Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1939)1MLJ209
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. In Application No. 2162 of 1938 one A.M. Gopalakrishnan, an employee of the Travancore National and Quilon Bank, Ltd., prays for an order that directions should be issued to the Official Liquidators to pay the sum of Rs. 10,000 furnished by him to the above Bank as security for his post as the Chief Cashier in the Anderson Hall branch, in full and in priority to the claim of any creditor. In support of the application he has filed an affidavit stating that he was employed on the 9th March, 1938 and that his services were terminated due to the fact of the Bank being wound up. He submits that the security account was deposited for a specific purpose agreed upon between him and the Bank and that in the event of any loss caused to the Bank by his misconduct, the Bank might recoup themselves from out of the sum only such loss and nothing more and that on the termination of his services the amount should be returned to him. He contends that the Bank was trustee to him...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Privy Council
LORD GREENE: This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court at Fort William affirming on appeal a judgment and decree of the same Court in its original jurisdiction. The questions raised in the litigation relate to the validity of two resolutions of the respondent company Lothian Jute Mills Ltd., (hereinafter called "the Company"). By the first of these resolutions (which were passed at a requisitioned general meeting of the Company held on 3rd June 1945), the appellants (other than S.P. Bose, who was one of the requisitionists), seven in number, were appointed to be directors of the Company in addition to the four existing directors, one of whom was the respondent Dr. Satya Charan Law. By the second resolution it was resolved that the termination of the appointment of the managing agents of the Company, Messrs. Andrew Yule and Co. Ltd., was to be recorded and in any event that they were thereby forthwith removed from their office. In the action the respondent Dr. Law o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1941)2MLJ883
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The question which falls for decision in this appeal is whether a payment made after partition by a member of a Hindu family of interest due on a promissory, note which was executed by the managing member when the family was joint starts a fresh period of limitation against the other members of the family, the payment having been duly, acknowledged by the person who made it, There are conflicting decisions of this Court and it is for this reason that this appeal has been placed before a Full Bench for decision.2. The facts present no complication. On the 12th March, 1925, the appellant's father, one Thiruvenkatachariar, and his youngest son Srinivasachariar, executed a promissory note for Rs. 2,384 in favour of one Gnanatnbal Achi. Thiruvenkatachariar had three sons, and at the time of the execution of the promissory note the family was joint. It is common ground that the debt was incurred for a family necessity. On the 25th March, 1925, the father die...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1939)1MLJ831
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J. 1. This appeal raises the question of right of illegitimate sons of a member of a joint family of the Sudra caste to maintenance out of the family estate when it is impartible. The suit was filed by the respondents in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Nellore to establish their status as illegitimate sons of Venugopal, the paternal uncle of the appellant, the Maharajah of Venkatagiri, and the right which they claimed to maintenance out of the Venkatagiri zemindari, the succession to which is governed by the law of primogeniture. They averred that they were entitled under a deed of family settlement, dated the 8th April, 1889, to an allowance of Rs. 1,000 per mensem from the death of their father, which occurred on the 20th June, 1920, but their claim did not rest on the deed alone. They said that irrespective of the deed they were entitled to an allowance for maintenance by custom and also under Hindu Law. The appellant refused to recognise the respo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1952Cal414
R.P. Mookerjee, J.1. This is a reference Under Section. 66 (1), Income Tax Act. On an application, by the Commissioner of Income Tax Calcutta, the following question of law has been formulated by the Tribunal for answer by this Court.'Whether in the circumstances of the case a sum of Rs. 6698/- paid out to Mr. Mitchell-Innes. wholly & exclusively for the purposes of the business was a revenue expenditure so as to-be allowable as an admissible deduction under Section 10 (2) (XII), Income Tax Act (as it stood, before its amendment in 1946).'2. Messrs. Piggot Chapman & Co. is a firm of exchange brokers Mr. Mitchell-Innes & Mr. Danbeny who were working in partnership as exchange brokers, under the name & style of Halford Smith & Co. entered into ah agreement on 22-10-1919 with the partners of the assessee-firm Piggot Chapman & Co. It is not necessary for our present purpose to state in full the terms of this agreement. Broadly speaking Messrs. Mitchell-Innes & Danbeny who were the sole exc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Privy Council
SIR MADHAVAN NAIR: This is an appeal from a decree of the High Court of Judicature at Lahore dated 27th January 1938, which reversed a decree of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Delhi dated 30th November 1936, in favour of the defendant-the appellant before the Board. The appeal arises out a suit instituted by the plaintiffs, on behalf of the members of the brotherhood of the Digambar Jains, for recovery of possession from the defendant of a house described as "Jain Dharmasala," situate at Khatra Mashru in ward 4 of the town of Delhi, and entered as No. 48 in the municipal registers. The question for decision in this appeal is whether the plaintiffs have established their title to, and right to recover possession of, the suit property from the defendant. The parties to the suit are Jains, and are governed by the Mitakshara law. In the plaint, it was alleged that the house in dispute was purchased by one Lala Janaki Das, presumably with his own funds, that he "converted it" into a ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1950Bom171; (1950)52BOMLR84; [1950]18ITR58(Bom)
Chagla, C.J. 1. The assessee before us is a joint stock company incorporated in Bombay and they are the managing agents of the United Salt Works & Industries, Ltd., which company also is incorporated in Bombay. The assessee company was appointed the managing agents under the managing agency agreement, dated 1st June 1944, and in this reference we are concerned with the assessment year 1945-46, the relevant previous year being the year ended 30th September 1944. During the year of account the United Salt Works & Industries, Ltd., made a profit of Rs. 10,12,402 from its business at Aden and a profit of Rs. 7,61,165 from its business at Kandla.2. The Tribunal took the view that the total comission payable to the assessee company amounted to Rs. 2,10,816 and out of that Rs. 1,22,750 was attributable to the Salt Works at Aden and Rs. 88,065 was attributable to the Salt Works at Kandla.3. In this reference we are only concerned with the sum of Rs. 88,065, and the narrow question that we have...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1950All62
Malik, C.J.1. this is a defendant's appeal against a decree passed by the learned District Judge of Allahabad in a suit filed under Section 92, Civil P. C. Mt. Musharraf Begum, widow of Arab All, and his daughter, Hatimi Begum, executed a deed of waqf on 12th October 1928. Farman Ali Khan, defendant-appellant, was appointed the mutwalli of the property. The income of the property made a waqf of, was said to be Rs. 2,450 out of which land revenue and Government dues had to be paid and Rs. 250 were fixed as the collection charges. A sum of Rs. 600 was set apart for expenses incurred during the Moharram and another sum of Rs. 600 during the month of Ramzan. Detailed instructions were given as to how the money was to be spent. Farman Ali and his two brothers, Waris AH and Abdul Hasan, and Abid Husain, a grandson of Arab Ali, were to get an allowance of Rs. 25 each per mensem.2. The plaintiffs, Yaqub Husain Khan and Mohammad Raza Khan, claimed that they be-longed to the Shia sect and were r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1952Cal383
ORDER1. This is a reference under Section 66 (1) Income-tax Act, at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bengal.2. The question relates to the allowable depreciation for the charge-year 1942-43.3. In the preceding charge-year, (1941-42), the allowable depreciation was found to be Rs. 87,244/-. The written down value was Rs. 9,08,003/-. In that year, there was resultant loss, even without taking into consideration the depreciation allowance. The depreciation allowance of Rs. 87,244/- was carried forward to the charge-year 1942-43 as unabsorbed depreciation.4. A question arose whether the written down value of the assets for the purpose of allowing depreciation in the charge-year 1942-43, should be taken to be Rs. 9,08,003/- less Rs. 87,244/- or Rs. 9,08,003/-. The income-tax authorities contend for the former figure, the assessee for the latter.5. It is no longer disputed that the present controversy should be determines on the terms of Section 10 (5) (b) as amended by Income...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1944Bom1; [1943]11ITR559(Bom); (1943)45BOMLR929
Author: K John Beaumont 1. This is a reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal raising four questions, but in substance only one question calls for serious consideration, and that is whether the provisions of Section 4A(c) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, a sub-section introduced by the amending Act of 1939, are ultra vires in whole or in part. That sub-section provides that a company is resident in British India in any year (a) if the control and management of its affairs is situated wholly in British India in that year, or (b) if its income arising in British India in that year exceeds its income arising without British India in that year. It is not suggested that paragraph (a) is invalid. The provision that the residence of a company depends on where the control and management of its affairs is situated is in accordance with English law. But it is suggested that paragraph (b) is ultra vires in that it involves the taxation of a non-resident in respect of income derived ...
Tag this Judgment!