Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1939Cal210
Derbyshire, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of Lort-Williams J., delivered on 29th May 1936, wherein he gave judgment for the plaintiff for Rs. 4000 and costs and made a declaration that the plaintiff was entitled to reject a boiler with accessaries. The plaintiff, the present respondent, carries on business as an ink and sealing-wax maker under the name of the Bengal Industrial Company at Cossipore, a few miles out of Calcutta. The defendant, a German gentleman, for some years had carried on business in Calcutta as a manufacturer's agent and an import-merchant dealing mainly in papers, stationery and machinery for making paper. The parties for some years previous to 1932 had business dealings with each other. In 1932, the plaintiff wished to start the manufacture of carbon paper and with that object in view, he consulted the defendant from time to time, and the defendant assisted him with advice, and also procured same formulae for the preparation of carbon-paper. In 1932, th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1931Mad152; (1931)60MLJ551
Reilly, J.1. These two appeals relate to suits in which the Corporation of Madras claimed declarations that the Madras Electric Tramways Company and the Madras Electric Supply Corporation respectively were subject to the. control of the Commissioner of the Corporation under Sections 287 and 288 respectively of the Madras City Municipal Act. The suits were tried by the Judge of the City Civil Court, who dismissed both of them. They came on appeal before Waller, J., whose opinion was that both the Companies carried on their operations under special Acts, or what were equivalent to special Acts, inconsistent with the general Act, the City Municipal Act, and that the Corporation of Madras were not entitled to the declarations for which they sought. He upheld the decision of the City Civil Court; and it is against that decision that these two appeals have been preferred.2. I think it will be convenient to deal with the two cases separately, and, if I may say so with great respect, I doubt w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 59Ind.Cas.403
1. In these three matters Rules were issued on the same day practically based on the same fasts. They arise out of some boring operations in Mouzah Parsundi comprising of about 5,000 bighas of land (4,906 according to the Revenue Survey). The Iron and Steel Company, who are the first party in the proceedings under Section 145 initiated on the 10th July 1919, obtained as petitioners, Rule No. 847 on the following allegations, namely, that the Maharaja of Burdwan was the Zemindar of the Mouzah and sole owner of the minerals and mineral rights therein. On the 9th September 1839 he granted a putni settlement of the Mouzah to certain persons shortly referred to as the Chatterjees and Misras. On the 5th April he authorised one E.J. Seth Sam on behalf of the Parsundi Mining Syndicate to go on with boring operations in the Mouzah pending execution and registration of a formal document and Seth Sam in his turn on the 12th April 1918 authorised the petitioners to carry on boring operations there...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : [1950]18ITR951(P& H)
KAPUR J. - Janda Rubber Works Limited, a private limited company, was incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, with its registered office in Lahore, now in Pakistan. It had certain factories in Bombay which included the Universal Rubber Works. On 2nd July, 1947, the registered office of the company is alleged to have been shifted to Amritsar. Under Section 21 of the Income-tax Act all companies have to make returns showing the names of servants in their employment, their salaries and their incomes and the amounts deducted out of the salaries as income-tax. For the assessment year 1948-49, the company made a return to the Income-tax Officer, Bombay, on 5th July, 1948. This is contained in para. 3 of the affidavit of the Income-tax Officer, Mr. Barwe. As the returns for the assessment years 1946-47 and 1947-48 had not been made under Section 21 of the Income-tax Act assessments were made by the Income-tax Officer at Rs. 50,000 per year for each of the two years on the basis of the re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1950All396
Seth, J.1. Both these appeals arise out of the same suit which was instituted on 15th December 1943, by Mst. Ram Kali Devi against the appellant, Pandit Niranjan Lal Bhargava, for his ejectment from a building, known as 'Sahu Palace'. The aforesaid premises were let on 1st November 1989 by the plaintiff to the defendant for a period of four years, expiring on 31st October 1943. The plaintiff sought to eject the defendant on three grounds, namely, (1) that the term of the lease had expired, (2) that the defendant was causing injury to the building, and (3) that a sum of Rs. 100 had remained due as arrears of rent.2. The defendant pleaded, in defence, that certain orders passed under the Defence of India Rules prevented the plaintiff from ejecting him. He denied that he was causing any injury to the building or that any arrears of rent were outstanding against him.3. The Munsif gave a conditional decree in the suit to the plaintiff. By that decree the defendant was ordered to be ejected ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Privy Council
Reported in : AIR1950PC90
LORD MACDERMOTT: These three consolidated appeals are from a decree, dated 22nd September 1947, of the High Court at Bombay (acting in its appellate jurisdiction) which reversed a decree, dated 7th January 1947, of the same Court (acting in its original civil jurisdiction) whereby a suit (No.1086 of 1942) brought by the above named Jamsetji A.H. Chinoy and Messrs. Chinoy and Co. (respondents in the first and second appeals and appellants in the third) was dismissed. 2. This suit was instituted on 24th August 1942, against the above named Edulji F. E. Dinshaw and Bachubai F. E. Dinshaws (hereinafter referred to as "the Dinshaws" as sole defendants. The plaint alleged that the Dinshaws held between them 1,200 A and 1,200 B shares in an Indian company named F.E. Dinshaw Ltd. and had contracted on 8th July 1942, through their agent Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry (hereinafter called "Shapoorji'.) to sell these shares to the plaintiff Jamsetji A. H. Chinoy at the price of Rs. 3,000 per collective...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1950)52BOMLR501
Greene, J.1. 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 requisitoned general meeting of the company held on June 3, 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 on b...
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 : Mumbai
Reported in : (1950)52BOMLR488
Lionel Leach, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was tried in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, of Dhanbad. The real question for decision is whether that Court had jurisdiction to grant the relief sought or whether it was a matter which could only be dealt with by the Calcutta High Court in its insolvency jurisdiction. The answer requires the consideration of a scheme of composition, a deed of transfer executed in connection therewith, and proceedings in insolvency extending over a period of more than 20 years.2. The appellant is a limited liability company which is now in liquidation. Its business was banking and it will be convenient to refer to it hereinafter as 'the bank.' In 1909 the bank advanced large sums of money to a partnership of five persons, trading under the style of M.L. Laik and Bantierjee. The loans were made against hundis, which were secured by mortgages of immoveable property. Default was made in the repayment of the loans and the bank was compelled t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1952Mad259; [1951]19ITR487(Mad)
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. These references though, they relate to different assessees arise under the Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940, & the question referred is substantially the same in both. except for the dates.'Whether In the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law, in holding that, for the purpose of computing the capital employed in the business as at the beginning & the end of the standard period 1-10-1935 to 31-12-1936 (31-1-1936 is a mistake) the value of the depreciable assets should be determined with reference to the depreciation allowable under the Indian Income-tax Amendment Act, 1939'.(The standard period in R. C. No. 63 of 1947 is from 1-1-1936 to 31-12-1936).2. In view of the arguments addressed-in these cases we had to alter the question & it was agreed that the following question brings out clearly the real bone of contention between the parties: 'Whether the profits for the purpose of Rule 5 of Schedule II should be calculated in the manner prescribed b...
Tag this Judgment!