Privy Council Court June 1948 Judgments

The Premier Construction Co. Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax, ...

Court: Privy Council

Sir John Beaumont: This is an appeal from a judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay dated 27th March 1945, given upon the reference of a question of law made to the Court under S. 66 (1), Income-tax Act, by the Appellate Tribunal. [2] The question referred to the High Court was in the following terms: "Whether, in the circumstances of this case, that portion of the income received by the assessee from the principal company of Marsland Price and Company Limited which is proportionate to the 'agricultural income' earned by the principal company, is 'agricultural income' within the meaning of S. 2 (1), Income-tax Act, 1922, and exempt from assessment under the provisions of S. 4 (3) (viii) of the Act." [3] The High Court answered this question in the negative, taking the same view of the law as had been taken by the Income-tax Officer, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay, and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. Their Lordships have no doubt that the view u...

Ernest Prempeh and Others Vs. the King

Court: Privy Council

Lord Oaksey: This is an appeal from a judgment of the West African Court of Appeal (Criminal Jurisdiction) affirming the conviction of the four appellants on the first count and quashing it on the second count of the information preferred against them in the Supreme Court of the Gold Coast. [2] On 28 - 2 - 1944, a man named Akyea Mensah, the father of one Ohemeng and the brother - in - law of one Yaa Amponsah was reported missing and was still missing at the date of the trial in December 1944. In July 1S44, eight persons including four brothers of accused 3 were arrested and charged with the murder of Akyea Mensah. [3] On 4 - 12 - 1944, the four appellants were charged on information on the following counts: First Court; Conspiracy to abet Perjury. Contrary to sections 49 (1), 46 (1) and 359 of the Criminal Code. Particulars of Offence: Ernest Prempeh, Kenyon Vincent Daley, Yaw Boakye alias Eric Ofori Atta and Maria Smith, on divers days in the month of July 1944, in Ashanti, agreed...

Sara Vesraswami Alias Sara Veerraju Vs. Talluri Narayya (Deceased) and ...

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1949PC32

Lord Mac Dermott: These consolidated appeals are from two judgments and two decrees dated 3rd February 1943, of the High Court of Judicature at Madras which reversed a judgment and two decrees dated 29th July 1941, of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Cocanada. [2] The appeals arise out of two connected suits. Of these one - No. 38 of 1940 - was brought by the appellant, Sara Veeraswami or Veerraju, (hereinafter called the appellant-plaintiff) against respondents 1 and 2 for specific performance of an alleged oral agreement to reconvey certain properties which had been sold to them. The other suit - No. 32 of 1940 - was brought by these respondents against the appellants and others to obtain possession of the said properties. The first named respondent having died in the course of the proceedings his legal representative, respondent 3 was added as a party to each suit. [3] The circumstances of the dispute leading to this litigation have been fully stated in the judgments of the Cou...

Kadappa Bapurao Desai Vs. Lingappa Ramchandra Desai

Court: Privy Council

Sir John Beaumont: This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, dated 8th March 1940, which reversed a judgment and decree of the Joint First Class Subordinate Judge of Belgaum, dated 28th October 1937, dismissing the plaintiff's suit with costs. [2] The property in suit is an impartible estate governed by the rule of lineal primogeniture and is Deshgat, Patilki and Nadgavdki Watan property. It consists of land subject to Government assessment and is governed by the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879, and the Bombay Hereditary Offices Act III [3] of 1874 (known as the Watan Act) as amended by Act v [5] of 1886. The parties are Hindus, subject to the Bombay school of the Mitakshara Law. [3] The question for decision in this appeal is as to the nature of a transaction which took place in the year 1887. On that date Rayappa and his younger brother Mallappa were members of a joint family. Whether the family included the members of a younger branch to ...

parties : Governor-general in Council, Represented by the General Mana ...

Court: Privy Council

Lord Simonds: In this appeal, which is brought from a judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Madras affirming a judgment of the principal Subordinate Judge at Madura, two main questions arise for consideration. The first, which turns upon the true meaning and effect of certain sections of the Railways Act (IX [9] of 1890), is whether in the circumstances of the case and upon a true construction of that Act and particularly of the proviso contained in S. 11 (3) (b) thereof the Provincial Government of Madras had power to issue a requisition to the South Indian Railway Company, which will be referred to as "the Railway," to enlarge at its own cost one of its culverts from a water way of 6 feet to one of 20 feet as a further or additional accommodation work for the use (as the appellant alleges) of the respondent, the Municipal Council of Madura. The second question, which only arises if the Provincial Government had no such power, is whether the Railway is under and by virtue of the...

A.J.E.G. Caspersz Vs. the King

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1949PC22

Lord Oaksey: This is an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court of Ceylon dated 7th March 1946, which affirmed the conviction of the appellant by the District Court of Trincomalie on 13th November 1945, but substituted for a sentence of six months' rigorous imprisonment a fine of Rs. 500 and imprisonment till the rising of the Court. The appellant paid the fine and served the sentence of imprisonment. [2] At the conclusion of the arguments their Lordships announced that they would humbly advise His Majesty that the appeal should be dismissed, and they now state their reasons. [3] The charge against the appellant was that between 10th April and 19th May 1944, he, being entrusted as executive engineer at Trincomalie of the Public Works Department with money to pay overseers for rubble bottoming on specified parts of the Trincomalie-Batticaloa road, committed a criminal breach of trust in respect of Rs. 6,218,48 out of such money. [4] The charge was under S. 392, Penal Code, and the f...