The Calcutta Law Journal. August 1st 1933

Held (per Owen Beasley C. J. Ramesam Sundaram Chetti Pakenham Walsh and Burn JJ.) that the guaranteed interest was interest on capital borrowed for the purpose of the business and was not in any way dependent on the earning of projects and the fund was entitled to claim deduction in respect of the said interest under Section 10(2) (iii) of the Income Tax Act. [...] The question which arose in this appeal was whether the provsions as regards compromise by next friend or guardian in respect Muthalakkammal v of a suit was applicable to execution proceedings as well and the Narappa Reddiar. [...] Venkata Challam A as the guardian of B sold to C some land under a registered Pillai v. sale deed with the stipulation that in case of C selling it in future Sethuram Rao he should reconvey the site to 13 for the original price. [...] but a completed contract and that the contract was unenforceable by either party for want of mutuality as 13 was a minor when the contract was made. [...] Held (per Venkatasubba Rao and Reilly 11.) that the property in question cannot be regarded as property in the possession of the Court within the meaning of Section 52 Provincial Insolvency Act.