Court : US Supreme Court
Cunningham v. Norton - 125 U.S. 77 (1888) U.S. Supreme Court Cunningham v. Norton, 125 U.S. 77 (1888) Cunningham v. Norton No. 74 Argued November 17, 1887 Decided March 19, 1888 125 U.S. 77 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Syllabus Whether, in a deed of assignment by a debtor for the benefit of creditors made under a state statute, a disregard of and departure from some directions of the statute shall invalidate the assignment or only make the varying provision in it void will depend upon the general policy of the statute -- whether it is intended to restrain or to favor such assignments. A provision in an assignment by a debtor for the benefit of his creditors under the statute of the Texas of March 24, 1879, Rev.Stat. Texas, 1879, App. 5, that any surplus shall be paid to the debtor, made in violation of the direction in § 16 of the statute that such surplus shall be paid into court, does not affect the validity of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
A. Raghuvir, C.J. 1. This reference is made under Sub-section (1) of Section 256 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the assessee, a tea company with the name Doom Dooma Tea Company Ltd. The reference relates to the assessment year 1975-76. The tea estate paid Rs. 2,26,280 under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act VII of 1964, and unsuccessfully claimed deduction before the revenue authorities. The Income-tax Officer rejected the claim as prohibited under Section 40(a)(ii) of the Income-tax Act. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, on appeal, entertained a doubt as to the tenability of such a claim, and, therefore, confirmed the order under appeal. The Tribunal dismissed the further appeal following a decision of the Bombay Bench of the Appellate Tribunal in I.T.A. No. 3643 (Bom) of 1974-75 dated December 1, 1977. Finally, at the instance of the tea estate, the following question is referred to this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Sullivan v. Burnett - 105 U.S. 334 (1881) U.S. Supreme Court Sullivan v. Burnett, 105 U.S. 334 (1881) Sullivan v. Burnett 105 U.S. 334 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI Syllabus 1. By the laws of Missouri in force in 1866, an alien was capable of taking by descent lands in that state and of holding and alienating them if he either resided in the United States, and, by taking the oath prescribed by the act of Congress, had declared his intention to become a citizen or resided in Missouri, although the ancestor through whom he claimed was at the time the descent was cast, an alien, who, by reason of his nonresidence, was incapable of inheriting. 2. The statute of 1855 which gave to a nonresident alien the right within a limited period to sell and convey the lands whereof the intestate died seized appplied only where, at the time of his death, there was no person capable of taking them by descent. 3. The statute of March 30, 18...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2003(6)ALD625; 2003(6)ALT469
P.S. Narayana, J.1. These Second Appeals are filed by A.S. Abdul Khader Wakf for Deeni Talim, represented by its Managing Mutawalli Masood Abdul Khader, aggrieved by the reversing judgments and decrees made by the Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad.2. The appellant herein, as plaintiff instituted the suits on the file of the I Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad for the relief of eviction, recovery of mesne profits, damages for use and occupation and also for future mesne profits till recovery of possession against different tenants, arrayed as defendants in the respective suits. The Court of first instance had decreed the suits and aggrieved by the same, the respective tenants preferred Appeals and the appellate Court had reversed the judgments and decrees of the Court of first instance on twin grounds that the Wakf Board alone can maintain the suits and a Mutawalli cannot maintain the suits and also a joint Mutawalli or a co-Mutawalli cannot maintain t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1993)LC218Tri(Delhi)
1. These appeals relate to common issues. The same were, therefore, heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The appellants are manufacturers of cellulosic spun yarn/non-cellulosic spun yarn in their factories. They cleared the goods on payment of Central Excise Duty. Special Excise Duty and Additional Duty of Excise under Additional Duties of Excise (Textiles and Textile Articles) Act, 1978. The yarn manufactured by them was captively consumed in the same factory in the manufacture of fabrics.In the civil writ petition No. 664 of 1979 filed by M/s. J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. -1981 (8) ELT 887 (Del.). Delhi High Court decided on 16-10-1980 that no duty was payable on the yarn produced by the assessee in its spinning and weaving mill and which was utilised for the purpose of weaving the fabrics manufactured by it. In paragraph 6 of the judgment, the Honourable High Court observed that if there was one single process of manufacture then the m...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1962SC167; [1962]3SCR88
Subba Rao, J.1. The Petitioner owns a tea estate called the Urrunabund Tea Estate in village Udarbund in the District of Cachar in the State of Assam. The extent of the Tea Estate is about 2682 acres. Out of the said area, 553.73 acres are under tea cultivation and the rest, according to the Petitioner, is utilised for the purpose of tea industry and for purposes connected with the said industry. The respondents do not admit this fact and state in the counter-affidavit that the remaining area is lying fellow and unutilised. On December 4, 1959, the Deputy Commissioner of Cachar at Silchar, respondent No. 2 issued a notification requisitioning an area of 183 bighas of land of the said Tea Estates, and by another notification dated December 5, 1959, he requisitioned another extent of 149 bighas 19 cottahs and 11 chattacks of land of the said Tea Estate. The petitioner filed two petitions in this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution praying for the issue of writs of mandamus directi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1989KAR1532; 1988(2)KarLJ488; [1989]74STC272(Kar)
M. Rama Jois, J.1. In these petitions, presented by the coffee planters, the following question of law arises for consideration : 'Whether, the respondent - Coffee Board is authorised in law to pay the tax which it is liable to pay to the Karnataka Government under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, out of the pool fund which it is required to maintain, under section 30 of the Coffee Act, 1942 ?' 2. The brief facts and circumstances of the case which have given rise to the above question are these : The Coffee Board ('the Board' for short) is constituted under the Coffee Act, 1942 ('the Act' for short) enacted for the development of the coffee industry under the control of the union. The Board is the statutory authority on which the exclusive right to purchase and sell the coffee produced in the country is conferred under the provisions of the Act. The Act brought into existence a pool marketing system for coffee produced in the country. Section 22 of the Act, however, prov...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Bent v. Thompson - 138 U.S. 114 (1891) U.S. Supreme Court Bent v. Thompson, 138 U.S. 114 (1891) Bent v. Thompson No. 1282 Submitted January 7, 1891 Decided January 28, 1891 138 U.S. 114 APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY OF NEW MEXICO Syllabus Under the laws of the Territory of New Mexico, a judgment of a probate court in 1867 admitting a will to probate cannot be annulled by the same court, in a proceeding instituted by an heir more than twenty years Page 138 U. S. 115 after the judgment was rendered and more than four years after the heir became of age. Under the "laws of Velarde," which, under the provisions of the Kearny Code, remained in force in that territory until modified by statute, the practice and procedure of the probate courts were matters of statutory regulation, the probate judge had jurisdiction to admit wills to probate by receiving the evidence of witnesses, and his judgment was valid, and, although reviewable on appeal, was conclusive unle...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
McKinney v. Saviego - 59 U.S. 235 (1855) U.S. Supreme Court McKinney v. Saviego, 59 U.S. 18 How. 235 235 (1855) McKinney v. Saviego 59 U.S. (18 How.) 235 ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF TEXAS Syllabus Where a person who owned land in Texas whilst it was a part of Mexico removed into Mexico prior to the declaration of independence by Texas, and continued to reside in Mexico until her death, her daughter, who was also a citizen of Mexico, could not, as heir, recover the land in Texas. By the laws which governed Texas before the revolution, the proprietor of land must have resided within the jurisdiction of the Mexican government, and foreigners could not inherit land. The Constitution of Texas considered as aliens all those who did not reside there at the time of the declaration of independence, unless they were afterwards naturalized, and also decreed that no alien should hold land in Texas except by titles emanating directly from the gove...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Carolina Glass Co. v. South Carolina - 240 U.S. 305 (1916) U.S. Supreme Court Carolina Glass Co. v. South Carolina, 240 U.S. 305 (1916) Carolina Glass Company v. South Carolina Nos. 12, 9, 205, 204 Argued January 20, 1916 Decided February 21, 1916 240 U.S. 305 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA Syllabus A glass manufacturing company, which had furnished supplies to the state and various county dispensaries of South Carolina, presented, pursuant to statute providing therefor, its claim for balance due to the State Dispensary Commission appointed to close up the business Page 240 U. S. 306 and which found that the glass company had been overpaid on previous settlements an amount exceeding its claim, and, after allowing the claim, found the glass company was indebted to the state for a specified amount, and entered an overjudgment therefor which the state attempted to collect; the glass company appealed to the state supreme court, and also instituted i...
Tag this Judgment!