Privy Council Court May 1945 Judgments

Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay, Sind and Baluchistan Vs. P.E. Pols ...

Court: Privy Council

Lord Simonds: This appeal, which is brought from a judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, raises a difficult question of Indian income-tax law upon which different views have been expressed by the High Courts of Bombay and Madras. The question can be briefly stated. It is whether the word "discontinued" in S. 25 (3), Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter called "the 1922 Act"), as amended by the Income-tax (Amendment) Act, 1939 (hereinafter called "the amending Act"), means only a complete cessation of the business or whether it also includes the case of discontinuance of the business by the person formerly, carrying it on as the result of the transfer or assignment of that business to another person who thereafter carries it on. In the case under appeal the High Court at Bombay (Beaumont C. J. and Kania J.) has given the wider meaning to the word. In (1943) 11 ITR 247 (1) the High Court at Madras has given it the narrower meaning. The respondent P. E. Polson had from some dat...

Rao Sobhagsingh Vs. Rao Ranjitsingh

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1945PC132

Lord Thankerton: These are consolidated appeals from a judgment and two decrees of the Court of the Additional Judicial Commissioner, Central Provinces, dated 31st August 1935, which set aside the judgment and two orders of the District Judge, Nimar, dated 2nd January 1931, and restored the judgment and two decrees of the Subordinate Judge, Khandwa, dated 25th June 1930. The respondent, who is plaintiff in both suits, did not appear in these appeals. The appellant was defendant in both suits, in which the plaintiff claims a half share in the income of the offerings made by pilgrims to the idol of Shree Onkarji at the time of certain annual fairs at Mandhata. The first suit, No. 32 of 1924, relates to the Kartiki fair of 1920, and the second suit, No. 45 of 1925, relates to the Kartiki and Sheoratri fairs of 1923 and Baishakhi fair of 1924. The plaintiff claims in both suits a half share of the income from the entire offerings; the defendant contends in both suits that he is entitled to...

Parashuram Detaram Shamdasani Vs. Emperor

Court: Privy Council

Lord Goddard: This is an appeal from an order of the High Court of Bombay made by Kania J. adjudging that the appellant was guilty of a contempt of Court, committing him to prison for three months, and ordering him to pay a fine of Rs. 1000. On the day after the order was made, the appellant applied to the learned Judge for a modification of the sentence expressing sincere and unreserved regret for having used the expressions which were held to be a contempt, and the sentence was then reduced to one of eight days' imprisonment but no alteration was made in the fine. The sentence of imprisonment was served and the appellant then applied to the High Court in its appellate criminal jurisdiction for a certificate that the case was one fit for appeal to His Majesty in Council under cl. 41 of the Amended Letters Patent of 1865. This application was opposed by the Advocate-General, who submitted there was no jurisdiction to grant it, as it was said that the clause in question did not apply to...

Mt. Inder Kuer Vs. Mt. Pirthipal Kuer and Another

Court: Privy Council

Sir Madhavan Nair: This is an appeal from the decree of the Chief Court of Oudh dated 27th February 1940, which reversed the decree of the Civil Judge, Sitapur, dated 30th September 1936, and decreed the plaintiffs' suit. The appellant before the board was defendant 2 in the suit, the surviving widow of one Mathura Singh, deceased. The first and the only other defendant, her co-widow, did not join the appellant in filing this appeal. She was therefore made respondent 3. During the pendency of the appeal she died and her name was removed; and the appellant was made her heir and legal representative by the order of the Chief Court. The deceased husband of respondent 1, and respondent 2, were the original plaintiffs in the suit. They will be referred to as the respondents. The relationship of the parties to the suit is shown in the following genealogical table : One Bakhtawar Singh, a Hindu, had three sons, Raghubar, Ram Dayal and Ram Sahai. Of these, Raghubar and Ram Dayal had each one s...

Midnapore Zamindary Co. Ltd. Vs. Kumar Narendra Nath Roy and Others

Court: Privy Council

Sir Madhavan Nair: This is an appeal from a decree of the High Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal, dated 19th July 1939 which varied the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Nadia, dated 17th May 1937, and decreed the suit of the original respondent (hereinafter referred to as "the respondent") in part. The appellant before the Board is the defendant, the Midnapore Zemindary Co. Ltd., and the respondents are the sons of the deceased respondent and his heirs. The main question in the appeal relates to the respective titles of the parties to the suit properties. The appeal arises out of a suit instituted by "the respondent" for a declaration of his zemindary title to the properties set out in the schedules to the plaint, for cancellation of the tenures described therein, and for possession of the lands described in the four schedules attached thereto, by evicting the appellant company, and for mesne profits. The suit properties are comprised in Estate Tauzi No. 491. This estate ...