Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1930)32BOMLR1541
Russell, J. 1. The appellant is zamindar of the permanently settled estate of Gouripur, and he appeals to His Majesty in Council in the circumstances herein set forth.2. By an assessment note of the Income Tax Officer of Dhubri dated August 28, 1925, the appellant was assessed under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, to income tax in respect of income arising from his said estate. On appeal the assessment was confirmed by order of the Assistant Commissioner dated December 22, 1925.3. At the request of the appellant the Commissioner of Income Tax, Assam, acting under Section 66 of the said Act, submitted certain questions for the decision of the High Court.4. The questions so submitted were three in number, and (as amended in the course of the hearing) they were in the following terms:--I. Whether the following sources of income are agricultural and therefore exempted from assessment to Income tax under Section 4 (3) (viii) of the Act? [Then follow ten items which it is unnecessary to set...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1927)29BOMLR170
Shah, J.1. This is an application by two accused persons, who were charged with having given falsa evidence in the course of their statements in a suit filed on the Original Side of this High Court. The charges against accused No. 1 were two, first, that he made a false statement 'Not true that I then deducted Rs. 750 for first ten months' interest' ; and, secondly, that he made the following false statement 'No letter was brought to me along with that cheque. I got no letter from defendant in which he alleged we had deducted Rs. 750.' The charge against accused No. 2 was that he made the following statement which he knew or believed to be false 'Not true that Rs. 750 deducted for interest.' There were separate charges against each of the accused.2. In the suit in which the two accused gave evidence, one of the questions raised at the instance of the defendant in that case was whether the sum of Rs. 750 was paid back by him as interest at the time of the loan. The trial Court having ma...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [1945]13ITR210(All)
ALLSOP, J., - A Hindu family known as Gappumal Kanhaiya Lal of Rani Mandi, Allahabad, (hereafter referred to as the assessee) was assessed to income-tax upon income derived from house property in the occupation of tenants. The assessee claimed that it was not liable to income-tax on a sum of Rs. 13,500 paid by it to the Municipality on account of house tax and water tax. Its claim was disallowed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal which has prepared a statement of the case and referred the following four questions to us under the provisions of Section 66 (1) of the Income-tax Act :-'(1) Whether, in determining the bona fide annual value of a property under sub-section (1) read with sub-section (2) of Section 9 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, the amount of house tax imposed by the Municipal Board of Allahabad under clause (i) of sub-section (1) of Section 128 of the United Provinces Municipalities Act, 1916, and paid by the owner as a lessor under Section 149 of the latter Act should be d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 6Ind.Cas.313
Arnold White, C.J.1. In these proceedings two Second Grade Pleaders have been called upon to show cause why they should not be suspended or dismissed by reason of their conduct in having joined the Board of Directors of the 'Circars Provident Fund Limited of Bapatla' and in connection with the affairs of that company. The company is now in liquidation. One of the pleaders was the President of the company. I will refer to him as 'the President.' The other was as director. I will refer to him as 'the Director.' Criminal proceedings were taken against the two pleaders in connection with the affairs of the company and they were convicted of criminal breach of trust by the Sessions Judge of Guntur. On appeal these convictions were set aside See 5 Ind. Cas. 847 : 7 M. L. T. 299 : 20 M.L.J. 220 : (1910) M.W.N. 65 Ed. There can, I think, be no. question that the convictions could not be upheld. In appropriating to their own use the sums of money which formed the subject-matter of the charge of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1949P& H83
Bhandari, J.1. This is an application by one Mr. Siri Ram Gautama for admission to the roll of advocates of the High Court of the East Punjab, or, in the alternative, for admission as a pleader to the said High Court.2. Mr. Gautama who is a resident of Jullandur District was admitted as a pleadar of the Chief Court of the Punjab in March 1916 and as an advocate of the High Court at Lahore on 25th February 1927. He left India towards the end of August 1929 and was admitted to practise as an advocate of His Majesty's Supreme Court of Kenya in March 1930. In the year 1941 he was charged with the offence of having offered an illegal gratification to a Police Prosecutor. A conviction followed and a sentence was passed and thereupon as a matter of course his name was struck off the roll of advocates on 26th June 1942. A copy of the order by which he was dismissed was forwarded to the High Court at Lahore and Mr. Gautama's name was removed from the roll of the said High Court on 22nd April 19...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1942Mad136; (1941)2MLJ740
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This appeal raises a question of some importance touching the applicability of Section 6 of the Married Women's Property Act to policies of life insurance effected in 1905 by a Mohammadan on his own life for the benefit of his children. The subject-matter of the suit out of which this appeal arises relates to five policies being Nos. 65284 to 65288. The plaintiff is the father, defendants 2 and 4 to 9 are his sons and defendants 10 and 11 are his daughters. Policy No. 65284 was effected for the benefit of the second defendant, No. 65285 for the benefit of the fourth defendant, No. 65286 for the benefit of the eighth defendant, No. 65287 for the benefit of one of his daughters who is not a party to the suit and No. 65288 for the benefit of the tenth defendant. The first defendant is the Oriental Life Assurance Company with whom the policies were effected. The third defendant is the Official Assignee of Madras representing the estate of the second defendant. The s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Privy Council
LORD MORTON OF HENRYTON: This is an appeal, by the leave of the Federal Court of India, against the judgment of the Federal Court dated 20 - 11 - 1944, dismissing the appellant's appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Lahore dated 24 - 4 - 1944, whereby the said High Court dismissed the appellant's petition praying for a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus for his release from imprisonment. The appellant had been sentenced by Field General Court - Martial to be cashiered and to undergo two years' imprisonment with hard labour. [2] The appellant was, at the date of his conviction by Court - Martial, an officer of His Majesty's Forces, holding the temporary rank of Major in the Royal Engineers. He had enlisted in the United Kingdom in October, 1939, and had subsequently been commissioned and posted to India in the Royal Engineers in 1940. At the time, of the events which gave rise to his trial by Court - Martial, the appellant was attached to a unit of the Indian ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1940Bom307; (1940)42BOMLR791
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a reference made by the Presidency Magistrate, 4th Court, under Section 432 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which entitles him to refer any question of law arising in the hearing of a case before him. The facts giving rise to the reference are as follows.2. On July 17, 1939, the Government of Bombay issued a Notification under Sub-section (2) of Section 14B of the Bombay Abkari Act, 1878, prohibiting the possession by any person in the area specified, which was in substance the Town and Island of Bombay, without a permit or a license issued by an Abkari Officer, of any intoxicant specified in the schedule thereto in excess of the amount therein mentioned. On April 11, 1940, a full bench of this Court held that the said Notification was ' ultra vires and of no effect,' the basis of the decision being that under Section 14B of the Bombay Abkari Act Government could not prohibit the possession of intoxicants by the public generally. On the same day, but ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1950P& H25; 1950CriLJ459
ORDERFalshaw, J.1. Ram Singh alias Kundan Singh haa been convicted by the Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, Under Section 802, Penal Code, for the double murder of Diwan Bahadur Diwan Pindi Daaa Sabharwal and his wife Shrimati Parvati Devi, ancl sentenced to death. He has appealed and his eaBe is also before us for confirmation of the death sentence.2. At the outset the legal objeotion has been raised that the trial in the Court of the Sessions Judge was illegal. The grounds on which this objection is based are as follows;3. Since 20th March 19-17 the Punjab Public Safety Act, II [2] of 1947, has been in force at first in the United Punjab, and Eince the partition in the East Punjab. Section 2 (b) of this Act reads, 'dangerously disturbed area means any area declared as such by notification, by the Provincial Government, or any part thereof'. Under this provision the municipal area of Ludhiana was declared to bo a dangerously disturbed area by the Punjab Government by Notification No. 1516 dat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1929)57MLJ145
Murray Coutts Trotter, Kt., C.J.1. I have had the advantage in this case of perusing the judgment about to be delivered by Beasley, J. It sums up the results arrived at after a long discussion between him, Odgers and myself and it may be taken to be the judgment of the Court. I only add a few words because I feel it is incumbent upon me to do so as for eight years 1 was in charge of the insolvency Jurisdiction of the Original Side of the High Court. The procedure which was prohibited by the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Jnanendra Bala Debi v. The Official Assignee of Calcutta was that persons alleged to be indebted to the Bankrupt estate--known in our Court for some reason, I never quite understood, as 'garnishees'--should be examined, which of course in effect means cross-examined, by the Official Assignee under the powers of Section 36 and that statements made by them not amounting to a definite admission of indebtedness to the estate should be used under Section 7 to ask th...
Tag this Judgment!