Privy Council Court July 1949 Judgments

Messrs Mohanlal Hargovind of Jubbulpore Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax ...

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1949PC311

Lord Greene: This appeal raises a short question as to the application of S. 10 (2), para. xii, Income-tax Act, 1922, as amended by the Income-tax (Amendment) Act, 1969, in respect of assessments on the appellants for the years 1940-1 and 1941-2. That paragraph provides that in computing profits or gains of a business for the purpose of income-tax an allowance is to be made for "any expenditure (not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee) laid out or expended wholly or exclusively for the purpose of such business." Certain expenditure claimed by the assessee to be a permissible deduction under this paragraph and admitted to have been made "wholly and exclusively for the purpose" of the business of the appellants was disallowed by the Income-tax Officer. His order was confirmed successively by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Nagpur, and by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay. Application was made to that Tribunal for a r...

Durga Prosad Chamria and Another Vs. Sewkishendas Bhattar and Others

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1949PC334

Lord Radcliffe: The purpose of this appeal is to secure the setting aside of an interim award made on 9th January 1941, by Sir Manmatha Nath Mukherjee, sitting as sole arbitrator appointed by agreement of the parties to a partnership suit. An application by appellant 1 to set aside, remit or modify the award was dismissed by the High Court at Calcutta on 7th March 1941, and on 10th March 1941, the same Court made a decree that the award should be carried into effect. An appeal was taken to the High Court in its appellate jurisdiction and on 28th May 1946, that appeal was dismissed. It is from the judgment and orders made on that appeal that the present appeal reaches this Board. [2] It is necessary to make some reference to the facts that led up to the arbitration in order to appreciate what it is of which the appellants complain. The arbitration concerned the affairs of a partnership business known as Hurdutroy Chamria "or Hurdutroy Chamris and Co. The business seems to have been orig...

Ghulam Sarwar Khan and Others Vs. Abdul Wahab Khan and Others

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1949PC330

Lord Simonds: In this appeal which is brought from a judgment and decree of the Judicial Commissioner, North West Frontier Province, dated 28th July 1943, a large number of questions have been debated upon which their Lordships think it unnecessary to express any opinion. The question which is decisive of the matters in dispute is a simple one and the relevant facts can be shortly stated. [2] The first respondent to this appeal, Abdul Wahab Khan, claiming that under and by virtue of a deed of 23rd August 1939, he had acquired from one K. B. Muqarrab Khan, since deceased, all the rights which the latter enjoyed under a certain mortgage dated 25th May 1921, brought the suit out of which this appeal arises to enforce his rights as mortgagee under that mortgage. His suit was dismissed on various grounds by the Additional Subordinate Judge, Peshawar, on 24th November 1942, but his appeal from that decision was substantially allowed by the Court of the Judicial Commissioner. [3] It appears t...

V. Rm. Km. M. Kulandaivelan Chettiar Vs. Official Receiver of South Ar ...

Court: Privy Council

Lord Reid: The appellant is the son of Muthappa Chetti, defendant 2 and respondent 3 in this suit, and the deceased Deivanai Achi who were both members of the Nattukottai Chetti community. On the occasion of their marriage in 1897 a hundi or bill for Rs. 3,062-8-0 was given by the bride's family to the husband's father Muthayya Chetti and an entry was made in the books of Muthayya Chetti's firm on 16th December 1897, in the following terms: "Credit- In respect of sending the hundial obtained from V. T. M. for streedhanam amount to R. M. AR. AR. of Madras as per the letter of the said person, principal Rs. 3,062-8-0 ; interest Rs. 66-3-6 ; in all as per the two items together with Madura current rate of interest as settled in the presence of 1. P. R. K. M. and 2. A. AR. S. as on 17th of the current Avani (31st August 1897) ...... Rs. 3,128-11-6". [2] V. T. M. was the bride's family vilasam and P. R. K. M and A. AR. S. were members of the family. So far there is no dispute but there is n...

Sha Shivraj Gopalji Vs. Edappakath Ayissa Biand Others

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1949PC302

Lord Simonds: In this appeal, which is brought from a judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Madras setting aside a judgment and order of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Cochin, the appellant claims that he is entitled to proceed in execution against certain properties of the respondents under circumstances which must be somewhat fully set out. [2] The respondents are Mappilla Mohammedans of Malbar in the Province of Madras and are governed by the Marumakkathayam law under which descent is traced in the female line. Their joint family like that of the local Hindus is known as a tarwad and the branches of the tarwad as tavazhi. Formerly the members of a tarwad had only a right of maintenance and could not enforce a partition of the family properties, but under the Mappilla Marumakkattayam Act, 1938 (Madras Act No. XVII [17] of 1939), they can obtain a share of the properties by partition or alternatively have the tarwad properties registered as impartible. [3] The e...

Bereng Griffith Lerotholi and Others Vs. the King

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1950PC10

LORD REID: On 15th November 1948, in the High Court of Basutoland the appellants were found guilty of the murder of Meleke Ntai and sentenced to death. The principal evidence against them was the evidence of four accomplices and the main ground of this appeal was that the learned Judge who convicted the appellants misdirected himself in law in considering the evidence of the accomplices. The trial in this case took place before the decision of the Board in Tumahole Bereng and others v. The King, 1949 AC 253: (AIR (36) 1949 PC 172). It was admitted that the learned Judge in this case properly applied the law as it was thought to be in Basutoland before that decision, bat it was argued that if the grounds of decision in Tumahole Bereng's case (1949 AC 253 : AIR (36) 1949 PC 172) are applied in this case these convictions cannot stand. Their Lordships must therefore first consider what was decided in Tumahole's case (1949 AC 358 : AIR (36) 1949 PC 173). 2. The law in Basutoland with regar...

Jaduram Vs. Ramdassi

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1949PC304

Lord Morton of Henryton: This is an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court of Fiji dated 11th October 1946, on an originating summons in the matter of the estate of Nanhu deceased. [2] Until his death, Nanhu carried on business as a merchant in partnership with his brother Jagannath under the style of Jagannath Nanhu and Co. [3] Nanhu made his will on 21st August 1937, in the following terms: "This is the last will and testament of me Nanhu son of Birma of Labasa on the Island of Vanualevu in Fiji. Merchant. I hereby Revoke all former Wills and other Testamentary writings by me heretofore made And I Declare this to be my last and only Will and Testament. I appoint my brother Jagannath Son of Birma Merchant who is also my partner to be my sole executor and trustee. I Give Devise and Bequeath unto my said trustee all real and personal property of whatsoever nature and wheresoever situate of or to which I may be entitled or over which I may have a disposing power at the time of my de...

Sri Sri Shiba Prasad Singh, Deceased, Now Represented by Kali Prasad S ...

Court: Privy Council

Lord Reid: The appellant is the owner of the Jharia estate. In 1898 his predecessor granted a mining lease of a part of that estate to the predecessor of respondent 1. The terms of that lease are set out in a kabuliyat of 22nd October, 1898, which begins "This kabuliyat regarding Mourushi Mukarrari, i.e. permanent settlement on commission of coal land is executed to the following effect." The provision the meaning of which is in dispute in the present litigation is as follows : "1. That for the quantity of coal which I shall raise from the leasehold entire 1103 bighas 13 kathas of coal land of Ektra I shall pay commission, i. e., royalty on steam coal, rubble coal, hard coke and soft coke at the rate of 3 annas pet ton and for rubble and dust for burning bricks at 1 anna 6 pies per ton. Be it stated that I shall pay royalty at the present fixed rate for the coals, which will be despatched by the East Indian Railway line. But in rotate if the Bengal Nagpur Railway line is constructed an...

A. Veerayya Vandayar and Others Vs. Sivagami Achi and Another

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1949PC319

Sir John Beaumont: This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court at Madras dated 13th November 1944, modifying a decree of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Tanjore dated 18th July 1941. [2] The suit out of which this appeal arises was brought by Receivers appointed by the Court to collect the dues upon a mortgage bond dated 19th April 1926. The mortgage was executed by appellant 1, who was defendant 1 in the suit, on behalf of himself and his minor sons appellants 3 and 4, who were defendants 3 and 4, and by defendant 2 and members of his joint family who were defendants 5, 6 and 7. The suit, which was to enforce the mortgage, was commenced on 6th April 1937 and the plaintiffs who are respondents in this appeal, were the persons interested in the mortgage money. The defences originally raised are no longer relevant. On 22nd March 1938, the Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act, 1938 (Madras Act, IV [4] of 1938) (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") was passed with th...

Lennox Arthur Patrick O'Reilly and Others Vs. Cyril Cuthbert Gittens

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1949PC313

Lord Morton of Henryton: This appeal and cross-appeal arise out of an action, brought by Dr. Cyril Cuthbert Gittens (hereafter called the respondent) as plaintiff against the appellants, which succeeds, in part and failed in part. [2] The appellants were at all material times the stewards of the Trinidad Turf Club. That club is the recognised turf authority in the Colony of Trinidad and Tobago, and exercises its powers and jurisdiction by the stewards of the club. The respondent is a dental surgeon and an owner and trainer of racehorses. At all material times the respondent held a trainer's licence which expressly provided as follows : "This licence is issued subject to the rules, regulations and resolutions of the Trinidad Turf Club for the time being and may be withdrawn or suspended by the stewards of that club in their absolute discretion, and such withdrawal or suspension may be published in any local newspaper or newspapers, for any reason which may seem proper to such Stewards,...