The Tata Iron and Steel Company Vs the Chief Revenue Authority Bombay - Citation 337845 - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]Code Context                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'The Tata Iron and Steel Company Vs the Chief Revenue Authority Bombay - Citation 337845 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '337845',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Application No. 448 of 1921',
			'appellant' => 'The Tata Iron and Steel Company',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'The Tata Iron and Steel Company Vs. the Chief Revenue Authority, Bombay',
			'casenote' => 'Privy Council-Leave to appeal-Letters Patent, Clause 39-Judgment-Decision of High Court on reference under Section 51 of the Income Tax Act (VII of 1918).;The decision of the High Court on a reference from the Chief Revenue Authority under Section 51 of the Indian Income Tax Act 1918 is a 'judgment' within the meaning of the Letters Patent, cl, 39; and an appeal lies to the Privy Council from the same. - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Mumbai',
			'court_type' => 'PC',
			'decidedon' => '1921-08-22',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J. and ; Shah, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council from the decision of the High Court on a reference from the Chief Revenue Authority under Section 51 of the Indian Income Tax Act (VII of 1918). Sub-section 3 of Section 51 is as follows:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The High Court upon the hearing of any such case shall decide the questions raised thereby, and shall deliver its judgment thereon containing the grounds on which such decision is founded, and shall send to the Revenue-Authority by which the case was stated a copy of such judgment under the seal of the Court and the signature of the Registrar; and the Revenue-Authority shall dispose of the case accordingly, or, if the case arose on reference from any Revenue-officer subordinate to it, shall forward a copy of suoh judgment to such officer who shall dispose of the case conformably to such judgment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. It is contended by the respondent that the judgment of the High Court on the case stated by the Chief Revenue Authority is not a judgment within the meaning of clause x 39 of the Letters Patent. The word judgment' in the Letters Patent is used in a much wider sense than it is used in the Civil Procedure Code where it is defined as 'the statement given by the Judge of the grounds of a decree or order. ' In the Letters Patent the term ' judgment' is used to denote the decision of the Court and not a statement of the grounds on which the decision is based. For instance in Clause 15 it is stated that 'an appeal shall lie to the said High Court...from the judgment...of one Judge of the said High Court, or of one Judge of any Division Court, pursuant to Section 13 of the said recited Act (Government of India Act of 1915); and that an appeal shall also lie to the said High Court from the judgment, not being a sentence or order as aforesaid, of two or more Judges of the said High Court, or of such Division Court, wherever such Judges are equally divided in opinion, and do not amount in number to a majority of the whole of the Judges of the said High Court at the time being; but that the right of appeal from other judgments of Judges of the said High Court, or of such Division Court, shall be to Us, Our heirs or successors in Our, or Their Privy Council, as hereinafter provided.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In this particular case the reference came before a Bench of two Judges on the Appellate Side, and it is difficult to see how there has not been a judgment within the meaning of the word judgment as used in Clause 39 of the Letters Patent. If it is a judgment then there is no doubt that the case is one in which leave should be granted as the sum at issue is of the amount of more than Rs. 10,000. Therefore the rule should be made absolute.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Costs costs in the appeal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Shah, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. I agree.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'AIR1921Bom128(1); (1921)23BOMLR1102',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The Chief Revenue Authority, Bombay',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'tata-iron-steel-company-vs-revenue-authority',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '337845',
		(int) 1 => 'tata-iron-steel-company-vs-revenue-authority'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'The Tata Iron and Steel Company Vs the Chief Revenue Authority Bombay - Citation 337845 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '337845',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Application No. 448 of 1921',
		'appellant' => 'The Tata Iron and Steel Company',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'The Tata Iron and Steel Company Vs. the Chief Revenue Authority, Bombay',
		'casenote' => 'Privy Council-Leave to appeal-Letters Patent, Clause 39-Judgment-Decision of High Court on reference under Section 51 of the Income Tax Act (VII of 1918).;The decision of the High Court on a reference from the Chief Revenue Authority under Section 51 of the Indian Income Tax Act 1918 is a 'judgment' within the meaning of the Letters Patent, cl, 39; and an appeal lies to the Privy Council from the same. - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Mumbai',
		'court_type' => 'PC',
		'decidedon' => '1921-08-22',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J. and ; Shah, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.</p><p>1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council from the decision of the High Court on a reference from the Chief Revenue Authority under Section 51 of the Indian Income Tax Act (VII of 1918). Sub-section 3 of Section 51 is as follows:-</p><p>The High Court upon the hearing of any such case shall decide the questions raised thereby, and shall deliver its judgment thereon containing the grounds on which such decision is founded, and shall send to the Revenue-Authority by which the case was stated a copy of such judgment under the seal of the Court and the signature of the Registrar; and the Revenue-Authority shall dispose of the case accordingly, or, if the case arose on reference from any Revenue-officer subordinate to it, shall forward a copy of suoh judgment to such officer who shall dispose of the case conformably to such judgment.</p><p>2. It is contended by the respondent that the judgment of the High Court on the case stated by the Chief Revenue Authority is not a judgment within the meaning of clause x 39 of the Letters Patent. The word judgment' in the Letters Patent is used in a much wider sense than it is used in the Civil Procedure Code where it is defined as 'the statement given by the Judge of the grounds of a decree or order. ' In the Letters Patent the term ' judgment' is used to denote the decision of the Court and not a statement of the grounds on which the decision is based. For instance in Clause 15 it is stated that 'an appeal shall lie to the said High Court...from the judgment...of one Judge of the said High Court, or of one Judge of any Division Court, pursuant to Section 13 of the said recited Act (Government of India Act of 1915); and that an appeal shall also lie to the said High Court from the judgment, not being a sentence or order as aforesaid, of two or more Judges of the said High Court, or of such Division Court, wherever such Judges are equally divided in opinion, and do not amount in number to a majority of the whole of the Judges of the said High Court at the time being; but that the right of appeal from other judgments of Judges of the said High Court, or of such Division Court, shall be to Us, Our heirs or successors in Our, or Their Privy Council, as hereinafter provided.'</p><p>3. In this particular case the reference came before a Bench of two Judges on the Appellate Side, and it is difficult to see how there has not been a judgment within the meaning of the word judgment as used in Clause 39 of the Letters Patent. If it is a judgment then there is no doubt that the case is one in which leave should be granted as the sum at issue is of the amount of more than Rs. 10,000. Therefore the rule should be made absolute.</p><p>4. Costs costs in the appeal.</p><p>Shah, J.</p><p>5. I agree.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'AIR1921Bom128(1); (1921)23BOMLR1102',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The Chief Revenue Authority, Bombay',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'tata-iron-steel-company-vs-revenue-authority'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '337845',
	(int) 1 => 'tata-iron-steel-company-vs-revenue-authority'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/337845/tata-iron-steel-company-vs-revenue-authority'
$ctype = ''
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]Code Context                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'The Tata Iron and Steel Company Vs the Chief Revenue Authority Bombay - Citation 337845 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '337845',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Application No. 448 of 1921',
			'appellant' => 'The Tata Iron and Steel Company',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'The Tata Iron and Steel Company Vs. the Chief Revenue Authority, Bombay',
			'casenote' => 'Privy Council-Leave to appeal-Letters Patent, Clause 39-Judgment-Decision of High Court on reference under Section 51 of the Income Tax Act (VII of 1918).;The decision of the High Court on a reference from the Chief Revenue Authority under Section 51 of the Indian Income Tax Act 1918 is a 'judgment' within the meaning of the Letters Patent, cl, 39; and an appeal lies to the Privy Council from the same. - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Mumbai',
			'court_type' => 'PC',
			'decidedon' => '1921-08-22',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J. and ; Shah, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council from the decision of the High Court on a reference from the Chief Revenue Authority under Section 51 of the Indian Income Tax Act (VII of 1918). Sub-section 3 of Section 51 is as follows:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The High Court upon the hearing of any such case shall decide the questions raised thereby, and shall deliver its judgment thereon containing the grounds on which such decision is founded, and shall send to the Revenue-Authority by which the case was stated a copy of such judgment under the seal of the Court and the signature of the Registrar; and the Revenue-Authority shall dispose of the case accordingly, or, if the case arose on reference from any Revenue-officer subordinate to it, shall forward a copy of suoh judgment to such officer who shall dispose of the case conformably to such judgment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. It is contended by the respondent that the judgment of the High Court on the case stated by the Chief Revenue Authority is not a judgment within the meaning of clause x 39 of the Letters Patent. The word judgment' in the Letters Patent is used in a much wider sense than it is used in the Civil Procedure Code where it is defined as 'the statement given by the Judge of the grounds of a decree or order. ' In the Letters Patent the term ' judgment' is used to denote the decision of the Court and not a statement of the grounds on which the decision is based. For instance in Clause 15 it is stated that 'an appeal shall lie to the said High Court...from the judgment...of one Judge of the said High Court, or of one Judge of any Division Court, pursuant to Section 13 of the said recited Act (Government of India Act of 1915); and that an appeal shall also lie to the said High Court from the judgment, not being a sentence or order as aforesaid, of two or more Judges of the said High Court, or of such Division Court, wherever such Judges are equally divided in opinion, and do not amount in number to a majority of the whole of the Judges of the said High Court at the time being; but that the right of appeal from other judgments of Judges of the said High Court, or of such Division Court, shall be to Us, Our heirs or successors in Our, or Their Privy Council, as hereinafter provided.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In this particular case the reference came before a Bench of two Judges on the Appellate Side, and it is difficult to see how there has not been a judgment within the meaning of the word judgment as used in Clause 39 of the Letters Patent. If it is a judgment then there is no doubt that the case is one in which leave should be granted as the sum at issue is of the amount of more than Rs. 10,000. Therefore the rule should be made absolute.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Costs costs in the appeal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Shah, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. I agree.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'AIR1921Bom128(1); (1921)23BOMLR1102',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The Chief Revenue Authority, Bombay',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'tata-iron-steel-company-vs-revenue-authority',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '337845',
		(int) 1 => 'tata-iron-steel-company-vs-revenue-authority'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'The Tata Iron and Steel Company Vs the Chief Revenue Authority Bombay - Citation 337845 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '337845',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Application No. 448 of 1921',
		'appellant' => 'The Tata Iron and Steel Company',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'The Tata Iron and Steel Company Vs. the Chief Revenue Authority, Bombay',
		'casenote' => 'Privy Council-Leave to appeal-Letters Patent, Clause 39-Judgment-Decision of High Court on reference under Section 51 of the Income Tax Act (VII of 1918).;The decision of the High Court on a reference from the Chief Revenue Authority under Section 51 of the Indian Income Tax Act 1918 is a 'judgment' within the meaning of the Letters Patent, cl, 39; and an appeal lies to the Privy Council from the same. - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Mumbai',
		'court_type' => 'PC',
		'decidedon' => '1921-08-22',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J. and ; Shah, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.</p><p>1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council from the decision of the High Court on a reference from the Chief Revenue Authority under Section 51 of the Indian Income Tax Act (VII of 1918). Sub-section 3 of Section 51 is as follows:-</p><p>The High Court upon the hearing of any such case shall decide the questions raised thereby, and shall deliver its judgment thereon containing the grounds on which such decision is founded, and shall send to the Revenue-Authority by which the case was stated a copy of such judgment under the seal of the Court and the signature of the Registrar; and the Revenue-Authority shall dispose of the case accordingly, or, if the case arose on reference from any Revenue-officer subordinate to it, shall forward a copy of suoh judgment to such officer who shall dispose of the case conformably to such judgment.</p><p>2. It is contended by the respondent that the judgment of the High Court on the case stated by the Chief Revenue Authority is not a judgment within the meaning of clause x 39 of the Letters Patent. The word judgment' in the Letters Patent is used in a much wider sense than it is used in the Civil Procedure Code where it is defined as 'the statement given by the Judge of the grounds of a decree or order. ' In the Letters Patent the term ' judgment' is used to denote the decision of the Court and not a statement of the grounds on which the decision is based. For instance in Clause 15 it is stated that 'an appeal shall lie to the said High Court...from the judgment...of one Judge of the said High Court, or of one Judge of any Division Court, pursuant to Section 13 of the said recited Act (Government of India Act of 1915); and that an appeal shall also lie to the said High Court from the judgment, not being a sentence or order as aforesaid, of two or more Judges of the said High Court, or of such Division Court, wherever such Judges are equally divided in opinion, and do not amount in number to a majority of the whole of the Judges of the said High Court at the time being; but that the right of appeal from other judgments of Judges of the said High Court, or of such Division Court, shall be to Us, Our heirs or successors in Our, or Their Privy Council, as hereinafter provided.'</p><p>3. In this particular case the reference came before a Bench of two Judges on the Appellate Side, and it is difficult to see how there has not been a judgment within the meaning of the word judgment as used in Clause 39 of the Letters Patent. If it is a judgment then there is no doubt that the case is one in which leave should be granted as the sum at issue is of the amount of more than Rs. 10,000. Therefore the rule should be made absolute.</p><p>4. Costs costs in the appeal.</p><p>Shah, J.</p><p>5. I agree.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'AIR1921Bom128(1); (1921)23BOMLR1102',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The Chief Revenue Authority, Bombay',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'tata-iron-steel-company-vs-revenue-authority'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '337845',
	(int) 1 => 'tata-iron-steel-company-vs-revenue-authority'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/337845/tata-iron-steel-company-vs-revenue-authority'
$ctype = ''
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

privy council-leave to appeal-letters patent, clause 39-judgment-decision of high court on reference under section 51 of the income tax act (vii of 1918).;the decision of the high court on a reference from the chief revenue authority under section 51 of the indian income tax act 1918 is a 'judgment' within the meaning of the letters patent, cl, 39; and an appeal lies to the privy council from the same. -

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]Code Context                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'The Tata Iron and Steel Company Vs the Chief Revenue Authority Bombay - Citation 337845 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '337845',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Application No. 448 of 1921',
			'appellant' => 'The Tata Iron and Steel Company',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'The Tata Iron and Steel Company Vs. the Chief Revenue Authority, Bombay',
			'casenote' => 'Privy Council-Leave to appeal-Letters Patent, Clause 39-Judgment-Decision of High Court on reference under Section 51 of the Income Tax Act (VII of 1918).;The decision of the High Court on a reference from the Chief Revenue Authority under Section 51 of the Indian Income Tax Act 1918 is a 'judgment' within the meaning of the Letters Patent, cl, 39; and an appeal lies to the Privy Council from the same. - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Mumbai',
			'court_type' => 'PC',
			'decidedon' => '1921-08-22',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J. and ; Shah, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council from the decision of the High Court on a reference from the Chief Revenue Authority under Section 51 of the Indian Income Tax Act (VII of 1918). Sub-section 3 of Section 51 is as follows:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The High Court upon the hearing of any such case shall decide the questions raised thereby, and shall deliver its judgment thereon containing the grounds on which such decision is founded, and shall send to the Revenue-Authority by which the case was stated a copy of such judgment under the seal of the Court and the signature of the Registrar; and the Revenue-Authority shall dispose of the case accordingly, or, if the case arose on reference from any Revenue-officer subordinate to it, shall forward a copy of suoh judgment to such officer who shall dispose of the case conformably to such judgment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. It is contended by the respondent that the judgment of the High Court on the case stated by the Chief Revenue Authority is not a judgment within the meaning of clause x 39 of the Letters Patent. The word judgment' in the Letters Patent is used in a much wider sense than it is used in the Civil Procedure Code where it is defined as 'the statement given by the Judge of the grounds of a decree or order. ' In the Letters Patent the term ' judgment' is used to denote the decision of the Court and not a statement of the grounds on which the decision is based. For instance in Clause 15 it is stated that 'an appeal shall lie to the said High Court...from the judgment...of one Judge of the said High Court, or of one Judge of any Division Court, pursuant to Section 13 of the said recited Act (Government of India Act of 1915); and that an appeal shall also lie to the said High Court from the judgment, not being a sentence or order as aforesaid, of two or more Judges of the said High Court, or of such Division Court, wherever such Judges are equally divided in opinion, and do not amount in number to a majority of the whole of the Judges of the said High Court at the time being; but that the right of appeal from other judgments of Judges of the said High Court, or of such Division Court, shall be to Us, Our heirs or successors in Our, or Their Privy Council, as hereinafter provided.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In this particular case the reference came before a Bench of two Judges on the Appellate Side, and it is difficult to see how there has not been a judgment within the meaning of the word judgment as used in Clause 39 of the Letters Patent. If it is a judgment then there is no doubt that the case is one in which leave should be granted as the sum at issue is of the amount of more than Rs. 10,000. Therefore the rule should be made absolute.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Costs costs in the appeal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Shah, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. I agree.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'AIR1921Bom128(1); (1921)23BOMLR1102',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The Chief Revenue Authority, Bombay',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'tata-iron-steel-company-vs-revenue-authority',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '337845',
		(int) 1 => 'tata-iron-steel-company-vs-revenue-authority'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'The Tata Iron and Steel Company Vs the Chief Revenue Authority Bombay - Citation 337845 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '337845',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Application No. 448 of 1921',
		'appellant' => 'The Tata Iron and Steel Company',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'The Tata Iron and Steel Company Vs. the Chief Revenue Authority, Bombay',
		'casenote' => 'Privy Council-Leave to appeal-Letters Patent, Clause 39-Judgment-Decision of High Court on reference under Section 51 of the Income Tax Act (VII of 1918).;The decision of the High Court on a reference from the Chief Revenue Authority under Section 51 of the Indian Income Tax Act 1918 is a 'judgment' within the meaning of the Letters Patent, cl, 39; and an appeal lies to the Privy Council from the same. - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Mumbai',
		'court_type' => 'PC',
		'decidedon' => '1921-08-22',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J. and ; Shah, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.</p><p>1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council from the decision of the High Court on a reference from the Chief Revenue Authority under Section 51 of the Indian Income Tax Act (VII of 1918). Sub-section 3 of Section 51 is as follows:-</p><p>The High Court upon the hearing of any such case shall decide the questions raised thereby, and shall deliver its judgment thereon containing the grounds on which such decision is founded, and shall send to the Revenue-Authority by which the case was stated a copy of such judgment under the seal of the Court and the signature of the Registrar; and the Revenue-Authority shall dispose of the case accordingly, or, if the case arose on reference from any Revenue-officer subordinate to it, shall forward a copy of suoh judgment to such officer who shall dispose of the case conformably to such judgment.</p><p>2. It is contended by the respondent that the judgment of the High Court on the case stated by the Chief Revenue Authority is not a judgment within the meaning of clause x 39 of the Letters Patent. The word judgment' in the Letters Patent is used in a much wider sense than it is used in the Civil Procedure Code where it is defined as 'the statement given by the Judge of the grounds of a decree or order. ' In the Letters Patent the term ' judgment' is used to denote the decision of the Court and not a statement of the grounds on which the decision is based. For instance in Clause 15 it is stated that 'an appeal shall lie to the said High Court...from the judgment...of one Judge of the said High Court, or of one Judge of any Division Court, pursuant to Section 13 of the said recited Act (Government of India Act of 1915); and that an appeal shall also lie to the said High Court from the judgment, not being a sentence or order as aforesaid, of two or more Judges of the said High Court, or of such Division Court, wherever such Judges are equally divided in opinion, and do not amount in number to a majority of the whole of the Judges of the said High Court at the time being; but that the right of appeal from other judgments of Judges of the said High Court, or of such Division Court, shall be to Us, Our heirs or successors in Our, or Their Privy Council, as hereinafter provided.'</p><p>3. In this particular case the reference came before a Bench of two Judges on the Appellate Side, and it is difficult to see how there has not been a judgment within the meaning of the word judgment as used in Clause 39 of the Letters Patent. If it is a judgment then there is no doubt that the case is one in which leave should be granted as the sum at issue is of the amount of more than Rs. 10,000. Therefore the rule should be made absolute.</p><p>4. Costs costs in the appeal.</p><p>Shah, J.</p><p>5. I agree.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'AIR1921Bom128(1); (1921)23BOMLR1102',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The Chief Revenue Authority, Bombay',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'tata-iron-steel-company-vs-revenue-authority'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '337845',
	(int) 1 => 'tata-iron-steel-company-vs-revenue-authority'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/337845/tata-iron-steel-company-vs-revenue-authority'
$ctype = ''
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]Code Context                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'The Tata Iron and Steel Company Vs the Chief Revenue Authority Bombay - Citation 337845 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '337845',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Application No. 448 of 1921',
			'appellant' => 'The Tata Iron and Steel Company',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'The Tata Iron and Steel Company Vs. the Chief Revenue Authority, Bombay',
			'casenote' => 'Privy Council-Leave to appeal-Letters Patent, Clause 39-Judgment-Decision of High Court on reference under Section 51 of the Income Tax Act (VII of 1918).;The decision of the High Court on a reference from the Chief Revenue Authority under Section 51 of the Indian Income Tax Act 1918 is a 'judgment' within the meaning of the Letters Patent, cl, 39; and an appeal lies to the Privy Council from the same. - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Mumbai',
			'court_type' => 'PC',
			'decidedon' => '1921-08-22',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J. and ; Shah, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council from the decision of the High Court on a reference from the Chief Revenue Authority under Section 51 of the Indian Income Tax Act (VII of 1918). Sub-section 3 of Section 51 is as follows:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The High Court upon the hearing of any such case shall decide the questions raised thereby, and shall deliver its judgment thereon containing the grounds on which such decision is founded, and shall send to the Revenue-Authority by which the case was stated a copy of such judgment under the seal of the Court and the signature of the Registrar; and the Revenue-Authority shall dispose of the case accordingly, or, if the case arose on reference from any Revenue-officer subordinate to it, shall forward a copy of suoh judgment to such officer who shall dispose of the case conformably to such judgment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. It is contended by the respondent that the judgment of the High Court on the case stated by the Chief Revenue Authority is not a judgment within the meaning of clause x 39 of the Letters Patent. The word judgment' in the Letters Patent is used in a much wider sense than it is used in the Civil Procedure Code where it is defined as 'the statement given by the Judge of the grounds of a decree or order. ' In the Letters Patent the term ' judgment' is used to denote the decision of the Court and not a statement of the grounds on which the decision is based. For instance in Clause 15 it is stated that 'an appeal shall lie to the said High Court...from the judgment...of one Judge of the said High Court, or of one Judge of any Division Court, pursuant to Section 13 of the said recited Act (Government of India Act of 1915); and that an appeal shall also lie to the said High Court from the judgment, not being a sentence or order as aforesaid, of two or more Judges of the said High Court, or of such Division Court, wherever such Judges are equally divided in opinion, and do not amount in number to a majority of the whole of the Judges of the said High Court at the time being; but that the right of appeal from other judgments of Judges of the said High Court, or of such Division Court, shall be to Us, Our heirs or successors in Our, or Their Privy Council, as hereinafter provided.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In this particular case the reference came before a Bench of two Judges on the Appellate Side, and it is difficult to see how there has not been a judgment within the meaning of the word judgment as used in Clause 39 of the Letters Patent. If it is a judgment then there is no doubt that the case is one in which leave should be granted as the sum at issue is of the amount of more than Rs. 10,000. Therefore the rule should be made absolute.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Costs costs in the appeal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Shah, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. I agree.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'AIR1921Bom128(1); (1921)23BOMLR1102',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The Chief Revenue Authority, Bombay',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'tata-iron-steel-company-vs-revenue-authority',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '337845',
		(int) 1 => 'tata-iron-steel-company-vs-revenue-authority'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'The Tata Iron and Steel Company Vs the Chief Revenue Authority Bombay - Citation 337845 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '337845',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Application No. 448 of 1921',
		'appellant' => 'The Tata Iron and Steel Company',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'The Tata Iron and Steel Company Vs. the Chief Revenue Authority, Bombay',
		'casenote' => 'Privy Council-Leave to appeal-Letters Patent, Clause 39-Judgment-Decision of High Court on reference under Section 51 of the Income Tax Act (VII of 1918).;The decision of the High Court on a reference from the Chief Revenue Authority under Section 51 of the Indian Income Tax Act 1918 is a 'judgment' within the meaning of the Letters Patent, cl, 39; and an appeal lies to the Privy Council from the same. - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Mumbai',
		'court_type' => 'PC',
		'decidedon' => '1921-08-22',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J. and ; Shah, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.</p><p>1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council from the decision of the High Court on a reference from the Chief Revenue Authority under Section 51 of the Indian Income Tax Act (VII of 1918). Sub-section 3 of Section 51 is as follows:-</p><p>The High Court upon the hearing of any such case shall decide the questions raised thereby, and shall deliver its judgment thereon containing the grounds on which such decision is founded, and shall send to the Revenue-Authority by which the case was stated a copy of such judgment under the seal of the Court and the signature of the Registrar; and the Revenue-Authority shall dispose of the case accordingly, or, if the case arose on reference from any Revenue-officer subordinate to it, shall forward a copy of suoh judgment to such officer who shall dispose of the case conformably to such judgment.</p><p>2. It is contended by the respondent that the judgment of the High Court on the case stated by the Chief Revenue Authority is not a judgment within the meaning of clause x 39 of the Letters Patent. The word judgment' in the Letters Patent is used in a much wider sense than it is used in the Civil Procedure Code where it is defined as 'the statement given by the Judge of the grounds of a decree or order. ' In the Letters Patent the term ' judgment' is used to denote the decision of the Court and not a statement of the grounds on which the decision is based. For instance in Clause 15 it is stated that 'an appeal shall lie to the said High Court...from the judgment...of one Judge of the said High Court, or of one Judge of any Division Court, pursuant to Section 13 of the said recited Act (Government of India Act of 1915); and that an appeal shall also lie to the said High Court from the judgment, not being a sentence or order as aforesaid, of two or more Judges of the said High Court, or of such Division Court, wherever such Judges are equally divided in opinion, and do not amount in number to a majority of the whole of the Judges of the said High Court at the time being; but that the right of appeal from other judgments of Judges of the said High Court, or of such Division Court, shall be to Us, Our heirs or successors in Our, or Their Privy Council, as hereinafter provided.'</p><p>3. In this particular case the reference came before a Bench of two Judges on the Appellate Side, and it is difficult to see how there has not been a judgment within the meaning of the word judgment as used in Clause 39 of the Letters Patent. If it is a judgment then there is no doubt that the case is one in which leave should be granted as the sum at issue is of the amount of more than Rs. 10,000. Therefore the rule should be made absolute.</p><p>4. Costs costs in the appeal.</p><p>Shah, J.</p><p>5. I agree.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'AIR1921Bom128(1); (1921)23BOMLR1102',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The Chief Revenue Authority, Bombay',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'tata-iron-steel-company-vs-revenue-authority'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '337845',
	(int) 1 => 'tata-iron-steel-company-vs-revenue-authority'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/337845/tata-iron-steel-company-vs-revenue-authority'
$ctype = ''
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

norman macleod, kt., c.j.1. this is an application for leave to appeal to the privy council from the decision of the high court on a reference from the chief revenue authority under section 51 of the indian income tax act (vii of 1918). sub-section 3 of section 51 is as follows:-the high court upon the hearing of any such case shall decide the questions raised thereby, and shall deliver its judgment thereon containing the grounds on which such decision is founded, and shall send to the revenue-authority by which the case was stated a copy of such judgment under the seal of the court and the signature of the registrar; and the revenue-authority shall dispose of the case accordingly, or, if the case arose on reference from any revenue-officer subordinate to it, shall forward a copy of suoh.....

Judgment:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'The Tata Iron and Steel Company Vs the Chief Revenue Authority Bombay - Citation 337845 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '337845',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Application No. 448 of 1921',
			'appellant' => 'The Tata Iron and Steel Company',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'The Tata Iron and Steel Company Vs. the Chief Revenue Authority, Bombay',
			'casenote' => 'Privy Council-Leave to appeal-Letters Patent, Clause 39-Judgment-Decision of High Court on reference under Section 51 of the Income Tax Act (VII of 1918).;The decision of the High Court on a reference from the Chief Revenue Authority under Section 51 of the Indian Income Tax Act 1918 is a 'judgment' within the meaning of the Letters Patent, cl, 39; and an appeal lies to the Privy Council from the same. - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Mumbai',
			'court_type' => 'PC',
			'decidedon' => '1921-08-22',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J. and ; Shah, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council from the decision of the High Court on a reference from the Chief Revenue Authority under Section 51 of the Indian Income Tax Act (VII of 1918). Sub-section 3 of Section 51 is as follows:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The High Court upon the hearing of any such case shall decide the questions raised thereby, and shall deliver its judgment thereon containing the grounds on which such decision is founded, and shall send to the Revenue-Authority by which the case was stated a copy of such judgment under the seal of the Court and the signature of the Registrar; and the Revenue-Authority shall dispose of the case accordingly, or, if the case arose on reference from any Revenue-officer subordinate to it, shall forward a copy of suoh judgment to such officer who shall dispose of the case conformably to such judgment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. It is contended by the respondent that the judgment of the High Court on the case stated by the Chief Revenue Authority is not a judgment within the meaning of clause x 39 of the Letters Patent. The word judgment' in the Letters Patent is used in a much wider sense than it is used in the Civil Procedure Code where it is defined as 'the statement given by the Judge of the grounds of a decree or order. ' In the Letters Patent the term ' judgment' is used to denote the decision of the Court and not a statement of the grounds on which the decision is based. For instance in Clause 15 it is stated that 'an appeal shall lie to the said High Court...from the judgment...of one Judge of the said High Court, or of one Judge of any Division Court, pursuant to Section 13 of the said recited Act (Government of India Act of 1915); and that an appeal shall also lie to the said High Court from the judgment, not being a sentence or order as aforesaid, of two or more Judges of the said High Court, or of such Division Court, wherever such Judges are equally divided in opinion, and do not amount in number to a majority of the whole of the Judges of the said High Court at the time being; but that the right of appeal from other judgments of Judges of the said High Court, or of such Division Court, shall be to Us, Our heirs or successors in Our, or Their Privy Council, as hereinafter provided.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In this particular case the reference came before a Bench of two Judges on the Appellate Side, and it is difficult to see how there has not been a judgment within the meaning of the word judgment as used in Clause 39 of the Letters Patent. If it is a judgment then there is no doubt that the case is one in which leave should be granted as the sum at issue is of the amount of more than Rs. 10,000. Therefore the rule should be made absolute.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Costs costs in the appeal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Shah, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. I agree.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'AIR1921Bom128(1); (1921)23BOMLR1102',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The Chief Revenue Authority, Bombay',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'tata-iron-steel-company-vs-revenue-authority',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '337845',
		(int) 1 => 'tata-iron-steel-company-vs-revenue-authority'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'The Tata Iron and Steel Company Vs the Chief Revenue Authority Bombay - Citation 337845 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '337845',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Application No. 448 of 1921',
		'appellant' => 'The Tata Iron and Steel Company',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'The Tata Iron and Steel Company Vs. the Chief Revenue Authority, Bombay',
		'casenote' => 'Privy Council-Leave to appeal-Letters Patent, Clause 39-Judgment-Decision of High Court on reference under Section 51 of the Income Tax Act (VII of 1918).;The decision of the High Court on a reference from the Chief Revenue Authority under Section 51 of the Indian Income Tax Act 1918 is a 'judgment' within the meaning of the Letters Patent, cl, 39; and an appeal lies to the Privy Council from the same. - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Mumbai',
		'court_type' => 'PC',
		'decidedon' => '1921-08-22',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J. and ; Shah, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.</p><p>1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council from the decision of the High Court on a reference from the Chief Revenue Authority under Section 51 of the Indian Income Tax Act (VII of 1918). Sub-section 3 of Section 51 is as follows:-</p><p>The High Court upon the hearing of any such case shall decide the questions raised thereby, and shall deliver its judgment thereon containing the grounds on which such decision is founded, and shall send to the Revenue-Authority by which the case was stated a copy of such judgment under the seal of the Court and the signature of the Registrar; and the Revenue-Authority shall dispose of the case accordingly, or, if the case arose on reference from any Revenue-officer subordinate to it, shall forward a copy of suoh judgment to such officer who shall dispose of the case conformably to such judgment.</p><p>2. It is contended by the respondent that the judgment of the High Court on the case stated by the Chief Revenue Authority is not a judgment within the meaning of clause x 39 of the Letters Patent. The word judgment' in the Letters Patent is used in a much wider sense than it is used in the Civil Procedure Code where it is defined as 'the statement given by the Judge of the grounds of a decree or order. ' In the Letters Patent the term ' judgment' is used to denote the decision of the Court and not a statement of the grounds on which the decision is based. For instance in Clause 15 it is stated that 'an appeal shall lie to the said High Court...from the judgment...of one Judge of the said High Court, or of one Judge of any Division Court, pursuant to Section 13 of the said recited Act (Government of India Act of 1915); and that an appeal shall also lie to the said High Court from the judgment, not being a sentence or order as aforesaid, of two or more Judges of the said High Court, or of such Division Court, wherever such Judges are equally divided in opinion, and do not amount in number to a majority of the whole of the Judges of the said High Court at the time being; but that the right of appeal from other judgments of Judges of the said High Court, or of such Division Court, shall be to Us, Our heirs or successors in Our, or Their Privy Council, as hereinafter provided.'</p><p>3. In this particular case the reference came before a Bench of two Judges on the Appellate Side, and it is difficult to see how there has not been a judgment within the meaning of the word judgment as used in Clause 39 of the Letters Patent. If it is a judgment then there is no doubt that the case is one in which leave should be granted as the sum at issue is of the amount of more than Rs. 10,000. Therefore the rule should be made absolute.</p><p>4. Costs costs in the appeal.</p><p>Shah, J.</p><p>5. I agree.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'AIR1921Bom128(1); (1921)23BOMLR1102',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The Chief Revenue Authority, Bombay',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'tata-iron-steel-company-vs-revenue-authority'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '337845',
	(int) 1 => 'tata-iron-steel-company-vs-revenue-authority'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/337845/tata-iron-steel-company-vs-revenue-authority'
$ctype = ''
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council from the decision of the High Court on a reference from the Chief Revenue Authority under Section 51 of the Indian Income Tax Act (VII of 1918). Sub-section 3 of Section 51 is as follows:-',
	(int) 2 => '<p>The High Court upon the hearing of any such case shall decide the questions raised thereby, and shall deliver its judgment thereon containing the grounds on which such decision is founded, and shall send to the Revenue-Authority by which the case was stated a copy of such judgment under the seal of the Court and the signature of the Registrar; and the Revenue-Authority shall dispose of the case accordingly, or, if the case arose on reference from any Revenue-officer subordinate to it, shall forward a copy of suoh judgment to such officer who shall dispose of the case conformably to such judgment.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>2. It is contended by the respondent that the judgment of the High Court on the case stated by the Chief Revenue Authority is not a judgment within the meaning of clause x 39 of the Letters Patent. The word judgment' in the Letters Patent is used in a much wider sense than it is used in the Civil Procedure Code where it is defined as 'the statement given by the Judge of the grounds of a decree or order. ' In the Letters Patent the term ' judgment' is used to denote the decision of the Court and not a statement of the grounds on which the decision is based. For instance in Clause 15 it is stated that 'an appeal shall lie to the said High Court...from the judgment...of one Judge of the said High Court, or of one Judge of any Division Court, pursuant to Section 13 of the said recited Act (Government of India Act of 1915); and that an appeal shall also lie to the said High Court from the judgment, not being a sentence or order as aforesaid, of two or more Judges of the said High Court, or of such Division Court, wherever such Judges are equally divided in opinion, and do not amount in number to a majority of the whole of the Judges of the said High Court at the time being; but that the right of appeal from other judgments of Judges of the said High Court, or of such Division Court, shall be to Us, Our heirs or successors in Our, or Their Privy Council, as hereinafter provided.'',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. In this particular case the reference came before a Bench of two Judges on the Appellate Side, and it is difficult to see how there has not been a judgment within the meaning of the word judgment as used in Clause 39 of the Letters Patent. If it is a judgment then there is no doubt that the case is one in which leave should be granted as the sum at issue is of the amount of more than Rs. 10,000. Therefore the rule should be made absolute.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. Costs costs in the appeal.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>Shah, J.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>5. I agree.<p>',
	(int) 8 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 9
$i = (int) 0
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'The Tata Iron and Steel Company Vs the Chief Revenue Authority Bombay - Citation 337845 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '337845',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Application No. 448 of 1921',
			'appellant' => 'The Tata Iron and Steel Company',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'The Tata Iron and Steel Company Vs. the Chief Revenue Authority, Bombay',
			'casenote' => 'Privy Council-Leave to appeal-Letters Patent, Clause 39-Judgment-Decision of High Court on reference under Section 51 of the Income Tax Act (VII of 1918).;The decision of the High Court on a reference from the Chief Revenue Authority under Section 51 of the Indian Income Tax Act 1918 is a 'judgment' within the meaning of the Letters Patent, cl, 39; and an appeal lies to the Privy Council from the same. - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Mumbai',
			'court_type' => 'PC',
			'decidedon' => '1921-08-22',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J. and ; Shah, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council from the decision of the High Court on a reference from the Chief Revenue Authority under Section 51 of the Indian Income Tax Act (VII of 1918). Sub-section 3 of Section 51 is as follows:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The High Court upon the hearing of any such case shall decide the questions raised thereby, and shall deliver its judgment thereon containing the grounds on which such decision is founded, and shall send to the Revenue-Authority by which the case was stated a copy of such judgment under the seal of the Court and the signature of the Registrar; and the Revenue-Authority shall dispose of the case accordingly, or, if the case arose on reference from any Revenue-officer subordinate to it, shall forward a copy of suoh judgment to such officer who shall dispose of the case conformably to such judgment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. It is contended by the respondent that the judgment of the High Court on the case stated by the Chief Revenue Authority is not a judgment within the meaning of clause x 39 of the Letters Patent. The word judgment' in the Letters Patent is used in a much wider sense than it is used in the Civil Procedure Code where it is defined as 'the statement given by the Judge of the grounds of a decree or order. ' In the Letters Patent the term ' judgment' is used to denote the decision of the Court and not a statement of the grounds on which the decision is based. For instance in Clause 15 it is stated that 'an appeal shall lie to the said High Court...from the judgment...of one Judge of the said High Court, or of one Judge of any Division Court, pursuant to Section 13 of the said recited Act (Government of India Act of 1915); and that an appeal shall also lie to the said High Court from the judgment, not being a sentence or order as aforesaid, of two or more Judges of the said High Court, or of such Division Court, wherever such Judges are equally divided in opinion, and do not amount in number to a majority of the whole of the Judges of the said High Court at the time being; but that the right of appeal from other judgments of Judges of the said High Court, or of such Division Court, shall be to Us, Our heirs or successors in Our, or Their Privy Council, as hereinafter provided.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In this particular case the reference came before a Bench of two Judges on the Appellate Side, and it is difficult to see how there has not been a judgment within the meaning of the word judgment as used in Clause 39 of the Letters Patent. If it is a judgment then there is no doubt that the case is one in which leave should be granted as the sum at issue is of the amount of more than Rs. 10,000. Therefore the rule should be made absolute.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Costs costs in the appeal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Shah, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. I agree.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'AIR1921Bom128(1); (1921)23BOMLR1102',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The Chief Revenue Authority, Bombay',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'tata-iron-steel-company-vs-revenue-authority',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '337845',
		(int) 1 => 'tata-iron-steel-company-vs-revenue-authority'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'The Tata Iron and Steel Company Vs the Chief Revenue Authority Bombay - Citation 337845 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '337845',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Application No. 448 of 1921',
		'appellant' => 'The Tata Iron and Steel Company',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'The Tata Iron and Steel Company Vs. the Chief Revenue Authority, Bombay',
		'casenote' => 'Privy Council-Leave to appeal-Letters Patent, Clause 39-Judgment-Decision of High Court on reference under Section 51 of the Income Tax Act (VII of 1918).;The decision of the High Court on a reference from the Chief Revenue Authority under Section 51 of the Indian Income Tax Act 1918 is a 'judgment' within the meaning of the Letters Patent, cl, 39; and an appeal lies to the Privy Council from the same. - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Mumbai',
		'court_type' => 'PC',
		'decidedon' => '1921-08-22',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J. and ; Shah, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.</p><p>1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council from the decision of the High Court on a reference from the Chief Revenue Authority under Section 51 of the Indian Income Tax Act (VII of 1918). Sub-section 3 of Section 51 is as follows:-</p><p>The High Court upon the hearing of any such case shall decide the questions raised thereby, and shall deliver its judgment thereon containing the grounds on which such decision is founded, and shall send to the Revenue-Authority by which the case was stated a copy of such judgment under the seal of the Court and the signature of the Registrar; and the Revenue-Authority shall dispose of the case accordingly, or, if the case arose on reference from any Revenue-officer subordinate to it, shall forward a copy of suoh judgment to such officer who shall dispose of the case conformably to such judgment.</p><p>2. It is contended by the respondent that the judgment of the High Court on the case stated by the Chief Revenue Authority is not a judgment within the meaning of clause x 39 of the Letters Patent. The word judgment' in the Letters Patent is used in a much wider sense than it is used in the Civil Procedure Code where it is defined as 'the statement given by the Judge of the grounds of a decree or order. ' In the Letters Patent the term ' judgment' is used to denote the decision of the Court and not a statement of the grounds on which the decision is based. For instance in Clause 15 it is stated that 'an appeal shall lie to the said High Court...from the judgment...of one Judge of the said High Court, or of one Judge of any Division Court, pursuant to Section 13 of the said recited Act (Government of India Act of 1915); and that an appeal shall also lie to the said High Court from the judgment, not being a sentence or order as aforesaid, of two or more Judges of the said High Court, or of such Division Court, wherever such Judges are equally divided in opinion, and do not amount in number to a majority of the whole of the Judges of the said High Court at the time being; but that the right of appeal from other judgments of Judges of the said High Court, or of such Division Court, shall be to Us, Our heirs or successors in Our, or Their Privy Council, as hereinafter provided.'</p><p>3. In this particular case the reference came before a Bench of two Judges on the Appellate Side, and it is difficult to see how there has not been a judgment within the meaning of the word judgment as used in Clause 39 of the Letters Patent. If it is a judgment then there is no doubt that the case is one in which leave should be granted as the sum at issue is of the amount of more than Rs. 10,000. Therefore the rule should be made absolute.</p><p>4. Costs costs in the appeal.</p><p>Shah, J.</p><p>5. I agree.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'AIR1921Bom128(1); (1921)23BOMLR1102',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The Chief Revenue Authority, Bombay',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'tata-iron-steel-company-vs-revenue-authority'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '337845',
	(int) 1 => 'tata-iron-steel-company-vs-revenue-authority'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/337845/tata-iron-steel-company-vs-revenue-authority'
$ctype = ''
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council from the decision of the High Court on a reference from the Chief Revenue Authority under Section 51 of the Indian Income Tax Act (VII of 1918). Sub-section 3 of Section 51 is as follows:-',
	(int) 2 => '<p>The High Court upon the hearing of any such case shall decide the questions raised thereby, and shall deliver its judgment thereon containing the grounds on which such decision is founded, and shall send to the Revenue-Authority by which the case was stated a copy of such judgment under the seal of the Court and the signature of the Registrar; and the Revenue-Authority shall dispose of the case accordingly, or, if the case arose on reference from any Revenue-officer subordinate to it, shall forward a copy of suoh judgment to such officer who shall dispose of the case conformably to such judgment.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>2. It is contended by the respondent that the judgment of the High Court on the case stated by the Chief Revenue Authority is not a judgment within the meaning of clause x 39 of the Letters Patent. The word judgment' in the Letters Patent is used in a much wider sense than it is used in the Civil Procedure Code where it is defined as 'the statement given by the Judge of the grounds of a decree or order. ' In the Letters Patent the term ' judgment' is used to denote the decision of the Court and not a statement of the grounds on which the decision is based. For instance in Clause 15 it is stated that 'an appeal shall lie to the said High Court...from the judgment...of one Judge of the said High Court, or of one Judge of any Division Court, pursuant to Section 13 of the said recited Act (Government of India Act of 1915); and that an appeal shall also lie to the said High Court from the judgment, not being a sentence or order as aforesaid, of two or more Judges of the said High Court, or of such Division Court, wherever such Judges are equally divided in opinion, and do not amount in number to a majority of the whole of the Judges of the said High Court at the time being; but that the right of appeal from other judgments of Judges of the said High Court, or of such Division Court, shall be to Us, Our heirs or successors in Our, or Their Privy Council, as hereinafter provided.'',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. In this particular case the reference came before a Bench of two Judges on the Appellate Side, and it is difficult to see how there has not been a judgment within the meaning of the word judgment as used in Clause 39 of the Letters Patent. If it is a judgment then there is no doubt that the case is one in which leave should be granted as the sum at issue is of the amount of more than Rs. 10,000. Therefore the rule should be made absolute.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. Costs costs in the appeal.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>Shah, J.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>5. I agree.<p>',
	(int) 8 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 9
$i = (int) 1
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council from the decision of the High Court on a reference from the Chief Revenue Authority under Section 51 of the Indian Income Tax Act (VII of 1918). Sub-section 3 of Section 51 is as follows:-

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'The Tata Iron and Steel Company Vs the Chief Revenue Authority Bombay - Citation 337845 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '337845',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Application No. 448 of 1921',
			'appellant' => 'The Tata Iron and Steel Company',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'The Tata Iron and Steel Company Vs. the Chief Revenue Authority, Bombay',
			'casenote' => 'Privy Council-Leave to appeal-Letters Patent, Clause 39-Judgment-Decision of High Court on reference under Section 51 of the Income Tax Act (VII of 1918).;The decision of the High Court on a reference from the Chief Revenue Authority under Section 51 of the Indian Income Tax Act 1918 is a 'judgment' within the meaning of the Letters Patent, cl, 39; and an appeal lies to the Privy Council from the same. - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Mumbai',
			'court_type' => 'PC',
			'decidedon' => '1921-08-22',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J. and ; Shah, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council from the decision of the High Court on a reference from the Chief Revenue Authority under Section 51 of the Indian Income Tax Act (VII of 1918). Sub-section 3 of Section 51 is as follows:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The High Court upon the hearing of any such case shall decide the questions raised thereby, and shall deliver its judgment thereon containing the grounds on which such decision is founded, and shall send to the Revenue-Authority by which the case was stated a copy of such judgment under the seal of the Court and the signature of the Registrar; and the Revenue-Authority shall dispose of the case accordingly, or, if the case arose on reference from any Revenue-officer subordinate to it, shall forward a copy of suoh judgment to such officer who shall dispose of the case conformably to such judgment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. It is contended by the respondent that the judgment of the High Court on the case stated by the Chief Revenue Authority is not a judgment within the meaning of clause x 39 of the Letters Patent. The word judgment' in the Letters Patent is used in a much wider sense than it is used in the Civil Procedure Code where it is defined as 'the statement given by the Judge of the grounds of a decree or order. ' In the Letters Patent the term ' judgment' is used to denote the decision of the Court and not a statement of the grounds on which the decision is based. For instance in Clause 15 it is stated that 'an appeal shall lie to the said High Court...from the judgment...of one Judge of the said High Court, or of one Judge of any Division Court, pursuant to Section 13 of the said recited Act (Government of India Act of 1915); and that an appeal shall also lie to the said High Court from the judgment, not being a sentence or order as aforesaid, of two or more Judges of the said High Court, or of such Division Court, wherever such Judges are equally divided in opinion, and do not amount in number to a majority of the whole of the Judges of the said High Court at the time being; but that the right of appeal from other judgments of Judges of the said High Court, or of such Division Court, shall be to Us, Our heirs or successors in Our, or Their Privy Council, as hereinafter provided.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In this particular case the reference came before a Bench of two Judges on the Appellate Side, and it is difficult to see how there has not been a judgment within the meaning of the word judgment as used in Clause 39 of the Letters Patent. If it is a judgment then there is no doubt that the case is one in which leave should be granted as the sum at issue is of the amount of more than Rs. 10,000. Therefore the rule should be made absolute.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Costs costs in the appeal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Shah, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. I agree.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'AIR1921Bom128(1); (1921)23BOMLR1102',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The Chief Revenue Authority, Bombay',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'tata-iron-steel-company-vs-revenue-authority',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '337845',
		(int) 1 => 'tata-iron-steel-company-vs-revenue-authority'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'The Tata Iron and Steel Company Vs the Chief Revenue Authority Bombay - Citation 337845 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '337845',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Application No. 448 of 1921',
		'appellant' => 'The Tata Iron and Steel Company',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'The Tata Iron and Steel Company Vs. the Chief Revenue Authority, Bombay',
		'casenote' => 'Privy Council-Leave to appeal-Letters Patent, Clause 39-Judgment-Decision of High Court on reference under Section 51 of the Income Tax Act (VII of 1918).;The decision of the High Court on a reference from the Chief Revenue Authority under Section 51 of the Indian Income Tax Act 1918 is a 'judgment' within the meaning of the Letters Patent, cl, 39; and an appeal lies to the Privy Council from the same. - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Mumbai',
		'court_type' => 'PC',
		'decidedon' => '1921-08-22',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J. and ; Shah, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.</p><p>1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council from the decision of the High Court on a reference from the Chief Revenue Authority under Section 51 of the Indian Income Tax Act (VII of 1918). Sub-section 3 of Section 51 is as follows:-</p><p>The High Court upon the hearing of any such case shall decide the questions raised thereby, and shall deliver its judgment thereon containing the grounds on which such decision is founded, and shall send to the Revenue-Authority by which the case was stated a copy of such judgment under the seal of the Court and the signature of the Registrar; and the Revenue-Authority shall dispose of the case accordingly, or, if the case arose on reference from any Revenue-officer subordinate to it, shall forward a copy of suoh judgment to such officer who shall dispose of the case conformably to such judgment.</p><p>2. It is contended by the respondent that the judgment of the High Court on the case stated by the Chief Revenue Authority is not a judgment within the meaning of clause x 39 of the Letters Patent. The word judgment' in the Letters Patent is used in a much wider sense than it is used in the Civil Procedure Code where it is defined as 'the statement given by the Judge of the grounds of a decree or order. ' In the Letters Patent the term ' judgment' is used to denote the decision of the Court and not a statement of the grounds on which the decision is based. For instance in Clause 15 it is stated that 'an appeal shall lie to the said High Court...from the judgment...of one Judge of the said High Court, or of one Judge of any Division Court, pursuant to Section 13 of the said recited Act (Government of India Act of 1915); and that an appeal shall also lie to the said High Court from the judgment, not being a sentence or order as aforesaid, of two or more Judges of the said High Court, or of such Division Court, wherever such Judges are equally divided in opinion, and do not amount in number to a majority of the whole of the Judges of the said High Court at the time being; but that the right of appeal from other judgments of Judges of the said High Court, or of such Division Court, shall be to Us, Our heirs or successors in Our, or Their Privy Council, as hereinafter provided.'</p><p>3. In this particular case the reference came before a Bench of two Judges on the Appellate Side, and it is difficult to see how there has not been a judgment within the meaning of the word judgment as used in Clause 39 of the Letters Patent. If it is a judgment then there is no doubt that the case is one in which leave should be granted as the sum at issue is of the amount of more than Rs. 10,000. Therefore the rule should be made absolute.</p><p>4. Costs costs in the appeal.</p><p>Shah, J.</p><p>5. I agree.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'AIR1921Bom128(1); (1921)23BOMLR1102',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The Chief Revenue Authority, Bombay',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'tata-iron-steel-company-vs-revenue-authority'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '337845',
	(int) 1 => 'tata-iron-steel-company-vs-revenue-authority'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/337845/tata-iron-steel-company-vs-revenue-authority'
$ctype = ''
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council from the decision of the High Court on a reference from the Chief Revenue Authority under Section 51 of the Indian Income Tax Act (VII of 1918). Sub-section 3 of Section 51 is as follows:-',
	(int) 2 => '<p>The High Court upon the hearing of any such case shall decide the questions raised thereby, and shall deliver its judgment thereon containing the grounds on which such decision is founded, and shall send to the Revenue-Authority by which the case was stated a copy of such judgment under the seal of the Court and the signature of the Registrar; and the Revenue-Authority shall dispose of the case accordingly, or, if the case arose on reference from any Revenue-officer subordinate to it, shall forward a copy of suoh judgment to such officer who shall dispose of the case conformably to such judgment.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>2. It is contended by the respondent that the judgment of the High Court on the case stated by the Chief Revenue Authority is not a judgment within the meaning of clause x 39 of the Letters Patent. The word judgment' in the Letters Patent is used in a much wider sense than it is used in the Civil Procedure Code where it is defined as 'the statement given by the Judge of the grounds of a decree or order. ' In the Letters Patent the term ' judgment' is used to denote the decision of the Court and not a statement of the grounds on which the decision is based. For instance in Clause 15 it is stated that 'an appeal shall lie to the said High Court...from the judgment...of one Judge of the said High Court, or of one Judge of any Division Court, pursuant to Section 13 of the said recited Act (Government of India Act of 1915); and that an appeal shall also lie to the said High Court from the judgment, not being a sentence or order as aforesaid, of two or more Judges of the said High Court, or of such Division Court, wherever such Judges are equally divided in opinion, and do not amount in number to a majority of the whole of the Judges of the said High Court at the time being; but that the right of appeal from other judgments of Judges of the said High Court, or of such Division Court, shall be to Us, Our heirs or successors in Our, or Their Privy Council, as hereinafter provided.'',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. In this particular case the reference came before a Bench of two Judges on the Appellate Side, and it is difficult to see how there has not been a judgment within the meaning of the word judgment as used in Clause 39 of the Letters Patent. If it is a judgment then there is no doubt that the case is one in which leave should be granted as the sum at issue is of the amount of more than Rs. 10,000. Therefore the rule should be made absolute.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. Costs costs in the appeal.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>Shah, J.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>5. I agree.<p>',
	(int) 8 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 9
$i = (int) 2
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

The High Court upon the hearing of any such case shall decide the questions raised thereby, and shall deliver its judgment thereon containing the grounds on which such decision is founded, and shall send to the Revenue-Authority by which the case was stated a copy of such judgment under the seal of the Court and the signature of the Registrar; and the Revenue-Authority shall dispose of the case accordingly, or, if the case arose on reference from any Revenue-officer subordinate to it, shall forward a copy of suoh judgment to such officer who shall dispose of the case conformably to such judgment.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'The Tata Iron and Steel Company Vs the Chief Revenue Authority Bombay - Citation 337845 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '337845',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Application No. 448 of 1921',
			'appellant' => 'The Tata Iron and Steel Company',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'The Tata Iron and Steel Company Vs. the Chief Revenue Authority, Bombay',
			'casenote' => 'Privy Council-Leave to appeal-Letters Patent, Clause 39-Judgment-Decision of High Court on reference under Section 51 of the Income Tax Act (VII of 1918).;The decision of the High Court on a reference from the Chief Revenue Authority under Section 51 of the Indian Income Tax Act 1918 is a 'judgment' within the meaning of the Letters Patent, cl, 39; and an appeal lies to the Privy Council from the same. - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Mumbai',
			'court_type' => 'PC',
			'decidedon' => '1921-08-22',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J. and ; Shah, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council from the decision of the High Court on a reference from the Chief Revenue Authority under Section 51 of the Indian Income Tax Act (VII of 1918). Sub-section 3 of Section 51 is as follows:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The High Court upon the hearing of any such case shall decide the questions raised thereby, and shall deliver its judgment thereon containing the grounds on which such decision is founded, and shall send to the Revenue-Authority by which the case was stated a copy of such judgment under the seal of the Court and the signature of the Registrar; and the Revenue-Authority shall dispose of the case accordingly, or, if the case arose on reference from any Revenue-officer subordinate to it, shall forward a copy of suoh judgment to such officer who shall dispose of the case conformably to such judgment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. It is contended by the respondent that the judgment of the High Court on the case stated by the Chief Revenue Authority is not a judgment within the meaning of clause x 39 of the Letters Patent. The word judgment' in the Letters Patent is used in a much wider sense than it is used in the Civil Procedure Code where it is defined as 'the statement given by the Judge of the grounds of a decree or order. ' In the Letters Patent the term ' judgment' is used to denote the decision of the Court and not a statement of the grounds on which the decision is based. For instance in Clause 15 it is stated that 'an appeal shall lie to the said High Court...from the judgment...of one Judge of the said High Court, or of one Judge of any Division Court, pursuant to Section 13 of the said recited Act (Government of India Act of 1915); and that an appeal shall also lie to the said High Court from the judgment, not being a sentence or order as aforesaid, of two or more Judges of the said High Court, or of such Division Court, wherever such Judges are equally divided in opinion, and do not amount in number to a majority of the whole of the Judges of the said High Court at the time being; but that the right of appeal from other judgments of Judges of the said High Court, or of such Division Court, shall be to Us, Our heirs or successors in Our, or Their Privy Council, as hereinafter provided.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In this particular case the reference came before a Bench of two Judges on the Appellate Side, and it is difficult to see how there has not been a judgment within the meaning of the word judgment as used in Clause 39 of the Letters Patent. If it is a judgment then there is no doubt that the case is one in which leave should be granted as the sum at issue is of the amount of more than Rs. 10,000. Therefore the rule should be made absolute.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Costs costs in the appeal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Shah, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. I agree.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'AIR1921Bom128(1); (1921)23BOMLR1102',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The Chief Revenue Authority, Bombay',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'tata-iron-steel-company-vs-revenue-authority',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '337845',
		(int) 1 => 'tata-iron-steel-company-vs-revenue-authority'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'The Tata Iron and Steel Company Vs the Chief Revenue Authority Bombay - Citation 337845 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '337845',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Application No. 448 of 1921',
		'appellant' => 'The Tata Iron and Steel Company',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'The Tata Iron and Steel Company Vs. the Chief Revenue Authority, Bombay',
		'casenote' => 'Privy Council-Leave to appeal-Letters Patent, Clause 39-Judgment-Decision of High Court on reference under Section 51 of the Income Tax Act (VII of 1918).;The decision of the High Court on a reference from the Chief Revenue Authority under Section 51 of the Indian Income Tax Act 1918 is a 'judgment' within the meaning of the Letters Patent, cl, 39; and an appeal lies to the Privy Council from the same. - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Mumbai',
		'court_type' => 'PC',
		'decidedon' => '1921-08-22',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J. and ; Shah, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.</p><p>1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council from the decision of the High Court on a reference from the Chief Revenue Authority under Section 51 of the Indian Income Tax Act (VII of 1918). Sub-section 3 of Section 51 is as follows:-</p><p>The High Court upon the hearing of any such case shall decide the questions raised thereby, and shall deliver its judgment thereon containing the grounds on which such decision is founded, and shall send to the Revenue-Authority by which the case was stated a copy of such judgment under the seal of the Court and the signature of the Registrar; and the Revenue-Authority shall dispose of the case accordingly, or, if the case arose on reference from any Revenue-officer subordinate to it, shall forward a copy of suoh judgment to such officer who shall dispose of the case conformably to such judgment.</p><p>2. It is contended by the respondent that the judgment of the High Court on the case stated by the Chief Revenue Authority is not a judgment within the meaning of clause x 39 of the Letters Patent. The word judgment' in the Letters Patent is used in a much wider sense than it is used in the Civil Procedure Code where it is defined as 'the statement given by the Judge of the grounds of a decree or order. ' In the Letters Patent the term ' judgment' is used to denote the decision of the Court and not a statement of the grounds on which the decision is based. For instance in Clause 15 it is stated that 'an appeal shall lie to the said High Court...from the judgment...of one Judge of the said High Court, or of one Judge of any Division Court, pursuant to Section 13 of the said recited Act (Government of India Act of 1915); and that an appeal shall also lie to the said High Court from the judgment, not being a sentence or order as aforesaid, of two or more Judges of the said High Court, or of such Division Court, wherever such Judges are equally divided in opinion, and do not amount in number to a majority of the whole of the Judges of the said High Court at the time being; but that the right of appeal from other judgments of Judges of the said High Court, or of such Division Court, shall be to Us, Our heirs or successors in Our, or Their Privy Council, as hereinafter provided.'</p><p>3. In this particular case the reference came before a Bench of two Judges on the Appellate Side, and it is difficult to see how there has not been a judgment within the meaning of the word judgment as used in Clause 39 of the Letters Patent. If it is a judgment then there is no doubt that the case is one in which leave should be granted as the sum at issue is of the amount of more than Rs. 10,000. Therefore the rule should be made absolute.</p><p>4. Costs costs in the appeal.</p><p>Shah, J.</p><p>5. I agree.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'AIR1921Bom128(1); (1921)23BOMLR1102',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The Chief Revenue Authority, Bombay',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'tata-iron-steel-company-vs-revenue-authority'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '337845',
	(int) 1 => 'tata-iron-steel-company-vs-revenue-authority'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/337845/tata-iron-steel-company-vs-revenue-authority'
$ctype = ''
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council from the decision of the High Court on a reference from the Chief Revenue Authority under Section 51 of the Indian Income Tax Act (VII of 1918). Sub-section 3 of Section 51 is as follows:-',
	(int) 2 => '<p>The High Court upon the hearing of any such case shall decide the questions raised thereby, and shall deliver its judgment thereon containing the grounds on which such decision is founded, and shall send to the Revenue-Authority by which the case was stated a copy of such judgment under the seal of the Court and the signature of the Registrar; and the Revenue-Authority shall dispose of the case accordingly, or, if the case arose on reference from any Revenue-officer subordinate to it, shall forward a copy of suoh judgment to such officer who shall dispose of the case conformably to such judgment.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>2. It is contended by the respondent that the judgment of the High Court on the case stated by the Chief Revenue Authority is not a judgment within the meaning of clause x 39 of the Letters Patent. The word judgment' in the Letters Patent is used in a much wider sense than it is used in the Civil Procedure Code where it is defined as 'the statement given by the Judge of the grounds of a decree or order. ' In the Letters Patent the term ' judgment' is used to denote the decision of the Court and not a statement of the grounds on which the decision is based. For instance in Clause 15 it is stated that 'an appeal shall lie to the said High Court...from the judgment...of one Judge of the said High Court, or of one Judge of any Division Court, pursuant to Section 13 of the said recited Act (Government of India Act of 1915); and that an appeal shall also lie to the said High Court from the judgment, not being a sentence or order as aforesaid, of two or more Judges of the said High Court, or of such Division Court, wherever such Judges are equally divided in opinion, and do not amount in number to a majority of the whole of the Judges of the said High Court at the time being; but that the right of appeal from other judgments of Judges of the said High Court, or of such Division Court, shall be to Us, Our heirs or successors in Our, or Their Privy Council, as hereinafter provided.'',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. In this particular case the reference came before a Bench of two Judges on the Appellate Side, and it is difficult to see how there has not been a judgment within the meaning of the word judgment as used in Clause 39 of the Letters Patent. If it is a judgment then there is no doubt that the case is one in which leave should be granted as the sum at issue is of the amount of more than Rs. 10,000. Therefore the rule should be made absolute.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. Costs costs in the appeal.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>Shah, J.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>5. I agree.<p>',
	(int) 8 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 9
$i = (int) 3
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

2. It is contended by the respondent that the judgment of the High Court on the case stated by the Chief Revenue Authority is not a judgment within the meaning of clause x 39 of the Letters Patent. The word judgment' in the Letters Patent is used in a much wider sense than it is used in the Civil Procedure Code where it is defined as 'the statement given by the Judge of the grounds of a decree or order. ' In the Letters Patent the term ' judgment' is used to denote the decision of the Court and not a statement of the grounds on which the decision is based. For instance in Clause 15 it is stated that 'an appeal shall lie to the said High Court...from the judgment...of one Judge of the said High Court, or of one Judge of any Division Court, pursuant to Section 13 of the said recited Act (Government of India Act of 1915); and that an appeal shall also lie to the said High Court from the judgment, not being a sentence or order as aforesaid, of two or more Judges of the said High Court, or of such Division Court, wherever such Judges are equally divided in opinion, and do not amount in number to a majority of the whole of the Judges of the said High Court at the time being; but that the right of appeal from other judgments of Judges of the said High Court, or of such Division Court, shall be to Us, Our heirs or successors in Our, or Their Privy Council, as hereinafter provided.'

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'The Tata Iron and Steel Company Vs the Chief Revenue Authority Bombay - Citation 337845 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '337845',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Application No. 448 of 1921',
			'appellant' => 'The Tata Iron and Steel Company',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'The Tata Iron and Steel Company Vs. the Chief Revenue Authority, Bombay',
			'casenote' => 'Privy Council-Leave to appeal-Letters Patent, Clause 39-Judgment-Decision of High Court on reference under Section 51 of the Income Tax Act (VII of 1918).;The decision of the High Court on a reference from the Chief Revenue Authority under Section 51 of the Indian Income Tax Act 1918 is a 'judgment' within the meaning of the Letters Patent, cl, 39; and an appeal lies to the Privy Council from the same. - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Mumbai',
			'court_type' => 'PC',
			'decidedon' => '1921-08-22',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J. and ; Shah, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council from the decision of the High Court on a reference from the Chief Revenue Authority under Section 51 of the Indian Income Tax Act (VII of 1918). Sub-section 3 of Section 51 is as follows:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The High Court upon the hearing of any such case shall decide the questions raised thereby, and shall deliver its judgment thereon containing the grounds on which such decision is founded, and shall send to the Revenue-Authority by which the case was stated a copy of such judgment under the seal of the Court and the signature of the Registrar; and the Revenue-Authority shall dispose of the case accordingly, or, if the case arose on reference from any Revenue-officer subordinate to it, shall forward a copy of suoh judgment to such officer who shall dispose of the case conformably to such judgment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. It is contended by the respondent that the judgment of the High Court on the case stated by the Chief Revenue Authority is not a judgment within the meaning of clause x 39 of the Letters Patent. The word judgment' in the Letters Patent is used in a much wider sense than it is used in the Civil Procedure Code where it is defined as 'the statement given by the Judge of the grounds of a decree or order. ' In the Letters Patent the term ' judgment' is used to denote the decision of the Court and not a statement of the grounds on which the decision is based. For instance in Clause 15 it is stated that 'an appeal shall lie to the said High Court...from the judgment...of one Judge of the said High Court, or of one Judge of any Division Court, pursuant to Section 13 of the said recited Act (Government of India Act of 1915); and that an appeal shall also lie to the said High Court from the judgment, not being a sentence or order as aforesaid, of two or more Judges of the said High Court, or of such Division Court, wherever such Judges are equally divided in opinion, and do not amount in number to a majority of the whole of the Judges of the said High Court at the time being; but that the right of appeal from other judgments of Judges of the said High Court, or of such Division Court, shall be to Us, Our heirs or successors in Our, or Their Privy Council, as hereinafter provided.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In this particular case the reference came before a Bench of two Judges on the Appellate Side, and it is difficult to see how there has not been a judgment within the meaning of the word judgment as used in Clause 39 of the Letters Patent. If it is a judgment then there is no doubt that the case is one in which leave should be granted as the sum at issue is of the amount of more than Rs. 10,000. Therefore the rule should be made absolute.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Costs costs in the appeal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Shah, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. I agree.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'AIR1921Bom128(1); (1921)23BOMLR1102',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The Chief Revenue Authority, Bombay',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'tata-iron-steel-company-vs-revenue-authority',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '337845',
		(int) 1 => 'tata-iron-steel-company-vs-revenue-authority'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'The Tata Iron and Steel Company Vs the Chief Revenue Authority Bombay - Citation 337845 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '337845',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Application No. 448 of 1921',
		'appellant' => 'The Tata Iron and Steel Company',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'The Tata Iron and Steel Company Vs. the Chief Revenue Authority, Bombay',
		'casenote' => 'Privy Council-Leave to appeal-Letters Patent, Clause 39-Judgment-Decision of High Court on reference under Section 51 of the Income Tax Act (VII of 1918).;The decision of the High Court on a reference from the Chief Revenue Authority under Section 51 of the Indian Income Tax Act 1918 is a 'judgment' within the meaning of the Letters Patent, cl, 39; and an appeal lies to the Privy Council from the same. - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Mumbai',
		'court_type' => 'PC',
		'decidedon' => '1921-08-22',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J. and ; Shah, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.</p><p>1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council from the decision of the High Court on a reference from the Chief Revenue Authority under Section 51 of the Indian Income Tax Act (VII of 1918). Sub-section 3 of Section 51 is as follows:-</p><p>The High Court upon the hearing of any such case shall decide the questions raised thereby, and shall deliver its judgment thereon containing the grounds on which such decision is founded, and shall send to the Revenue-Authority by which the case was stated a copy of such judgment under the seal of the Court and the signature of the Registrar; and the Revenue-Authority shall dispose of the case accordingly, or, if the case arose on reference from any Revenue-officer subordinate to it, shall forward a copy of suoh judgment to such officer who shall dispose of the case conformably to such judgment.</p><p>2. It is contended by the respondent that the judgment of the High Court on the case stated by the Chief Revenue Authority is not a judgment within the meaning of clause x 39 of the Letters Patent. The word judgment' in the Letters Patent is used in a much wider sense than it is used in the Civil Procedure Code where it is defined as 'the statement given by the Judge of the grounds of a decree or order. ' In the Letters Patent the term ' judgment' is used to denote the decision of the Court and not a statement of the grounds on which the decision is based. For instance in Clause 15 it is stated that 'an appeal shall lie to the said High Court...from the judgment...of one Judge of the said High Court, or of one Judge of any Division Court, pursuant to Section 13 of the said recited Act (Government of India Act of 1915); and that an appeal shall also lie to the said High Court from the judgment, not being a sentence or order as aforesaid, of two or more Judges of the said High Court, or of such Division Court, wherever such Judges are equally divided in opinion, and do not amount in number to a majority of the whole of the Judges of the said High Court at the time being; but that the right of appeal from other judgments of Judges of the said High Court, or of such Division Court, shall be to Us, Our heirs or successors in Our, or Their Privy Council, as hereinafter provided.'</p><p>3. In this particular case the reference came before a Bench of two Judges on the Appellate Side, and it is difficult to see how there has not been a judgment within the meaning of the word judgment as used in Clause 39 of the Letters Patent. If it is a judgment then there is no doubt that the case is one in which leave should be granted as the sum at issue is of the amount of more than Rs. 10,000. Therefore the rule should be made absolute.</p><p>4. Costs costs in the appeal.</p><p>Shah, J.</p><p>5. I agree.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'AIR1921Bom128(1); (1921)23BOMLR1102',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The Chief Revenue Authority, Bombay',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'tata-iron-steel-company-vs-revenue-authority'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '337845',
	(int) 1 => 'tata-iron-steel-company-vs-revenue-authority'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/337845/tata-iron-steel-company-vs-revenue-authority'
$ctype = ''
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council from the decision of the High Court on a reference from the Chief Revenue Authority under Section 51 of the Indian Income Tax Act (VII of 1918). Sub-section 3 of Section 51 is as follows:-',
	(int) 2 => '<p>The High Court upon the hearing of any such case shall decide the questions raised thereby, and shall deliver its judgment thereon containing the grounds on which such decision is founded, and shall send to the Revenue-Authority by which the case was stated a copy of such judgment under the seal of the Court and the signature of the Registrar; and the Revenue-Authority shall dispose of the case accordingly, or, if the case arose on reference from any Revenue-officer subordinate to it, shall forward a copy of suoh judgment to such officer who shall dispose of the case conformably to such judgment.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>2. It is contended by the respondent that the judgment of the High Court on the case stated by the Chief Revenue Authority is not a judgment within the meaning of clause x 39 of the Letters Patent. The word judgment' in the Letters Patent is used in a much wider sense than it is used in the Civil Procedure Code where it is defined as 'the statement given by the Judge of the grounds of a decree or order. ' In the Letters Patent the term ' judgment' is used to denote the decision of the Court and not a statement of the grounds on which the decision is based. For instance in Clause 15 it is stated that 'an appeal shall lie to the said High Court...from the judgment...of one Judge of the said High Court, or of one Judge of any Division Court, pursuant to Section 13 of the said recited Act (Government of India Act of 1915); and that an appeal shall also lie to the said High Court from the judgment, not being a sentence or order as aforesaid, of two or more Judges of the said High Court, or of such Division Court, wherever such Judges are equally divided in opinion, and do not amount in number to a majority of the whole of the Judges of the said High Court at the time being; but that the right of appeal from other judgments of Judges of the said High Court, or of such Division Court, shall be to Us, Our heirs or successors in Our, or Their Privy Council, as hereinafter provided.'',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. In this particular case the reference came before a Bench of two Judges on the Appellate Side, and it is difficult to see how there has not been a judgment within the meaning of the word judgment as used in Clause 39 of the Letters Patent. If it is a judgment then there is no doubt that the case is one in which leave should be granted as the sum at issue is of the amount of more than Rs. 10,000. Therefore the rule should be made absolute.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. Costs costs in the appeal.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>Shah, J.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>5. I agree.<p>',
	(int) 8 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 9
$i = (int) 4
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

3. In this particular case the reference came before a Bench of two Judges on the Appellate Side, and it is difficult to see how there has not been a judgment within the meaning of the word judgment as used in Clause 39 of the Letters Patent. If it is a judgment then there is no doubt that the case is one in which leave should be granted as the sum at issue is of the amount of more than Rs. 10,000. Therefore the rule should be made absolute.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'The Tata Iron and Steel Company Vs the Chief Revenue Authority Bombay - Citation 337845 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '337845',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Application No. 448 of 1921',
			'appellant' => 'The Tata Iron and Steel Company',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'The Tata Iron and Steel Company Vs. the Chief Revenue Authority, Bombay',
			'casenote' => 'Privy Council-Leave to appeal-Letters Patent, Clause 39-Judgment-Decision of High Court on reference under Section 51 of the Income Tax Act (VII of 1918).;The decision of the High Court on a reference from the Chief Revenue Authority under Section 51 of the Indian Income Tax Act 1918 is a 'judgment' within the meaning of the Letters Patent, cl, 39; and an appeal lies to the Privy Council from the same. - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Mumbai',
			'court_type' => 'PC',
			'decidedon' => '1921-08-22',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J. and ; Shah, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council from the decision of the High Court on a reference from the Chief Revenue Authority under Section 51 of the Indian Income Tax Act (VII of 1918). Sub-section 3 of Section 51 is as follows:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The High Court upon the hearing of any such case shall decide the questions raised thereby, and shall deliver its judgment thereon containing the grounds on which such decision is founded, and shall send to the Revenue-Authority by which the case was stated a copy of such judgment under the seal of the Court and the signature of the Registrar; and the Revenue-Authority shall dispose of the case accordingly, or, if the case arose on reference from any Revenue-officer subordinate to it, shall forward a copy of suoh judgment to such officer who shall dispose of the case conformably to such judgment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. It is contended by the respondent that the judgment of the High Court on the case stated by the Chief Revenue Authority is not a judgment within the meaning of clause x 39 of the Letters Patent. The word judgment' in the Letters Patent is used in a much wider sense than it is used in the Civil Procedure Code where it is defined as 'the statement given by the Judge of the grounds of a decree or order. ' In the Letters Patent the term ' judgment' is used to denote the decision of the Court and not a statement of the grounds on which the decision is based. For instance in Clause 15 it is stated that 'an appeal shall lie to the said High Court...from the judgment...of one Judge of the said High Court, or of one Judge of any Division Court, pursuant to Section 13 of the said recited Act (Government of India Act of 1915); and that an appeal shall also lie to the said High Court from the judgment, not being a sentence or order as aforesaid, of two or more Judges of the said High Court, or of such Division Court, wherever such Judges are equally divided in opinion, and do not amount in number to a majority of the whole of the Judges of the said High Court at the time being; but that the right of appeal from other judgments of Judges of the said High Court, or of such Division Court, shall be to Us, Our heirs or successors in Our, or Their Privy Council, as hereinafter provided.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In this particular case the reference came before a Bench of two Judges on the Appellate Side, and it is difficult to see how there has not been a judgment within the meaning of the word judgment as used in Clause 39 of the Letters Patent. If it is a judgment then there is no doubt that the case is one in which leave should be granted as the sum at issue is of the amount of more than Rs. 10,000. Therefore the rule should be made absolute.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Costs costs in the appeal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Shah, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. I agree.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'AIR1921Bom128(1); (1921)23BOMLR1102',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The Chief Revenue Authority, Bombay',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'tata-iron-steel-company-vs-revenue-authority',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '337845',
		(int) 1 => 'tata-iron-steel-company-vs-revenue-authority'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'The Tata Iron and Steel Company Vs the Chief Revenue Authority Bombay - Citation 337845 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '337845',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Application No. 448 of 1921',
		'appellant' => 'The Tata Iron and Steel Company',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'The Tata Iron and Steel Company Vs. the Chief Revenue Authority, Bombay',
		'casenote' => 'Privy Council-Leave to appeal-Letters Patent, Clause 39-Judgment-Decision of High Court on reference under Section 51 of the Income Tax Act (VII of 1918).;The decision of the High Court on a reference from the Chief Revenue Authority under Section 51 of the Indian Income Tax Act 1918 is a 'judgment' within the meaning of the Letters Patent, cl, 39; and an appeal lies to the Privy Council from the same. - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Mumbai',
		'court_type' => 'PC',
		'decidedon' => '1921-08-22',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J. and ; Shah, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.</p><p>1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council from the decision of the High Court on a reference from the Chief Revenue Authority under Section 51 of the Indian Income Tax Act (VII of 1918). Sub-section 3 of Section 51 is as follows:-</p><p>The High Court upon the hearing of any such case shall decide the questions raised thereby, and shall deliver its judgment thereon containing the grounds on which such decision is founded, and shall send to the Revenue-Authority by which the case was stated a copy of such judgment under the seal of the Court and the signature of the Registrar; and the Revenue-Authority shall dispose of the case accordingly, or, if the case arose on reference from any Revenue-officer subordinate to it, shall forward a copy of suoh judgment to such officer who shall dispose of the case conformably to such judgment.</p><p>2. It is contended by the respondent that the judgment of the High Court on the case stated by the Chief Revenue Authority is not a judgment within the meaning of clause x 39 of the Letters Patent. The word judgment' in the Letters Patent is used in a much wider sense than it is used in the Civil Procedure Code where it is defined as 'the statement given by the Judge of the grounds of a decree or order. ' In the Letters Patent the term ' judgment' is used to denote the decision of the Court and not a statement of the grounds on which the decision is based. For instance in Clause 15 it is stated that 'an appeal shall lie to the said High Court...from the judgment...of one Judge of the said High Court, or of one Judge of any Division Court, pursuant to Section 13 of the said recited Act (Government of India Act of 1915); and that an appeal shall also lie to the said High Court from the judgment, not being a sentence or order as aforesaid, of two or more Judges of the said High Court, or of such Division Court, wherever such Judges are equally divided in opinion, and do not amount in number to a majority of the whole of the Judges of the said High Court at the time being; but that the right of appeal from other judgments of Judges of the said High Court, or of such Division Court, shall be to Us, Our heirs or successors in Our, or Their Privy Council, as hereinafter provided.'</p><p>3. In this particular case the reference came before a Bench of two Judges on the Appellate Side, and it is difficult to see how there has not been a judgment within the meaning of the word judgment as used in Clause 39 of the Letters Patent. If it is a judgment then there is no doubt that the case is one in which leave should be granted as the sum at issue is of the amount of more than Rs. 10,000. Therefore the rule should be made absolute.</p><p>4. Costs costs in the appeal.</p><p>Shah, J.</p><p>5. I agree.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'AIR1921Bom128(1); (1921)23BOMLR1102',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The Chief Revenue Authority, Bombay',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'tata-iron-steel-company-vs-revenue-authority'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '337845',
	(int) 1 => 'tata-iron-steel-company-vs-revenue-authority'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/337845/tata-iron-steel-company-vs-revenue-authority'
$ctype = ''
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council from the decision of the High Court on a reference from the Chief Revenue Authority under Section 51 of the Indian Income Tax Act (VII of 1918). Sub-section 3 of Section 51 is as follows:-',
	(int) 2 => '<p>The High Court upon the hearing of any such case shall decide the questions raised thereby, and shall deliver its judgment thereon containing the grounds on which such decision is founded, and shall send to the Revenue-Authority by which the case was stated a copy of such judgment under the seal of the Court and the signature of the Registrar; and the Revenue-Authority shall dispose of the case accordingly, or, if the case arose on reference from any Revenue-officer subordinate to it, shall forward a copy of suoh judgment to such officer who shall dispose of the case conformably to such judgment.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>2. It is contended by the respondent that the judgment of the High Court on the case stated by the Chief Revenue Authority is not a judgment within the meaning of clause x 39 of the Letters Patent. The word judgment' in the Letters Patent is used in a much wider sense than it is used in the Civil Procedure Code where it is defined as 'the statement given by the Judge of the grounds of a decree or order. ' In the Letters Patent the term ' judgment' is used to denote the decision of the Court and not a statement of the grounds on which the decision is based. For instance in Clause 15 it is stated that 'an appeal shall lie to the said High Court...from the judgment...of one Judge of the said High Court, or of one Judge of any Division Court, pursuant to Section 13 of the said recited Act (Government of India Act of 1915); and that an appeal shall also lie to the said High Court from the judgment, not being a sentence or order as aforesaid, of two or more Judges of the said High Court, or of such Division Court, wherever such Judges are equally divided in opinion, and do not amount in number to a majority of the whole of the Judges of the said High Court at the time being; but that the right of appeal from other judgments of Judges of the said High Court, or of such Division Court, shall be to Us, Our heirs or successors in Our, or Their Privy Council, as hereinafter provided.'',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. In this particular case the reference came before a Bench of two Judges on the Appellate Side, and it is difficult to see how there has not been a judgment within the meaning of the word judgment as used in Clause 39 of the Letters Patent. If it is a judgment then there is no doubt that the case is one in which leave should be granted as the sum at issue is of the amount of more than Rs. 10,000. Therefore the rule should be made absolute.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. Costs costs in the appeal.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>Shah, J.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>5. I agree.<p>',
	(int) 8 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 9
$i = (int) 5
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

4. Costs costs in the appeal.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'The Tata Iron and Steel Company Vs the Chief Revenue Authority Bombay - Citation 337845 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '337845',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Application No. 448 of 1921',
			'appellant' => 'The Tata Iron and Steel Company',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'The Tata Iron and Steel Company Vs. the Chief Revenue Authority, Bombay',
			'casenote' => 'Privy Council-Leave to appeal-Letters Patent, Clause 39-Judgment-Decision of High Court on reference under Section 51 of the Income Tax Act (VII of 1918).;The decision of the High Court on a reference from the Chief Revenue Authority under Section 51 of the Indian Income Tax Act 1918 is a 'judgment' within the meaning of the Letters Patent, cl, 39; and an appeal lies to the Privy Council from the same. - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Mumbai',
			'court_type' => 'PC',
			'decidedon' => '1921-08-22',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J. and ; Shah, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council from the decision of the High Court on a reference from the Chief Revenue Authority under Section 51 of the Indian Income Tax Act (VII of 1918). Sub-section 3 of Section 51 is as follows:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The High Court upon the hearing of any such case shall decide the questions raised thereby, and shall deliver its judgment thereon containing the grounds on which such decision is founded, and shall send to the Revenue-Authority by which the case was stated a copy of such judgment under the seal of the Court and the signature of the Registrar; and the Revenue-Authority shall dispose of the case accordingly, or, if the case arose on reference from any Revenue-officer subordinate to it, shall forward a copy of suoh judgment to such officer who shall dispose of the case conformably to such judgment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. It is contended by the respondent that the judgment of the High Court on the case stated by the Chief Revenue Authority is not a judgment within the meaning of clause x 39 of the Letters Patent. The word judgment' in the Letters Patent is used in a much wider sense than it is used in the Civil Procedure Code where it is defined as 'the statement given by the Judge of the grounds of a decree or order. ' In the Letters Patent the term ' judgment' is used to denote the decision of the Court and not a statement of the grounds on which the decision is based. For instance in Clause 15 it is stated that 'an appeal shall lie to the said High Court...from the judgment...of one Judge of the said High Court, or of one Judge of any Division Court, pursuant to Section 13 of the said recited Act (Government of India Act of 1915); and that an appeal shall also lie to the said High Court from the judgment, not being a sentence or order as aforesaid, of two or more Judges of the said High Court, or of such Division Court, wherever such Judges are equally divided in opinion, and do not amount in number to a majority of the whole of the Judges of the said High Court at the time being; but that the right of appeal from other judgments of Judges of the said High Court, or of such Division Court, shall be to Us, Our heirs or successors in Our, or Their Privy Council, as hereinafter provided.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In this particular case the reference came before a Bench of two Judges on the Appellate Side, and it is difficult to see how there has not been a judgment within the meaning of the word judgment as used in Clause 39 of the Letters Patent. If it is a judgment then there is no doubt that the case is one in which leave should be granted as the sum at issue is of the amount of more than Rs. 10,000. Therefore the rule should be made absolute.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Costs costs in the appeal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Shah, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. I agree.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'AIR1921Bom128(1); (1921)23BOMLR1102',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The Chief Revenue Authority, Bombay',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'tata-iron-steel-company-vs-revenue-authority',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '337845',
		(int) 1 => 'tata-iron-steel-company-vs-revenue-authority'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'The Tata Iron and Steel Company Vs the Chief Revenue Authority Bombay - Citation 337845 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '337845',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Application No. 448 of 1921',
		'appellant' => 'The Tata Iron and Steel Company',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'The Tata Iron and Steel Company Vs. the Chief Revenue Authority, Bombay',
		'casenote' => 'Privy Council-Leave to appeal-Letters Patent, Clause 39-Judgment-Decision of High Court on reference under Section 51 of the Income Tax Act (VII of 1918).;The decision of the High Court on a reference from the Chief Revenue Authority under Section 51 of the Indian Income Tax Act 1918 is a 'judgment' within the meaning of the Letters Patent, cl, 39; and an appeal lies to the Privy Council from the same. - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Mumbai',
		'court_type' => 'PC',
		'decidedon' => '1921-08-22',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J. and ; Shah, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.</p><p>1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council from the decision of the High Court on a reference from the Chief Revenue Authority under Section 51 of the Indian Income Tax Act (VII of 1918). Sub-section 3 of Section 51 is as follows:-</p><p>The High Court upon the hearing of any such case shall decide the questions raised thereby, and shall deliver its judgment thereon containing the grounds on which such decision is founded, and shall send to the Revenue-Authority by which the case was stated a copy of such judgment under the seal of the Court and the signature of the Registrar; and the Revenue-Authority shall dispose of the case accordingly, or, if the case arose on reference from any Revenue-officer subordinate to it, shall forward a copy of suoh judgment to such officer who shall dispose of the case conformably to such judgment.</p><p>2. It is contended by the respondent that the judgment of the High Court on the case stated by the Chief Revenue Authority is not a judgment within the meaning of clause x 39 of the Letters Patent. The word judgment' in the Letters Patent is used in a much wider sense than it is used in the Civil Procedure Code where it is defined as 'the statement given by the Judge of the grounds of a decree or order. ' In the Letters Patent the term ' judgment' is used to denote the decision of the Court and not a statement of the grounds on which the decision is based. For instance in Clause 15 it is stated that 'an appeal shall lie to the said High Court...from the judgment...of one Judge of the said High Court, or of one Judge of any Division Court, pursuant to Section 13 of the said recited Act (Government of India Act of 1915); and that an appeal shall also lie to the said High Court from the judgment, not being a sentence or order as aforesaid, of two or more Judges of the said High Court, or of such Division Court, wherever such Judges are equally divided in opinion, and do not amount in number to a majority of the whole of the Judges of the said High Court at the time being; but that the right of appeal from other judgments of Judges of the said High Court, or of such Division Court, shall be to Us, Our heirs or successors in Our, or Their Privy Council, as hereinafter provided.'</p><p>3. In this particular case the reference came before a Bench of two Judges on the Appellate Side, and it is difficult to see how there has not been a judgment within the meaning of the word judgment as used in Clause 39 of the Letters Patent. If it is a judgment then there is no doubt that the case is one in which leave should be granted as the sum at issue is of the amount of more than Rs. 10,000. Therefore the rule should be made absolute.</p><p>4. Costs costs in the appeal.</p><p>Shah, J.</p><p>5. I agree.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'AIR1921Bom128(1); (1921)23BOMLR1102',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The Chief Revenue Authority, Bombay',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'tata-iron-steel-company-vs-revenue-authority'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '337845',
	(int) 1 => 'tata-iron-steel-company-vs-revenue-authority'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/337845/tata-iron-steel-company-vs-revenue-authority'
$ctype = ''
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council from the decision of the High Court on a reference from the Chief Revenue Authority under Section 51 of the Indian Income Tax Act (VII of 1918). Sub-section 3 of Section 51 is as follows:-',
	(int) 2 => '<p>The High Court upon the hearing of any such case shall decide the questions raised thereby, and shall deliver its judgment thereon containing the grounds on which such decision is founded, and shall send to the Revenue-Authority by which the case was stated a copy of such judgment under the seal of the Court and the signature of the Registrar; and the Revenue-Authority shall dispose of the case accordingly, or, if the case arose on reference from any Revenue-officer subordinate to it, shall forward a copy of suoh judgment to such officer who shall dispose of the case conformably to such judgment.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>2. It is contended by the respondent that the judgment of the High Court on the case stated by the Chief Revenue Authority is not a judgment within the meaning of clause x 39 of the Letters Patent. The word judgment' in the Letters Patent is used in a much wider sense than it is used in the Civil Procedure Code where it is defined as 'the statement given by the Judge of the grounds of a decree or order. ' In the Letters Patent the term ' judgment' is used to denote the decision of the Court and not a statement of the grounds on which the decision is based. For instance in Clause 15 it is stated that 'an appeal shall lie to the said High Court...from the judgment...of one Judge of the said High Court, or of one Judge of any Division Court, pursuant to Section 13 of the said recited Act (Government of India Act of 1915); and that an appeal shall also lie to the said High Court from the judgment, not being a sentence or order as aforesaid, of two or more Judges of the said High Court, or of such Division Court, wherever such Judges are equally divided in opinion, and do not amount in number to a majority of the whole of the Judges of the said High Court at the time being; but that the right of appeal from other judgments of Judges of the said High Court, or of such Division Court, shall be to Us, Our heirs or successors in Our, or Their Privy Council, as hereinafter provided.'',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. In this particular case the reference came before a Bench of two Judges on the Appellate Side, and it is difficult to see how there has not been a judgment within the meaning of the word judgment as used in Clause 39 of the Letters Patent. If it is a judgment then there is no doubt that the case is one in which leave should be granted as the sum at issue is of the amount of more than Rs. 10,000. Therefore the rule should be made absolute.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. Costs costs in the appeal.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>Shah, J.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>5. I agree.<p>',
	(int) 8 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 9
$i = (int) 6
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Shah, J.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'The Tata Iron and Steel Company Vs the Chief Revenue Authority Bombay - Citation 337845 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '337845',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Application No. 448 of 1921',
			'appellant' => 'The Tata Iron and Steel Company',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'The Tata Iron and Steel Company Vs. the Chief Revenue Authority, Bombay',
			'casenote' => 'Privy Council-Leave to appeal-Letters Patent, Clause 39-Judgment-Decision of High Court on reference under Section 51 of the Income Tax Act (VII of 1918).;The decision of the High Court on a reference from the Chief Revenue Authority under Section 51 of the Indian Income Tax Act 1918 is a 'judgment' within the meaning of the Letters Patent, cl, 39; and an appeal lies to the Privy Council from the same. - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Mumbai',
			'court_type' => 'PC',
			'decidedon' => '1921-08-22',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J. and ; Shah, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council from the decision of the High Court on a reference from the Chief Revenue Authority under Section 51 of the Indian Income Tax Act (VII of 1918). Sub-section 3 of Section 51 is as follows:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The High Court upon the hearing of any such case shall decide the questions raised thereby, and shall deliver its judgment thereon containing the grounds on which such decision is founded, and shall send to the Revenue-Authority by which the case was stated a copy of such judgment under the seal of the Court and the signature of the Registrar; and the Revenue-Authority shall dispose of the case accordingly, or, if the case arose on reference from any Revenue-officer subordinate to it, shall forward a copy of suoh judgment to such officer who shall dispose of the case conformably to such judgment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. It is contended by the respondent that the judgment of the High Court on the case stated by the Chief Revenue Authority is not a judgment within the meaning of clause x 39 of the Letters Patent. The word judgment' in the Letters Patent is used in a much wider sense than it is used in the Civil Procedure Code where it is defined as 'the statement given by the Judge of the grounds of a decree or order. ' In the Letters Patent the term ' judgment' is used to denote the decision of the Court and not a statement of the grounds on which the decision is based. For instance in Clause 15 it is stated that 'an appeal shall lie to the said High Court...from the judgment...of one Judge of the said High Court, or of one Judge of any Division Court, pursuant to Section 13 of the said recited Act (Government of India Act of 1915); and that an appeal shall also lie to the said High Court from the judgment, not being a sentence or order as aforesaid, of two or more Judges of the said High Court, or of such Division Court, wherever such Judges are equally divided in opinion, and do not amount in number to a majority of the whole of the Judges of the said High Court at the time being; but that the right of appeal from other judgments of Judges of the said High Court, or of such Division Court, shall be to Us, Our heirs or successors in Our, or Their Privy Council, as hereinafter provided.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In this particular case the reference came before a Bench of two Judges on the Appellate Side, and it is difficult to see how there has not been a judgment within the meaning of the word judgment as used in Clause 39 of the Letters Patent. If it is a judgment then there is no doubt that the case is one in which leave should be granted as the sum at issue is of the amount of more than Rs. 10,000. Therefore the rule should be made absolute.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Costs costs in the appeal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Shah, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. I agree.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'AIR1921Bom128(1); (1921)23BOMLR1102',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The Chief Revenue Authority, Bombay',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'tata-iron-steel-company-vs-revenue-authority',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '337845',
		(int) 1 => 'tata-iron-steel-company-vs-revenue-authority'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'The Tata Iron and Steel Company Vs the Chief Revenue Authority Bombay - Citation 337845 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '337845',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Application No. 448 of 1921',
		'appellant' => 'The Tata Iron and Steel Company',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'The Tata Iron and Steel Company Vs. the Chief Revenue Authority, Bombay',
		'casenote' => 'Privy Council-Leave to appeal-Letters Patent, Clause 39-Judgment-Decision of High Court on reference under Section 51 of the Income Tax Act (VII of 1918).;The decision of the High Court on a reference from the Chief Revenue Authority under Section 51 of the Indian Income Tax Act 1918 is a 'judgment' within the meaning of the Letters Patent, cl, 39; and an appeal lies to the Privy Council from the same. - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Mumbai',
		'court_type' => 'PC',
		'decidedon' => '1921-08-22',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J. and ; Shah, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.</p><p>1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council from the decision of the High Court on a reference from the Chief Revenue Authority under Section 51 of the Indian Income Tax Act (VII of 1918). Sub-section 3 of Section 51 is as follows:-</p><p>The High Court upon the hearing of any such case shall decide the questions raised thereby, and shall deliver its judgment thereon containing the grounds on which such decision is founded, and shall send to the Revenue-Authority by which the case was stated a copy of such judgment under the seal of the Court and the signature of the Registrar; and the Revenue-Authority shall dispose of the case accordingly, or, if the case arose on reference from any Revenue-officer subordinate to it, shall forward a copy of suoh judgment to such officer who shall dispose of the case conformably to such judgment.</p><p>2. It is contended by the respondent that the judgment of the High Court on the case stated by the Chief Revenue Authority is not a judgment within the meaning of clause x 39 of the Letters Patent. The word judgment' in the Letters Patent is used in a much wider sense than it is used in the Civil Procedure Code where it is defined as 'the statement given by the Judge of the grounds of a decree or order. ' In the Letters Patent the term ' judgment' is used to denote the decision of the Court and not a statement of the grounds on which the decision is based. For instance in Clause 15 it is stated that 'an appeal shall lie to the said High Court...from the judgment...of one Judge of the said High Court, or of one Judge of any Division Court, pursuant to Section 13 of the said recited Act (Government of India Act of 1915); and that an appeal shall also lie to the said High Court from the judgment, not being a sentence or order as aforesaid, of two or more Judges of the said High Court, or of such Division Court, wherever such Judges are equally divided in opinion, and do not amount in number to a majority of the whole of the Judges of the said High Court at the time being; but that the right of appeal from other judgments of Judges of the said High Court, or of such Division Court, shall be to Us, Our heirs or successors in Our, or Their Privy Council, as hereinafter provided.'</p><p>3. In this particular case the reference came before a Bench of two Judges on the Appellate Side, and it is difficult to see how there has not been a judgment within the meaning of the word judgment as used in Clause 39 of the Letters Patent. If it is a judgment then there is no doubt that the case is one in which leave should be granted as the sum at issue is of the amount of more than Rs. 10,000. Therefore the rule should be made absolute.</p><p>4. Costs costs in the appeal.</p><p>Shah, J.</p><p>5. I agree.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'AIR1921Bom128(1); (1921)23BOMLR1102',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The Chief Revenue Authority, Bombay',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'tata-iron-steel-company-vs-revenue-authority'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '337845',
	(int) 1 => 'tata-iron-steel-company-vs-revenue-authority'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/337845/tata-iron-steel-company-vs-revenue-authority'
$ctype = ''
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council from the decision of the High Court on a reference from the Chief Revenue Authority under Section 51 of the Indian Income Tax Act (VII of 1918). Sub-section 3 of Section 51 is as follows:-',
	(int) 2 => '<p>The High Court upon the hearing of any such case shall decide the questions raised thereby, and shall deliver its judgment thereon containing the grounds on which such decision is founded, and shall send to the Revenue-Authority by which the case was stated a copy of such judgment under the seal of the Court and the signature of the Registrar; and the Revenue-Authority shall dispose of the case accordingly, or, if the case arose on reference from any Revenue-officer subordinate to it, shall forward a copy of suoh judgment to such officer who shall dispose of the case conformably to such judgment.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>2. It is contended by the respondent that the judgment of the High Court on the case stated by the Chief Revenue Authority is not a judgment within the meaning of clause x 39 of the Letters Patent. The word judgment' in the Letters Patent is used in a much wider sense than it is used in the Civil Procedure Code where it is defined as 'the statement given by the Judge of the grounds of a decree or order. ' In the Letters Patent the term ' judgment' is used to denote the decision of the Court and not a statement of the grounds on which the decision is based. For instance in Clause 15 it is stated that 'an appeal shall lie to the said High Court...from the judgment...of one Judge of the said High Court, or of one Judge of any Division Court, pursuant to Section 13 of the said recited Act (Government of India Act of 1915); and that an appeal shall also lie to the said High Court from the judgment, not being a sentence or order as aforesaid, of two or more Judges of the said High Court, or of such Division Court, wherever such Judges are equally divided in opinion, and do not amount in number to a majority of the whole of the Judges of the said High Court at the time being; but that the right of appeal from other judgments of Judges of the said High Court, or of such Division Court, shall be to Us, Our heirs or successors in Our, or Their Privy Council, as hereinafter provided.'',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. In this particular case the reference came before a Bench of two Judges on the Appellate Side, and it is difficult to see how there has not been a judgment within the meaning of the word judgment as used in Clause 39 of the Letters Patent. If it is a judgment then there is no doubt that the case is one in which leave should be granted as the sum at issue is of the amount of more than Rs. 10,000. Therefore the rule should be made absolute.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. Costs costs in the appeal.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>Shah, J.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>5. I agree.<p>',
	(int) 8 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 9
$i = (int) 7
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

5. I agree.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'The Tata Iron and Steel Company Vs the Chief Revenue Authority Bombay - Citation 337845 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '337845',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Application No. 448 of 1921',
			'appellant' => 'The Tata Iron and Steel Company',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'The Tata Iron and Steel Company Vs. the Chief Revenue Authority, Bombay',
			'casenote' => 'Privy Council-Leave to appeal-Letters Patent, Clause 39-Judgment-Decision of High Court on reference under Section 51 of the Income Tax Act (VII of 1918).;The decision of the High Court on a reference from the Chief Revenue Authority under Section 51 of the Indian Income Tax Act 1918 is a 'judgment' within the meaning of the Letters Patent, cl, 39; and an appeal lies to the Privy Council from the same. - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Mumbai',
			'court_type' => 'PC',
			'decidedon' => '1921-08-22',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J. and ; Shah, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council from the decision of the High Court on a reference from the Chief Revenue Authority under Section 51 of the Indian Income Tax Act (VII of 1918). Sub-section 3 of Section 51 is as follows:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The High Court upon the hearing of any such case shall decide the questions raised thereby, and shall deliver its judgment thereon containing the grounds on which such decision is founded, and shall send to the Revenue-Authority by which the case was stated a copy of such judgment under the seal of the Court and the signature of the Registrar; and the Revenue-Authority shall dispose of the case accordingly, or, if the case arose on reference from any Revenue-officer subordinate to it, shall forward a copy of suoh judgment to such officer who shall dispose of the case conformably to such judgment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. It is contended by the respondent that the judgment of the High Court on the case stated by the Chief Revenue Authority is not a judgment within the meaning of clause x 39 of the Letters Patent. The word judgment' in the Letters Patent is used in a much wider sense than it is used in the Civil Procedure Code where it is defined as 'the statement given by the Judge of the grounds of a decree or order. ' In the Letters Patent the term ' judgment' is used to denote the decision of the Court and not a statement of the grounds on which the decision is based. For instance in Clause 15 it is stated that 'an appeal shall lie to the said High Court...from the judgment...of one Judge of the said High Court, or of one Judge of any Division Court, pursuant to Section 13 of the said recited Act (Government of India Act of 1915); and that an appeal shall also lie to the said High Court from the judgment, not being a sentence or order as aforesaid, of two or more Judges of the said High Court, or of such Division Court, wherever such Judges are equally divided in opinion, and do not amount in number to a majority of the whole of the Judges of the said High Court at the time being; but that the right of appeal from other judgments of Judges of the said High Court, or of such Division Court, shall be to Us, Our heirs or successors in Our, or Their Privy Council, as hereinafter provided.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In this particular case the reference came before a Bench of two Judges on the Appellate Side, and it is difficult to see how there has not been a judgment within the meaning of the word judgment as used in Clause 39 of the Letters Patent. If it is a judgment then there is no doubt that the case is one in which leave should be granted as the sum at issue is of the amount of more than Rs. 10,000. Therefore the rule should be made absolute.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Costs costs in the appeal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Shah, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. I agree.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'AIR1921Bom128(1); (1921)23BOMLR1102',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The Chief Revenue Authority, Bombay',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'tata-iron-steel-company-vs-revenue-authority',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '337845',
		(int) 1 => 'tata-iron-steel-company-vs-revenue-authority'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'The Tata Iron and Steel Company Vs the Chief Revenue Authority Bombay - Citation 337845 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '337845',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Application No. 448 of 1921',
		'appellant' => 'The Tata Iron and Steel Company',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'The Tata Iron and Steel Company Vs. the Chief Revenue Authority, Bombay',
		'casenote' => 'Privy Council-Leave to appeal-Letters Patent, Clause 39-Judgment-Decision of High Court on reference under Section 51 of the Income Tax Act (VII of 1918).;The decision of the High Court on a reference from the Chief Revenue Authority under Section 51 of the Indian Income Tax Act 1918 is a 'judgment' within the meaning of the Letters Patent, cl, 39; and an appeal lies to the Privy Council from the same. - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Mumbai',
		'court_type' => 'PC',
		'decidedon' => '1921-08-22',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J. and ; Shah, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.</p><p>1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council from the decision of the High Court on a reference from the Chief Revenue Authority under Section 51 of the Indian Income Tax Act (VII of 1918). Sub-section 3 of Section 51 is as follows:-</p><p>The High Court upon the hearing of any such case shall decide the questions raised thereby, and shall deliver its judgment thereon containing the grounds on which such decision is founded, and shall send to the Revenue-Authority by which the case was stated a copy of such judgment under the seal of the Court and the signature of the Registrar; and the Revenue-Authority shall dispose of the case accordingly, or, if the case arose on reference from any Revenue-officer subordinate to it, shall forward a copy of suoh judgment to such officer who shall dispose of the case conformably to such judgment.</p><p>2. It is contended by the respondent that the judgment of the High Court on the case stated by the Chief Revenue Authority is not a judgment within the meaning of clause x 39 of the Letters Patent. The word judgment' in the Letters Patent is used in a much wider sense than it is used in the Civil Procedure Code where it is defined as 'the statement given by the Judge of the grounds of a decree or order. ' In the Letters Patent the term ' judgment' is used to denote the decision of the Court and not a statement of the grounds on which the decision is based. For instance in Clause 15 it is stated that 'an appeal shall lie to the said High Court...from the judgment...of one Judge of the said High Court, or of one Judge of any Division Court, pursuant to Section 13 of the said recited Act (Government of India Act of 1915); and that an appeal shall also lie to the said High Court from the judgment, not being a sentence or order as aforesaid, of two or more Judges of the said High Court, or of such Division Court, wherever such Judges are equally divided in opinion, and do not amount in number to a majority of the whole of the Judges of the said High Court at the time being; but that the right of appeal from other judgments of Judges of the said High Court, or of such Division Court, shall be to Us, Our heirs or successors in Our, or Their Privy Council, as hereinafter provided.'</p><p>3. In this particular case the reference came before a Bench of two Judges on the Appellate Side, and it is difficult to see how there has not been a judgment within the meaning of the word judgment as used in Clause 39 of the Letters Patent. If it is a judgment then there is no doubt that the case is one in which leave should be granted as the sum at issue is of the amount of more than Rs. 10,000. Therefore the rule should be made absolute.</p><p>4. Costs costs in the appeal.</p><p>Shah, J.</p><p>5. I agree.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'AIR1921Bom128(1); (1921)23BOMLR1102',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The Chief Revenue Authority, Bombay',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'tata-iron-steel-company-vs-revenue-authority'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '337845',
	(int) 1 => 'tata-iron-steel-company-vs-revenue-authority'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/337845/tata-iron-steel-company-vs-revenue-authority'
$ctype = ''
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council from the decision of the High Court on a reference from the Chief Revenue Authority under Section 51 of the Indian Income Tax Act (VII of 1918). Sub-section 3 of Section 51 is as follows:-',
	(int) 2 => '<p>The High Court upon the hearing of any such case shall decide the questions raised thereby, and shall deliver its judgment thereon containing the grounds on which such decision is founded, and shall send to the Revenue-Authority by which the case was stated a copy of such judgment under the seal of the Court and the signature of the Registrar; and the Revenue-Authority shall dispose of the case accordingly, or, if the case arose on reference from any Revenue-officer subordinate to it, shall forward a copy of suoh judgment to such officer who shall dispose of the case conformably to such judgment.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>2. It is contended by the respondent that the judgment of the High Court on the case stated by the Chief Revenue Authority is not a judgment within the meaning of clause x 39 of the Letters Patent. The word judgment' in the Letters Patent is used in a much wider sense than it is used in the Civil Procedure Code where it is defined as 'the statement given by the Judge of the grounds of a decree or order. ' In the Letters Patent the term ' judgment' is used to denote the decision of the Court and not a statement of the grounds on which the decision is based. For instance in Clause 15 it is stated that 'an appeal shall lie to the said High Court...from the judgment...of one Judge of the said High Court, or of one Judge of any Division Court, pursuant to Section 13 of the said recited Act (Government of India Act of 1915); and that an appeal shall also lie to the said High Court from the judgment, not being a sentence or order as aforesaid, of two or more Judges of the said High Court, or of such Division Court, wherever such Judges are equally divided in opinion, and do not amount in number to a majority of the whole of the Judges of the said High Court at the time being; but that the right of appeal from other judgments of Judges of the said High Court, or of such Division Court, shall be to Us, Our heirs or successors in Our, or Their Privy Council, as hereinafter provided.'',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. In this particular case the reference came before a Bench of two Judges on the Appellate Side, and it is difficult to see how there has not been a judgment within the meaning of the word judgment as used in Clause 39 of the Letters Patent. If it is a judgment then there is no doubt that the case is one in which leave should be granted as the sum at issue is of the amount of more than Rs. 10,000. Therefore the rule should be made absolute.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. Costs costs in the appeal.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>Shah, J.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>5. I agree.<p>',
	(int) 8 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 9
$i = (int) 8
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Subject	Direct Taxation
Court	Mumbai
Decided On	Aug-22-1921
Case Number	Civil Application No. 448 of 1921
Judge	Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J. and ; Shah, J.
Reported in	AIR1921Bom128(1); (1921)23BOMLR1102
Appellant	The Tata Iron and Steel Company
Respondent	The Chief Revenue Authority, Bombay

The Tata Iron and Steel Company Vs. the Chief Revenue Authority, Bombay - Court Judgment