Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: contract of indemnity contract Court: chennai Year: 1934 Page 4 of about 41 results (0.072 seconds)

Aug 17 1934 (PC)

Vyravan Chettiar Vs. Rajah Srimhtau Muthuvijaya Reghunatha Doraisingam

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Aug-17-1934

Reported in : AIR1935Mad259

..... admittedly manibham lands.4. the plaintiff can only succeed on all or any of the following grounds (1) under a statutory liability imposed upon the defendant; (2) under an express contract; (3) under usage having the force of law. the plaintiff has not shown that the defendant is liable to pay kulavettu and kanganam under any statute. he has not alleged ..... any contract under which the defendant is liable nor has any such contract been proved in this case. the only ground alleged in the plaint as amended is that the defendant is liable to pay kulavettu and kanganam .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 17 1934 (PC)

Vyraven Chettiar Vs. Collector of Sivaganga

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Aug-17-1934

Reported in : 152Ind.Cas.975

..... admittedly manibam lands.5. the plaintiff can only succeed on all or any of the following grounds, (1) under a statutory liability imposed upon the defendant, (2) under an express contract (3) under usage having the force of law. the plaintiff has not shown that the defendant is liable to pay kulavettu and the kanganam under any statute. he has not ..... alleged any contract under which the defendant is liable nor has any such contract been proved in this case. the only ground alleged in the plaint as amended is that the defendant is liable to pay kulavettu and kanganam .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 08 1934 (PC)

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Chengalvaroya Mudaliar

Court : Chennai

Decided on : May-08-1934

Reported in : AIR1934Mad617

..... , lord sumner says:they (the company) said, much as has been said in this case, that before profits can be made out of working a contract, the contract has to be got and the payment of its price is the root of the profits. the court held that this sum was paid with the rest ..... in the words i have earlier referred to, as of doubtful validity in the hands of outsiders, emphasizes this conclusion. the 30,000 paid for the contracts or for its equivalent, therefore, became part of the appellant's fixed capital and could not properly appear in his revenue account. if that be so, ..... be very advantageous to the purchaser. these coal contracts were valued at 30,000. the appellant claimed, in arriving at the amount of the profits duty under the finance act 1915, to deduct this 30 ..... on the terms of taking over the assets of the business at a valuation but without paying anything for goodwill. the assets included certain forward coal contracts made by the father with several colliery owners, for the delivery of coal by the latter in periodic instalments, and prices which ultimately turned out to ..... entered into a number of similar agreements affects the question. it seems to me that the observations made by bowen, l.j., in city of london contract corporation, limited v. styles which are referred to in alagannan chetty v. the commissioner of income tax, madras are very much in point. in the .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 08 1934 (PC)

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. U. Chengalvaroya Mudaliar

Court : Chennai

Decided on : May-08-1934

Reported in : 152Ind.Cas.48

..... lord sumner says:they (the company) said, much as has been said in this case, that before profits can be made out of working a contract, the contract has got to be got and the payment of its price is the root of its profits. the court held that this sum was paid with ..... the words 1 have earlier refened to, as of doubtful validity in the hands of outsiders, emphasises this conclusion. the 30,010 paid for the contracts or for its equivalent therefore became part of the appellant's fixed capital and could not properly appear in his revenue account. if that be so, ..... to be very advantageous to the purchaser. these coal contracts were valued at 30,000. the appellant claimed in arriving at the amount of the profits of the business chargeable to excess profits duty under the ..... the terms of taking over the assets of the business at a valuation but without paying anything for good will. the assets included certain forward coal contracts made by the father with several colliery owners, for the delivery of coal by the latter in periodical instalments, at prices which ultimately turned out ..... previously entered into a number of similar agreements affects the question. it seems to me that the observations made by bowen, l.j., in city of london contract corporalion limited v. styles (1887) 2 t.c. 239 which are referred to in alaganan chetty v. commissioner of income-tax, madras : air1928mad902 page .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 17 1934 (PC)

Shanmugan and ors. Vs. P.L.A.P.L. Annamalai Chettiar

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Aug-17-1934

Reported in : AIR1935Mad141

..... document. but adaikkalava was made the trustee and plaintiff the beneficiary under the terms cf ex. h. in such a case the rule of law that third parties to a contract cannot take the benefit of the contract does not apply : vide tirumulu subbu chetti v. arunachalam chettiar 1930 mad. 382. ex. h can scarcely be described as a bare ..... contract. it is a family settlement purporting to settle disputes and allot properties to the persons intended to be adopted. until the adoptions are made, the property was left in the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 07 1934 (PC)

Konduri Suryanarayana Rao Vs. Vagasana Venkataraju

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Sep-07-1934

Reported in : (1935)68MLJ12

..... action for the recovery of the debt will be fixed, not merely as against the mortgagor but also as against intermediate mortgagees, in accordance with the terms of the new contract. the importance of this principle in the present case arises out of this fact - that the renewal under ex. a, was effected at a time, when according to the law .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 01 1934 (PC)

The Pollachi Town Bank, Limited by Secretary, T.K. Muthuswami Chettiar ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Nov-01-1934

Reported in : AIR1935Mad262(1); (1935)68MLJ316

..... :if the mortgagee holds different mortgages of different properties or successive mortgages of the same property from the same mortgagor, he must enforce all or none, unless there is a contract to the contrary.3. if this interpretation of section 67-a be correct (i am not to be supposed as accepting it), the petitioner's argument would amount to this .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 18 1934 (PC)

Mallavarapu Narasamma and ors. Vs. Boggavarapu Bulli Veerraju

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Oct-18-1934

Reported in : AIR1935Mad769; 160Ind.Cas.768

..... nor the language of the section justifies any presumption being made as to the quantum of consideration. the english act merely states that any consideration sufficient to support a simple contract may constitute 'valuable consideration' for a bill or note see section 27). though there is no corresponding provision in the indian act, the principle must be the same here : see ..... calling for scrutiny from the debtor's point of view. it is immaterial whether or not 'fraud' in the sense of 'deceit' or 'undue influence' as defined in section 16, contract act, is made out, the grounds in favour of a wide exercise of equitable jurisdiction in certain types of cases were explained by lord hardwicke in chesterified (earl of) v .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 07 1934 (PC)

Konduri Suryanarayana Rao Vs. Vegasana Venkataraju

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Sep-07-1934

Reported in : AIR1935Mad64; 153Ind.Cas.2

..... action of the recovery of the debt will be fixed, not merely as against the mortgagor but also as against intermediate mortgagees, in accordance with the terms of the new contract. the importance of this principle in the present case arises out of this fact that the renewal under ex. a was effected at a time, when according to the law .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 31 1934 (PC)

Venkateswara Pattar (insane) and ors. Vs. K. Mankayammal and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Aug-31-1934

Reported in : AIR1935Mad775; 160Ind.Cas.624; (1935)69MLJ410

varadachariar, j.1. this is an appeal by the plaintiffs, who sued in the lower court for the recovery of certain properties or in the alternative, for partition. the first plaintiff has admittedly been a lunatic since 1920. the second plaintiff is his son, born in march, 1924. the third plaintiff is another son, born pending the suit. the first plaintiff's father (krishna josier) died on the 26th of september, 1923, leaving him surviving (besides the first plaintiff) two daughters who are defendants 1 and 2 in the case. the third and fourth defendants respectively are their husbands.2. in view of first plaintiff's unfortunate condition, krishna josier, who was possessed of a decent extent of property, was naturally anxious to make some satisfactory arrangement for the management of his property after his death. his first attempt in this direction was ex. a a will dated 6th of july, 1920. the first plaintiff had then an infant son about a year old, and the scheme of ex. a is based on that circumstance. that child died sometime later, and to add to the misfortune of the parties, relations between krishna josier and first plaintiff's father-in-law became strained, so much so that, early in 1922, krishna josier left his old house and thereafter lived in a new house of his own. the result of this step was that krishna josier's daughters were more with him than before, while the first plaintiff's wife and her father stayed in the old house. the wife had not even attained majority .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //