Court : US Supreme Court
Mason v. Sargent - 104 U.S. 689 (1881) U.S. Supreme Court Mason v. Sargent, 104 U.S. 689 (1881) Mason v. Sargent 104 U.S. 689 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS Syllabus A testator who died Dec. 4, 1867, bequeathed certain personal property to trustees, to be held by them in trust for his widow during her life, and on her death to his children. She died June 17, 1872. Held that a legacy tax upon the property was, without authority of law, assessed in April, 1873, as no right to the payment thereof had accrued at the date when the act of July 14, 1870, c. 255, 16 Stat. 256, repealing such tax, took effect. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. MR. JUSTICE MATTHEWS delivered the opinion of the Court. The action was brought by William P. Mason and Walter C. Cabot, to recover back the amount of a legacy tax, paid, under protest, by them to John Sargent, the defendant, as collector of internal revenue for the Fourth Ma...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Louisville Water Co. v. Clark - 143 U.S. 1 (1892) U.S. Supreme Court Louisville Water Co. v. Clark, 143 U.S. 1 (1892) Louisville Water Company v. Clark No. 1024 Argued November 23-24, 1891 Decided January 18, 1892 143 U.S. 1 ERROR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KENTUCKY Syllabus The immunity from taxation conferred upon the Louisville Water Company by the Legislature of Kentucky by the Act of April 22, 1882, 1 Sess. acts, 1882, 915, was withdrawn by the General Revenue Act of May 17, 1886, Gen.Stats. 188$, c. 92. The immunity from taxation granted to the company by the said act of 1882 was accompanied by the condition expressed in the Act of February 14, 1856, 2 Rev.Stats.Ky. 121, and made part of every subsequent statute, when not otherwise expressly declared, that by amendment or repeal of the former act such immunity could be withdrawn. The withdrawal of the exemption from taxation conferred upon the company by the act of 1882 put an end to the obligation, imp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1980(1)KarLJ200; (1980)ILLJ123Kant
Rama Jois, J.1. In these four writ appeals, preferred against the orders of the single Judge dismissing the four writ petitions presented under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, by registered owners of coffee estates under the Indian Coffee Act, 1942 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', the following question of law arises for consideration : 'Whether the Coffee Board, is an industry carried on by or under the authority of any Department of the Central Government or is an institution established not for purposes of profit, and consequently excepted from the application of the Payment of Bonus Act in view of cls. (iv) and (v) (c), respectively, of S. 32 of the Act ?' 2. The appellants are registered owners of coffee estates under the Act. The first respondent-Coffee Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board') has been brought into existence by the Act. With the approval of the Central Government, the Board decided to pay bonus to its employees under the provisions of the Payme...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Union Pacific Railway Co. v. Cheyenne - 113 U.S. 516 (1885) U.S. Supreme Court Union Pacific Railway Co. v. Cheyenne, 113 U.S. 516 (1885) Union Pacific Railway Company v. Cheyenne Argued November 18-19, 1884 Decided March 2, 1885 113 U.S. 516 APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY OF WYOMING Syllabus The Act of the Legislature of Wyoming, passed December 13, 1879, which required the state auditor to furnish to the territorial board of equalization a list for assessment and taxation of the roadbed, superstructure, and other enumerated property of every railroad and telegraph company in the territory when any portion of the property of such company was situated in Page 113 U. S. 517 more than one county, and which required the board to value and assess the property of the corporation for each mile of its road or line, and to certify to the county clerks of the counties in which the property was situated the assessment per mile, specifying the number of miles and amou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1985Raj104; 1984()WLN291
ORDERGuman Mal Lodha, J. 1. These writ, petitions as per Schedules A & B raise common questions of law, though there may be some, addotopma; features in some of the petitions, a joint request was made by the learned counsel for the petitioners M/s. M. Mridul, and I.J. Lodha, on behalf of the petitioner and A.K. Mathur. Additional Advocate General on behalf of the Slate of Rajasthan, that it would be in the interest of justice if they all are heard and decided together. Since I was of the view that the request was fair and reasonable, all these writ petitions are being decided by this common judgment.2. All the writ petitioners are claiming agricultural land in various parts of Sri Ganganagar district of Rajasthan State and their long drawn battle relates to the effort of the respondents to either take possession of some land by declaring surplus or refuseallotment under the various laws which would be referred a little later, and the rival efforts of the petitioners to hold on the land...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Veach v. Rice - 131 U.S. 293 (1889) U.S. Supreme Court Veach v. Rice, 131 U.S. 293 (1889) Veach v. Rice No. 208 Argued March 15, 18, 1889 Decided May 13, 1889 131 U.S. 293 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA Syllabus The judgments of Courts of Ordinary in Georgia in respect to subject matter within their jurisdiction are no more open to collateral attack than those of any other court. The judgment of the Court of Ordinary allowing the resignation of one of two administrators upon proceedings had pursuant to statute, and discharging him after he had accounted to his co-administrator, and the latter had given a new bond, operated to exonerate the sureties upon the joint bond of both from liability for a devastavit committed after such order of discharge. Cross-bills are necessary where certain defendants seek affirmative relief against their codefendants. Where the Ordinary takes an administrator's bond in good faith, a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1947Cal148
Gentle, J.1. This reference by the Commissioner of Income-tax of Calcutta arises out of a deed of settlement dated 11-3-1938 executed by Sm. Charusila Dassi (hereinafter called 'the Settlor') in favour of herself, her deceased husband's adopted son, Debi Prosanna Ghose, and three other gentlemen, who were not members of her or her husband's family (they are hereinafter called 'the trustees'). By the deed the settlor created a trust, called the Sm. Charusila Trust Estate, of lands and other immovable properties in Deoghar, Bihar, and in Calcutta (stated to be worth Rs. 10 lacs) which she conveyed unto-the trustees to receive the income therefrom, subject to the trusts therein mentioned. The lands and properties comprised: (a) a piece of land at Karanibagh in Deoghar upon which to build a temple, (b) A house and land known as 'Charunibas' in Deoghar in which the settlor resided, (c) Five immovable properties in Calcutta.2. The trusts mentioned in the deed were : 1. To permit the settlor ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL
Reported in : (2006)LCAPTEL645
1. The first of the Appeals, namely Appeal No. 179 of 2005 has been preferred by The Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board challenging the Order passed by the first Respondent Chhattisgarh State Electricity Regulatory Commission on 29^th September, 2005 in Petition No. 3 of 2005 in deciding to grant distribution license to the second Respondent M/s Jindal Steel and Power Ltd. and prayed for setting aside the said order.2. Appeal No. 188 of 2005 has been preferred by Chhattisgarh Vidyut Mandal Abhiyanta Sangh represented by its General Secretary praying this Appellate Tribunal (i) to quash the Order dated 29^th September, 2005 passed by the Chhattisgarh State Electricity Regulatory Commission containing decision to grant the distribution license under Section 15(6)(b) of the Electricity Act, 2003 (ii) to order confiscation of illegal distribution network of power lines created by Jindal Steel and Power Ltd. by the Govt. of Chhattisgarh and to transfer to CSEB for supply of power to exis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1946]14ITR362(Cal)
GENTLE, J. - This reference by the Commissioner of Income-tax of Calcutta arises out of a deed settlement dated 11th March 1938, executed by Sreemati Charusila Dassi (hereinafter called ' the settlor') in favour of herself, her deceased husbands adopted son, Debi Prosanna Ghose, and three other gentlemen, who were not members of her or her husbands family (they are hereinafter called 'the trustees'). By the deed the settlor created immovable properties in Deoghar, Bihar, and in Calcutta (stated to be worth Rs. 10 lacs) which she conveyed unto the trustees to receive the income therefrom, subject to the trusts therein mentioned. The lands and properties comprised :-(a) a piece of land at Karanibad in Deoghar upon which to build a temple, (b) a house and land known as 'Charunibas' in Deoghar in which the settlor resided,(c) five immovable properties in Calcutta.The trusts mentioned in the deed were :-1. To permit the settlor to use and occupy 'Charunibas' free of rent during to her lifet...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Campbell v. California - 200 U.S. 87 (1906) U.S. Supreme Court Campbell v. California, 200 U.S. 87 (1906) Campbell v. California No. 70 Argued November 27, 28, 1905 Decided January 2, 1906 200 U.S. 87 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Syllabus The California Inheritance Tax Law of 1893, as amended in 1899, which imposed a tax on inheritances of and bequests to brothers and sisters, and not on those of daughters-in-law or sons-in-law, was assailed as repugnant to the Fourteenth Amendment, and, having been sustained by the highest court of the state, a writ of error from this Court was prosecuted. After the record was filed, a new inheritance tax law was enacted in 1905 which amended and reenacted prior laws on the subject and also repealed the acts of 1893 and 1899 without any clause saving the right of the state in respect to charges already accrued thereunder. Plaintiff in error contended that, as this Court had jurisdiction on the constitutional questi...
Tag this Judgment!