and ors. In 1938 the heirs of Ghunni Gir transferred their share of the equity of redemption in the mortgaged property to Baghubir Gir & left Rs. 1,300 out of the sale considerations with the vendee for paying off the vendor's share of the mtge. debt. The mtgee. got the decree for sale against Eaghubir Gir only. In execution of this decree Badam Gir and ors. D.Hs. sought the sale of half the mortgaged property which Eaghubir Gir had purchased from the heirs of Chunni Gir & of the houses of Eaghubir Gir in the Abadi. They also sought the execution of a usufructuary mtge. for 20 years, in accordance with the term of the U. P. Debt Redemption Act...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1950All409
Harish Chandra, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal from an order of the Court below holding that a permanent lease executed by him on 4th August 1949 in favour of respondents 1 and 2 is an agricultural lease which does not come within the mischief of Section 13, U. P. Regulation of Agricultural Credit Act, 1940 (Act XIV [14] of 1940). The only point for consideration before us is whether the lease in question is a proprietary lease or an agricultural lease to which the Tenancy Act applies. It appears from a perusal of the lease that the appellant, who belongs to Jaunpur District, possessed a two anna share in ft certain zamindari in district Azamgarh which consisted of sir plots and grove land. According to the recital in this document, the said property was situated at some distance from the place of residence of the appellant. He found it difficult to look after it and to cultivate it Accordingly, he made a settlement with respect to that property in favour of respondents 1 and 2 and ...
Tag this Judgment!