Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1954Cal415,58CWN468
..... the charter of 1774 defines the admiralty jurisdiction of the supreme court. it made the supreme court of judicature, at port william in bengal, the court of admiralty, in and for the provinces, countries or districts, of bengal, behar and orissa, and all other territories and islands adjacent thereunto. it gave power to the supreme court to hear, examine, try and determine and ..... of this high court in calcutta is the same as the admiralty jurisdiction in the high court in england. mr. justice panckridge took the same view on this point in -- 'bengal assam steamship co., ltd. v. shankar maru' : air1937cal122 .14. the crux of the problem of interpretation presented in this case before me arises, however, on the language of proviso (a .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1954Ori225
..... of rule 81, defence of india rules by an amending notification no. 5-dc (28)/ 43, dated 18-5-1943 by which the provincial governments of assam, bengal, bihar and orissa were, in effect, prohibited from restricting movement, transport, distribution, disposal etc. of foodgrains within those four provinces with effect from 18-5-1943.by another notification no. ..... to the following effect:'provided further that any licence issued, or deemed to tie issued, under this clause in any of the four provinces of assam, bengal, bihar and orissa and for the time being in force in the province of issue shall be as valid in each of the other three provinces as if it had ..... that province.'it is a notorious fact that this privilege of unrestricted inter-provincial movement of foodgrains amongst the said four provinces though welcomed by bengal was keenly resented by orissa and bihar and after some agitation the government of india withdraw that privilege by notification no. c. g. 604/2 dated 16-8-1943. the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [1945]13ITR224(All)
..... to deal,' observe that 'little can be gained by attempting to reason from one to the other'. again in kamakshya narain singh v. commissioner of income-tax, bihar & orissa, their lordships observed that 'the indian income-tax act of 1922, which was a consolidating act, is both in the general frame-work and its particular provisions ..... profits into his income account of the following year made not the least difference.again in r. b. dhakeshwar prasad narain singh v. commissioner of income-tax, bihar & orissa, it was held by a full bench of the madras high court that an unrealised interest is assessable to income-tax, unless the method of accounting regularly ..... of the construction of indian statutes, decisions on the construction of english acts of parliament are misleading. their lordships of the privy council in commissioner of income-tax, bengal v. shaw wallace & company, after pointing out that the indian income-tax act is not in pari materia with english income-tax statutes and 'is less .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1954All705
..... having retrospective applicability. learned counsel for the opposite parties also cited a number of decisions of the calcutta, madras, nagpur, punjab, orissa and assam 'high courts reported in -- 'rishindra nath v. sakti bhusan : air1950cal512 ; - 'bimala pro-sad v. state of west bengal : air1951cal258 ; -- 'mahamad beary v. hassan kutty : air1951mad280 ; -- 'rajaram dadu v. the state', air 1951 nag 443 (fb) (h); -- 'mahabir parshad ..... that order. learned counsel for the petitioner also referred me to two other decisions of the calcutta high court in -- 'rajendra kumar v. govt. of west bengal : air1952cal573 and -- 'hurdeodas agarwala v. state of west bengal : air1952cal857 , a decision of the rajasthan high court in -- 'manohar lal v. custodian, rajasthan, jodhpur and a decision of the madhya bharat in --'harendranath sharma v .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1954Mad1030
..... made it clear in the definition itself that the dealer must be carrying on the business of selling in that state: see e.g., section 2 (c) of the bengal, bihar, madhya pradesh, orissa and u. p. acts and section 2 (d) of the punjab act. as it has now been held by the supreme court in ' : 1953crilj1105 ', the sale must be ..... . what is deemed to be a sale is enlarged by other explanations, but the main definition is the same in all the acts. see section 2 cg) of the bengal, bihar, madhya pradesh, orissa and u. p. acts and section 2 (h) of the madras and punjab acts. the supreme court in - 'poppatlal shah v. state of madras' : 1953crilj1105 has set at ..... core-cochin and uttar pradesli, the term includes a, person who carries on the business of purchasing goods. in almost all the acts except the madras, travancore-cochin, mysore and bengal acts a 'dealer' has been defined as a person who sells or supplies goods. there does not seem to tie any special significance for the word 'supplies'. if the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1954SC569; (1954)IIMLJ344(SC); [1955]1SCR290
..... area which really concerns us, was free from municipal control. 13. in 1922 the provincial legislature enacted the bihar and orissa municipal act 1922 (bihar and orissa act vii of 1922). it repealed the whole of the bengal municipal act of 1884 and substituted the new act of 1922 for it. this only affected the patna city area ..... the area which we have called patna village was still unaffected. 14. understandably, the new province preferred its own legislation to that of bengal. but despite the passing of the bihar and orissa municipal act in 1922, the local government, acting under section 3(1)(f) of the patna administration act, 1915, could only extend ..... 15. three years later, the governor cancelled all previous notifications extending sections of the bengal act of 1884, and the bihar an orissa act of 1922, to the patna administration area. in their places he picked out certain sections of the bihar and orissa act of 1922, modified others, and extended the lot so selected and modified to .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1956Cal242,[1955]28ITR510(Cal)
..... loss of the sovereign status, they were still being regarded by a fiction, as it were, as occupying the position of the subedar of the subas of bengal, bihar and orissa.8. when, however, the government came to consider the report of the commissioners and have another act passed defining more precisely the nature of the properties and ..... fictional or titular sovereignty was still accorded to him. in course of time, instead of the stipend and allowances being provided out of the public revenues of bengal, bihar and orissa, certain properties came to be set apart, which were held by the government and the income from which was applied to the payment of the stipend and ..... the receipt of income from them, but the ownership lies vested in the government. the facts are as follows :5. the assessee is the premier nobleman of bengal, bihar and orissa and that status rests on the fact that it was from an ancestor, of his, who was the last independent or semi-independent sovereign, that the british .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Nagpur
Reported in : 195629ITR194(Nag.)
..... taxing authorities to prove that it is fictitious : seth chhogalal v. commissioner of income-tax, c.p. and berar. in sovaram jokhiram v. commissioner of income-tax, bihar and orissa, it was held that where property stands in the name of the assessees wife, it is for the income-tax officer to prove that she is only the benamidar ..... a law different from what has been stated in mahabir prasad munna lal v. commissioner of income-tax, in lal mohan krishan lal paul v.commissioner of income-tax, bengal, the question was whether the income-tax officer or the appellate authority was legally bound to prove by "positive evidence" that a sum credited in the assessees books ..... his contention. this decision does not differ from mahabir prasad munna lal. v. commissioner of income-tax.13. in j. a. shellim v. commissioner of income-tax, bengal, the assessees bank accounts showed considerable credits for a period of one year for which he did not give any information as to their source, and it was for reason .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1955Kant116; AIR1955Mys116; 1955CriLJ1272
..... the same view has been expressed by their lordships of the supreme court in the cases so-ported in -- 'sakhawant ali v. state of orissa', (s) air 1935 s.c. 166 (d), and -- 'budhan choudhry v. state of bihar', (s) : 1955crilj374 (e). in this connection, i would like to refer to some cases of the other high courts in the indian union ..... the territory of india.'the principle underlying article 14 of the constitution has been clearly explained by the supreme court in the three cases reported in--'state of west bengal v. anwar ali sarkar', : 1952crilj510 (a), -- 'kathi raning rawat v. state of saurashtra : 1952crilj805 (b), and -- 'kedar nalh v. state of west ..... bengal', : 1953crilj1621 (c), the first two cases were fully considered by their lordships of the supreme court in the third case i.e., : 1953crilj1621 (c), wherein their lordships have observed .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1955SC661; [1955]2SCR603; [1955]6STC446(SC)
..... . hence the present appeal. 4. in view of the importance of the issues involved in this appeal the states of madras, uttar pradesh, madhya pradesh, west bengal, orissa, punjab, pepsu, mysore, travancore-cochin and rajasthan applied for and obtained leave to intervene in this appeal. similar leave was applied for by and was granted to ..... thereof is made, shall, irrespective of the place where the said contract is made, be deemed for the purposes of this act to have taken place in the province. 205. bihar sales-tax act, 1947. 206. 'sale' means * * * any transfer of property in goods for cash or deferred payment or other valuable consideration.............. * * * *207. ..... the explanation truly construed, a seller could be taxed only if he is within the state, and (2) that the goods were actually delivered not in bihar but in bengal and that therefore the explanation did not apply. the argument in support of the first ground was that as the explanation enacts that the sale or purchase - .....
Tag this Judgment!