Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1949)51BOMLR182
Uthwatt, J.1. These four appeals are brought from judgments of the High Court of Judicature at Patna whereby four separate references made to that Court under Section 66(2) of the India.) Income-tax Act, 1922, as amended, were answered in favour of the assessees, the respondents to the several appeals.2. All appeals raise the question whether interest on arrears of rent payable in in respect of land used for agricultural purposes is exempt from income-tax as being agricultural income within the definition of that phrase contained in Section 2(7) of the [ndian Income-tax Act. In the second appeal a further question is raised to which their Lordships will refer later.3. Under Section 4(3)(viii) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, agricultural income is exempt from assessment to income-tax. Agricultural income is defined in Section 2 of the Act as follows :-(1) 'agricultural income' means-(a) any rent or revenue derived from land which is used for agricultural purposes and is? either asse...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1949P& H165
Achhru Ram, J.1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal from the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Lahore, affirming, on appeal, the decision of a Subordinate Judge of Delhi refusing to stay the suit brought by respondent 1 against the appellants and respondent 2 for a declaration to the effect that the agreement dated 14th July 1942, executed between respondent 1 and the appellants was invalid and unenforceable on grounds of fraud and misrepresentation, and for cancellation of the aforesaid agreement as well as for recovery of a sum Of Rs. 2,50,000.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal may be briefly stated as follows: The Board of trustees of the Hindu College, Delhi, wanted to construct a hostel for the College on the land allotted to the said College by the University of Delhi in what is called 'the University Town.' On 3rd May 1940, they requisitioned the services of Messrs. Master Sathe and Bhuta, a firm of architects, carrying on business in New Delhi, for prepa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : 1951CriLJ1041
Ram Lall, C.J.1. The following two questions have been referred to a F.B. for decision:1. Whether when proceedings are submitted by a Ses. J. to the H. C. before 15-8-1947 under Section 374, Cr. P.C. for confirmation of a sentence of death passed by him, the Lahore H, C. has Jurisdiction to deal with the case, irrespective of the fact that the offence was committed & the trial held in territories comprised in the East Punjab Province?2. Whether the appeal filed: (a) by the convict sentenced to death, & (b) by co-accused who were sentenced to a lower penalty but notice of enhancement of sentence was served on them before 15-8-1947 by the Lahore H. C; can be heard & decided only by the said Ct.?2. The reference arose in the following circumstances : One Bashir Ahmad was arrested at Jullundur on 8-3-1947 in connection with a murder said to have been committed on the same day at Jullundur. The learned Ses. J. tried him at Jullundur & convicted & sentenced him to death on 2-7-1947. On 11-7-...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1948All353
Raghubar Dayal, J.1. The question referred to the Full Bench is whether the filing of an appeal subsequent to the filing of an application for review makes the hearing of the review application incompetent.2. Section 114, Civil P.C., gives the right to apply for review, and is:Subject as aforesaid, any person considering himself aggrieved:(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed by this Code, but from which no appeal has been preferred,(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed by this Code, or(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes,may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order, and the Court may make such order thereon as it thinks fit.3. Order 47 deals with the procedure with respect to the disposal of such applications for review. Rule 1 of this Order, however, mentions in Sub-rule (1) not only the grounds on which an application for review of judgment can be filed, but also the decree or...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
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
Reported in : (1948)50BOMLR664
Morton, J.1. This is an appeal, by leave of the Federal Court of India, against the judgment of the Federal Court dated November 20, 1944, dismissing the appellant's appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Lahore dated April 24, 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. 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 Engineers. He remained...
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 : (1948)50BOMLR576
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. This is an application in revision against an order passed by the Additional Resident Magistrate, Thana, by which he convicted the accused under Section 5 of the Bombay Prevention of Bigamous Marriage Act, 1946, read with Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and sentenced him to one day's simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10.2. Applicant No. 1 along with three others were tried by the Additional Resident Magistrate, Thana. The applicant was charged with having married accused No. 2 while the first marriage was subsisting. Accused No. 3 was the father of the applicant and accused No, 4 was the brother-in-law of accused No. 2. The father of the applicant and the brother-in-law of accused No. 2 were charged with having aided and abetted in the solemnisation of the marriage. The learned Magistrate convicted all the four accused, and there was an appeal from his decision to the Court of Session, and the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal. From that de...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1949Bom93; (1948)50BOMLR614
Tendolkar, J.1. These are several petitions presented by different parties for writs of certiorari in respect of orders of requisition passed under Ordinance No. V of 1947, being the Bombay Land Requisition Ordinance, 1947. A common question of law of considerable importance arises in these petitions, namely, whether the Governor of Bombay had any authority to promulgate the Ordinance, and, therefore, my learned brother Coyajee J. directed that notice should be given to the Dominion of India, and the Advocate General of India has appeared before me on behalf of the Dominion of India. I decided to try this question as a preliminary issue in these matters and I have heard parties thereon. The matter arises in this way:2. Ordinance No. V of 1947 is made under the authority conferred on the Provincial Legislature to enact laws with respect to requisition of land by a notification of the Governor General of India being the Government of India, Ministry of Law, Notification No, F311-47-C. & ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
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!