Privy Council Court February 1945 Judgments

Maharajah of Pithapuram Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras

Court: Privy Council

Lord Thankerton: This appeal arises on a reference by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras, on the requisition of the appellant, under S. 66 (a), Income-tax Act, 1922, of the following question of law, viz. : "Whether the income of the year 1938-39 derived from the assets comprised in the revocable instruments of trust and settlement executed by the petitioner in favour of his four daughters on 5th April 1938, i. e., before the commencement of the Indian Income-tax Act, 7 of 1939, can be deemed to be income of the petitioner under revocable transfers of assets as contemplated by cl.(c) of sub-s. (1) of S. 16, Indian Income-tax Act, 11 of 1922, as amended by the Indian Income-tax (Amendment) Act 7 of 1939." For the year 1939-1910, the appellant was assessed to income-tax on a total income of Rs. 2,19,610, which included a sum of Rupees 1,77,874, representing the total of the income arising from assets settled on his four daughters by the appellant by four deeds, all dated 6th April 1...

Thakur Lalta Bakhsh Singh and Others Vs. Lala Phool Chand and Others

Court: Privy Council

Sir Madhavan Nair: This is an appeal from a decree of the Chief Court of Oudh dated 12th December 1939, which modified a decree of the Additional Civil Judge of Bara Banki dated 12th October 1936, by affirming the said decree on condition of respondents 1 to 3 hereinafter called the respondents (who were plaintiffs 2, 3 and 4 in the suit) paying the appellants (defendants 1 to 5) a sum of Rs. 13,592. The said decree awarded the respondents 7/20th (equivalent to 6 annas 7 1/5 pies) share in the property claimed in the suit. The suit out of which this appeal arises was originally brought to recover possession of the entire property (16 annas share) mentioned in the plaint; but it came to be confined to a 9 annas share only. Plaintiff 1 considering himself entitled to the entire property in suit under a will dated 30th. March 1896, executed by one Prag Baksh Singh (hereinafter called the "testator"), sold a 9 annas share of it to the respondents by means of two successive sale deeds in 19...

Lola Jairam Das and Others Vs. Emperor

Court: Privy Council

Lord Russell of Killowen: This appeal raises an important question, viz., whether a High Court in India has power to grant bail to a person who has been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment, and to whom His Majesty in Council has given special leave to appeal against his conviction or sentence. The questions which arise for consideration in such a case are of such a nature that they can only, their Lordships think, be properly dealt with by some authority in India possessing either knowledge of the relevant facts, or the means of acquiring that knowledge; but whether a High Court in India has power to grant bail in the circumstances indicated is a matter upon which diverse views have been expressed in the Courts in India, and which comes before the Board for the first time, in the following circumstances: The appellants were convicted under S. 120B read with S. 420, Penal Code, and sentenced to terms of rigorous imprisonment. On appeal, the High Court of Lahore upheld the conviction...

Manindra Chandra Lala Vs. Mahaluxmi Bank Limited

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1945PC105

Lord Thankerton: This is an appeal in forma pauperis by special leave from and judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal, dated 27th July 1937, which set aside the judgment and decree of the District Judge of Chittagong, dated 20th November 1934, and dismissed the appellant's application for probate of the will of his paternal uncle, Girija Kripa Lala, who died on 1st January 1904. In his application for probate, filed on 9th November 1933, the appellant, as executor, propounds a will dated 80th December 1903, two days before the death of the testator. The District Judge found for the execution and attestation of the will, and the High Court reversed this decision on a pure question of fact. The testator and his younger brother, Saroda, who is the father of the appellant, constituted a joint Hindu family governed by the Dayabhaga school of Hindu law. The testator left a widow, Srimati Bama Sundari, but no issue. At that date, the appellant, who was t...