Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1952Mad323; (1952)IMLJ71
1. These second appeals and the civil revision petitions arise out of a batch of suits relating to the village of Manamelpatti, a Dharmasanam village, in the Ramnad District. The suits out of which these second appeals arise were instituted by the trustees of Airabhadeswarar Soundaranayagi Amman Temple for ejectment of the defendants from the lands in their respective possession and for recovery of rent for faslis 1349 and 1350 and for future profits. The village comprises 80 pangus out of which the plaint temple in this batch owns 23 1/2 pangus purchased from the original owners and one pangu taken on othi from the owner. The plaintiffs in the batch of suits out of which the civil revision petitions arise are the managers of the Devasthanam of Nagara Vairavanpatti Valaroleeswaraswami Nagara Vairavaswami Devasthanam. This temple owns 54 and 5/8th pangus or shares in the village and suits were instituted for recovery of the balance of amounts due as 'iru bogam' for faslis 1349 and 1350....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1950Cal202
Das Gupta, J.1. These two applications are against two orders of conviction and sentence under Section 7 of Act XXIV [24] of 1946, read with Section 8 of the same Act, in two different cases. In both the cases the petitioners were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two and a half months, and the paddy was forfeited.2. They were heard together, as both of them raise the same question of law--the question whether on the alleged date of contravention of orders for which the petitioners have been convicted, 23rd September 1948--Act XXIV [24] of 1946 was in force. Mr. Mukherjee who has argued the cases for all the petitioners has contended that Act XXIV [24] of 1946 ceased to be in force after 3lst March 1948. If this contention be correct, it must be held that the conviction of the petitioners for acts committed on 23rd September 1948, would be unsustainable.3. Admittedly, Act XXIV [24] of 1946 is, or was a temporary Act. As the preamble states, it was enacted to provide for the contin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1950)52BOMLR591
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay dismissing an appeal from a conviction and sentence by the Presidency Magistrate, Fifth Court, Bombay, for an offence under the Bombay Abkari Act (V of 1878).2. The appellant was charged with having in her possession, in contravention of the Act, a quantity of foreign liquor (While Label Scotch Whisky) in excess of the limit permitted under a Government notification dated July 20, 1948, issued under the Act, and she was convicted and sentenced to a term of three months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500, or in default to a further term of six weeks' rigorous imprisonment. On appeal to the High Court her main contention was that the Provincial Legislature had no power under the Government of India Act, 1935, to-legislate with respect to the possession of foreign liquors, and that Section 14-B of the Bombay Abkari Act, as amended by the Bombay Abkari (Amendment) Act (XXIX of 1947)...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1950)52BOMLR493
Radcliffe, J.1. These are two appeals from the High Court of Judicature at Patna. They have been consolidated, and the central point upon which each appeal turns is the same : which of the parties is to be treated as the lawful owner of the piece of property in dispute? That piece of property is a four annas undivided share out of a fourteen annas partitioned share of an estate called Touzi No. 7898 in Mouza Awari, Pargana Lautana, District Darbhanga, and it is hereinafter referred to as 'the disputed property.'2. The two suits out of which the appeals arise were respectively a partition suit, (No. 89 of 1932) filed by the appellant on September 16, 1982, and a title suit (No. 72 of 1933) filed by the respondents in the second appeal on November 7, 1933. The appellant, who is the mahanth of a math or asthal called the Birpur Asthal, sought by the partition suit to obtain a declaration of his title to the, disputed property and an order for partition of the lands of which that property ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad808; [1950]18ITR181(Mad)
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. The following question was referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench:'Whether on the facts and circumstances of this case the finding of the Bench that the appellant is at resident within the meaning of Section 4-A (b), Income-tax Act is tenable in law?' The assessee is a Hindu undivided family whose manager is Rajah Kandimalla Venkatarama Narasimha Rao Bahadur, the Zamindar of Aswaraopet. He is a permanent resident of Aswaraopet in the Nizam's State. For the accounting year 1938-89 he was asked to pay income-tax on a total income of Rs. 14,630 which consisted of Rs. 180 being interest accrued in money-lending business. Out of Rs. 19,000 being the net sale proceeds of paddy, net grazing fees and net sale proceeds of tobacco, allowing the statutory deduction of as. 4500, the balance of Rs. 14,500 was treated as income from sources other than agricultural income from outside British India to which the interest from money-lending business wa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1950)52BOMLR463
Reid, J.1. In 1934 the appellant was appointed to the Indian Civil Service. During 1943 he was employed as Additional District Magistrate at Midnapore, and while so employed he was concerned in the investigation of a charge of bribery against Dr. Panda, a sub assistant surgeon of the Bengal Nagpur Railway. While the case against Dr. Panda was still under investigation, the appellant was transferred from Midnapore and he went to Calcutta where he stayed for a time. It was alleged that on December 20, 1943, while in Calcutta he received a bribe from Dr. Panda and he was suspended. On July 6, 1945, the following order was made by the Governor of Bengal:In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1)(b) and Sub-section (2) of Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Act V of 1898) the Governor is pleased to accord sanction to the prosecution, of Mr. T.A. Menon of the Indian Civil Service under suspension in respect of(a) an offence under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code.(b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Privy Council
Reported in : AIR1950PC19
LORD REID: In 1934 the appellant was appointed to the Indian Civil Service. During 1943 he was employed as Additional District Magistrate at Midnapore and while so employed he was concerned in the investigation of a charge of bribery against Dr. Panda a sub-assistant surgeon of the Bengal Nagpur Railway. While the case against Dr. Panda was still under investigation the appellant was transferred from Midnapcre and he went to Calcutta where he stayed for a time. It was alleged that on 20th December 1943, while in Calcutta he received a bribe from Dr. Panda and he was suspended. On 6th July 1945, the following Order was made by the Governor of Bengal: "In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-s. (1) (b) and sub-s. (2) of S. 197, Criminal P. C. (Act V [5] of 1898) the Governor is pleased to accord sanction to the prosecution of Mr. T. A. Menon of the Indian Civil Service under suspension in respect of (a) an offence under S. 161, Penal Code. (b) an offence under S. 165, Penal Code. (c)...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad324
Govinda Menon, J. 1. These are petitions under Section 491, Criminal P. C., by the various petitioners herein praying that directions in the nature of habeas corpus to be issued to the superintendent of the respective jails in which they are confined to produce them before this Court so that they might be set at liberty. In all these cases the petitioners are detained under the provisions of Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1947 (Act I [1] of 1947) as amended by the Madras Maintenance of Public Order (Amendment) Act, 1948 (Act XVII [17] of 1948). Madras Act I [1] of 1947 was to remain in force for a period of one year from 12th March 1947 and there was a provision therein that the Provincial Government may, from time to time, by notification in the Fort St. George Gazette, extend the continuance of the Act for a further period or periods not exceeding one year in the aggregate. In accordance with that provision contained in Section 1 (4) of Act I [1] of 1947, the Provincial Gove...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1950Raj20
ORDERBapna, J. 1. The petitioner Gambhirmal filed an appeal against the order of remand passed by the learned District Judge, Nagaur on 12th May 1945 which for reasons mentioned hereafter was treated as a revision and is being dealt with accordingly. 2. One Gyanchand filed a suit in the Court of Thikana Nimaj on 17th September 1943 on the allegation that a certain house and a Nohra situate at Papar were mortgaged with possession by his father Chandan Mal to Shobha Chand and Kalyan Chand in Section 1948 for RS. 500 and that Udai Chand defendant 1 was their sole heir and legal representative. It was alleged that the predecessor-in-title of Udaichand had submortgaged the properly to the ancestors of defendants 2 to 7 viz., Simrathmal, Samirmal, Gambhirmal, Mt. Dhapi, Mt. Teenja and Manakchand, and by certain arrangements between the and defendants, the property was now in possession of Mt. Dhapi and Teeaja. It wag stated that as the defendants refused to redeem the property on tender bein...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1950All270
ORDERMalik, C.J.1. The facts of this case are very simple. The assessee, Mishri Mal Gulab Chand, is a Hindu undivided family doing business at Beawar, Ajmer-Merwara. The relevant assessment year is 1944-45. In the relevant account year, the assessee was a resident and ordinarily resident in British India. The asses-see had speculated individually and in partnership in various commodities in British India and also in Indian States. From its individual business carried on in British India the assessee had made a profit of Rs. 38,473, while from its individual business in the Indian States it suffered a loss of Rs. 25,391. In computing total income from business of the assessee the Income-tax Officer did not debit the loss suffered in Indian States. This decision was upheld by the Assistant Income-tax Commissioner. On appeal the Appellate Tribunal reversed the decision of the Income-tax Commissioner and held that the first proviso to Section 24 (1) of the Act did not apply. On an applicat...
Tag this Judgment!