Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Aug-05-1948
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 : Chennai
Decided on : Oct-05-1948
Reported in : (1949)1MLJ662
1. This appeal arises out of an action by the members of the Madras Race Club. The action was tried on the original side by Bell, J., and by his judgment he dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. Hence this appeal by the plaintiffs.2. The Madras Race Club is a body corporate registered under the Indian Companies Act of 1913 before it was amended in 1936. The object of the Club, as its name indicates, is to carry on the business of a race club and to provide certain amenities to its members. The Memorandum of Association and the Articles of Association are contained in Ex. P-29. The Memorandum of Association prohibits the division of profits by way of dividend amongst the members, and they have to be utilised only for the purpose of the club. There are two classes of members, namely, club members and stand members. There are about 260 club members, and they alone are entitled to vote, while the stand members have certain other privileges, but not the right to vote. The management of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Privy Council
Decided on : Jul-28-1948
Reported in : AIR1949PC207
Datee of decision: 28/07/1948(Part I) and 01/02/1949 (Part II). PART I: Sir Madhavan Nair: This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the Full Bench of the Chief Court of Oudh dated 10th May 1846, which, on appeal by the defendant, set aside the judgment and decree of the Additional Civil Judge of Lucknow dated 21st March 1940. After the appeal had been filed in the Privy Council respondent 2 was made a party. [2] The appeal relates to the right of succession to a taluqa known as the Sissendi Estate and to other moveable and immovable non-taluqa properties left by Raja Chandra Shekhar and his widow Rani Subhadra Kuer. [3] The main question for decision is whether the adoption of respondent 2 by the late Rani Subhadra Kuer after the death of her husband is a valid adoption. [4] The following genealogical table will explain the relationship of the parties. Pedigree No. 1 is the pedigree of the Taluqdars of Seasendi (Sessendi Pedigree), and Pedigree No. II is the pedigree of the fami...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Oct-29-1948
Reported in : AIR1952Ori143
Ray, C.J.1. The question, involved in this appeal, is whether a plaintiff can avail himself of the benefits of the doctrine of part performance of a contract for sale as against an invasion on his rights by an attaching creditor of the transferor (promisor.) He had objected to the attachment by advancing a claim in Order XXI, Rule 58, Civil Procedure Code. The claim having been rejected he brought the suit, out of which this Second Appeal arises.2. The appeal was heard 'ex parte', and the learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant No. 1 obtained a decree for costs against them invite our attention to such authorities as could be cited by the respondent had he been represented before us.3. The facts, in short, are that the disputed properties belonged to defendants 2 to 12. Defendant No. 1 obtained a decree for costs against them. After decree, passed on 2-9-1936, the aforesaid defendants separated amongst themselves and the disputed properties fell to the share of defendant ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Oct-08-1948
Reported in : AIR1950Bom4; (1949)51BOMLR602
Gajendragadkar, J.1. When we dealt with First Appeal No. 1 of 1945 and dismissed it with costs on 23rd August 1948, Mr. N.C. Shah for the appellant applied for a refund of court-fees paid by him on the memo of his appeal on the ground that through mistake excessive court-fee had been paid by the appellant. We then directed him to argue this matter before the Taxing Officer and left it open to the Taxing Officer to send the matter back to us if he felt any difficulty in deciding it or if he otherwise thought that the point was of such importance that it should be disposed of by a judgment from the Court itself. Accordingly the matter was argued before the Taxing Officer and he has sent it back to us because he says there is no ruling of our Court on the point in question and that the said point is likely to arise in many other appeals. That is how this matter has come to us again for the determination of the question of the proper court-fees payable in the present appeal.2. This questio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Oct-15-1948
Reported in : AIR1950Bom192; (1950)52BOMLR214
Chagla, C.J.1. The question referred to this Full Bench is whether a civil suit will lie to establish the right of members of the public to carry a non-religious procession through the public streets. A suit was filed on behalf of the Hindu community of Sakur against the Muslim community of the same place for a declaration that the Hindu community had a right to conduct religious and social processions accompanied with music along certain public thoroughfares upon which certain Muslim mosques abutted. In 1938 the Muslims attempted to obstruct a Dasera procession from marching with music near one of the moseques. The Magistrate issued an order prohibiting the Hindus from carrying out their procession unless they obtained a declaration of their right from a competent civil Court. Hence the suit. The suit was decreed by the trial Court and the decree was confirmed by the learned Extra Assistant Judge at Ahmednagar. The Muslims came in second appeal to this Court, and that appeal having co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jul-30-1948
Reported in : 1949CriLJ405
ORDER.Whereas I have reasonable cause to believe Jack Periz-weig alias Robert Liversidge to be a person of hostile associations and that by reason thereof it is necessary to exercise control over him: Now, therefore, I, in pursuance of the power conferred on me by Reg. 18B, Defence (General) Regulations, 1939, hereby make the following order: I direct that the abovementioned Jacts Perizweig alias Robert Liversidge be detained.(Signed) John Anderson,One of His Majesty's PrincipalSecretaries of State.Beyond the production of this order, the Secretary of State who made the order did not make an affidavit in the action. It was contended inter alia, that the mere production of an order signed by the Secretary of State was not a sufficient prima facie defence and the onus lay on the respondent to give evidence at the trial to prove that Sir John Anderson had reasonable grounds for the belief recited in the order. Via-count Maugham sums up his conclusion thus:The result is that there is no pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jul-30-1948
Reported in : (1949)1MLJ1
ORDER.Whereas I have reasonable cause to believe Jack Perlzweig alias Robert Liversidge to be a person of hostile associations and that by reason thereof it is necessary to exercise control over him : Now, therefore, I, in pursuance of the power conferred on me by Regulation 18-B of the Defence (General) Regulations, 1939, hereby make the following order : I direct that the above mentioned Jack Perlzweig alias Robert Liversidge be detained.(Signed) John Anderson,One of His Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State.Beyond the production of this order, the Secretary of State who made the order did not make an affidavit in the action. It was contended inter alia that the mere production of an order signed by the Secretary of State was not a sufficient prima facie defence and the onus lay on the respondent to give evidence at the trial to prove that Sir John Anderson had reasonable grounds for the belief recited in the order. Viscount Maugham sums up his conclusion thus:The result is that t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Apr-21-1948
Reported in : (1949)2MLJ44
ORDERGovinda Menon, J.1. The petitioner Major F.K. Mistry who was an Ordinance Officer in charge of the Returned Stores Depot, Almadi, Avadi Sub-Area, along with two others was prosecuted firstly for having conspired to remove and continually misappropriate, tentage from the Returned Stores Depot; and secondly in pursuance to that conspiracy for having with his two associates managed, in their capacity as officers belonging to the Ordinance Department in the Indian Army, to remove quantities of tentage from the Returned Stores Depot; and in compensation for which act, the petitioner was paid Rs. 800 out of the sale proceeds of these articles on or about the 31st August, 1946. The charge-sheet was filed on the 24th July, 1947, alleging that the offences were committed on 28th August, 1946, and the petitioner received his share of the proceeds of misappropriation on the 31st August, 1946. Fourteen witnesses were examined for the prosecution and thereafter charges were framed on the 1st o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Apr-06-1948
Reported in : AIR1949Bom42; (1948)50BOMLR450
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. This is a suit filed by the plaintiff to eject his tenant. The defendant has pleaded the protection of the Rent Restriction Act. At the hearing; of the suit before Mr. Justice Desai attention was drawn to the relevant provisions. of Bombay Act LVII of 1947 under which all pending suits relating to recovery or fixing of rent or possession of premises to which that Act applied had to be transferred to and continued before the Court of Small Causes, Bombay. It was then contended both by the plaintiff and the defendant that Sections 28, 29 and 50 of that Act were ultra vires of the Provincial Legislature and were also repugnant to existing law and void and of no effect. Mr. Justice Desai directed that the plaint should be amended to make the necessary averments and that the Province of Bombay should be made a party to the suit. Consequently the plaint was amended and para, 2-A was added, containing the relevant averments and the Province of Bombay was made a party defen...
Tag this Judgment!