Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1949)51BOMLR725
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. These five references raise common questions of law. All these references were pending before the High Court of Judicature, Deccan States, Kolhapur, and they have been transferred to us after the State of Phaltan was merged in the Province of Bombay.2. The assessee company was incorporated in the Phaltan State in the year 1933 as a private limited company and it was converted into a public limited company on September 17, 1942. During the accounting year ending on September 30, 1938, this company made a profit of Rs. 3,94,653, but it did not distribute any part of these profits by way of dividends to its shareholders who were three in number. Thereupon the Income-tax Officer took action under Section 23A (1) of the Act and ordered that all the assessable profits of the company should be deemed to have been distributed amongst the shareholders of the company. After the company was converted into a public company on September 17, 1942, an order was issued by the Incom...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1950Cal214,54CWN12
Lahiri, J.1. This Rule was obtained by the plaintiff landlord in a proceeding under Section 41, Presidency Small Cause Court Act for the recovery of possession of room no. 27 of premises No. 57 Clive Street of which the opposite party was a monthly tenant at a rent of Rs. 75 per month. The facts of the case, which are undisputed, are as follows: the present proceeding was started on 7th March 1945, inter alia, on the ground of default in payment of rent after service of a notice to quit and on 27th July 1945 it was decreed on consent in favour of the landlord. On 29th August 1945, the Calcutta House Rent Control Order was amended by the insertion of para. 9B which inter alia provided by sub-para. (3) that where any decree or order for recovery of possession had been made before 29th August 1945 on the ground of default in payment or deposit of rent but possession had not been recovered, the proceeding for recovery of possession in execution of the decree or order shall be stayed till 2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad162
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. This and the connected petitions under Section 491, Criminal P. C., were heard together as they raise common questions of law under the Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act, I [1] of 1947.2. The facts and the contentions peculiar to the other petitions will be dealt with separately. Under Section 2 (1) (a) of the Act the District Magistrate, Madura, passed an order of detention dated 1st April 1948 and the applicant was arrested on the same day. He was kept in police custody at Madura till 3rd April when he was removed to the Central Jail, Vellore. The grounds of detention were communicated to the applicant on 24th April 1948, and he submitted his explanation on 10th May 1948. The Government referred the matter to the Advisory Council on 14th February 1949 and the matter is still pending with it. This application was filed on 18th January 1949 and till now no final order was passed by the Government under Section 3 (5) of the Act.3. Mr. N. S. Mani, the learned...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1949)2MLJ310
Satyanarayana Rao J.1. Crl. M.P. No. 190 of 1949. This and the connected petitions under Section 491 of the Criminal Procedure Code were heard together as they raise common questions of law under the Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1 of 1947.2. The facts and the contentions peculiar to the other petitions will be dealt with separately. Under Section 2(1)(a) of the Act the District Magistrate, Madura, passed an order of detention, dated 1st April, 1948, and the applicant was arrested on the same day. He was kept in police custody at Madura till the 3rd April, when he was removed to the Central Jail, Vellore. The grounds of detention were communicated to the applicant on 24th April, 1948, and he submitted his explanation on the 10th May, 1948. The Government referred the matter to the Advisory Council on 14th February, 1949 and the matter is still pending with it. This application was filed on 18th January, 1949, and till now no final order was passed by the Government under Sect...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : [1950]18ITR33(P& H)
FALSHAW, J. - This is a case referred to the High Court by the Income-tax appellate tribunal of Allahabad under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act.The reference actually covers three cases relating to the same company which has been contesting its assessments for the assessment years 1940-41, 1941-42, 1942-43, the accounting years being those ending on the 31st of March, 1940, the 31st of March, 1941, and the 31st of March, 1942. The company in question is Messrs. J. Webb Sons and Co. Inc. of Philadelphia in the united states of America, its business being the manufacture of carpets. The company is represented in India by an agent named Shamji Mal of Amritsar and its only business in India has been the purchase of wool as raw material for use in the manufacture of carpets. The method by which the Income-tax payable by the company for the period in question has been assessed is as follows. The company through its agent in each year filed returns showing no income as liable to tax on th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1949)51BOMLR677
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. The facts leading up to this reference may be briefly stated. The assesses are a registered partnership firm carrying on business in the name of Kikabhoy Chandabhoy. Kikabhoy Chandabhoy himself was the sole proprietor of this firm and then there were changes in the constitution of that firm. He took Bai Fatima Bai, his daughter, as a partner in samvat year 1994 (1938-39) under an instrument dated October 13, 1938. Kikabhoy died on March 22, 1942. By an instrument of partnership dated March 29, 1942, a new partnership was brought into existence and that partnership was to commence business from April 1, 1942. That partnership consisted of the widow of Kikabhoy, his daughter and an outsider by the name of Abbasbhai Mohamedali. This partnership was dissolved on October 30; 1942.2. In the assessment of this firm, for the year 1942-43 a claim was made that the firm was entitled to relief both with regard to income-tax and super-tax under Section 25(3) and Section 25(4) o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1949)2MLJ171
P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. This case was referred to a Full Bench because Mack, J., before whom it originally came for disposal, considered it desirable that the conflict of decisions as regards maintainability of suits by de facto trustees should be resolved by reference to a Full Bench for the guidance of all courts in the Presidency. The appeal arose out of a suit filed for the recovery of possession of certain property alleged to belong to Sri Swarnamalai Kadiresan Swami Temple and alienated by one Amavasai Paradesi as its trustee to the first defendant on 13th May, 1940, under a sale deed and under an othi deed. The plaintiff was described as Sri Puvananda Swami, through its Executive Officer, C.S. Pillai. The plaintiff's right was in the main based upon the terms of a consent decree passed in O.S. No. 64 of 1937 on the file of the court of the District Munsif of Koilpatti, which was a suit filed by the plaintiff Devasthanam against Amavasai Paradesi and others for possession of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1943)2MLJ8
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This reference has been made by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras, in accordance with a direction given to' him by this Court under Section 66(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.2. The reference involves the interpretation of Section 25(3) of the Act.3. The petitioner and his brothers were members of an undivided Hindu family, and when joint the family carried on a money-lending business in India and in the Federated Malay Slates. The business was of long standing and had been assessed to income-tax under the Act of 1918. On the 2nd June, 1938, the joint status was severed. Thereafter the members of the family continued the business in the same places as partners. The financial year with which this reference is concerned commenced on the 13th April, 1938. On the 22nd December, 1939, the petitioner claimed that the income of the family from the 13th April, 1938, to the 2nd June, 1938, was not liable to be taxed by reason of the provisions of Sub...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1950Cal377,54CWN225
J.P. Mitter, J.1. This is a suit in the testamentary jurisdiction of the Court for the grant of probate of the Will of one Narsing Prosad Shaw, deceased. The plaintiff Maniklal is the executor under the Will and is the elder of the two surviving sons of the testator. The defendant Hiralal is the other son.2. The original application for grant of probate was presented on 18th December 1947. Hiralal's name not having been mentioned in the said application as one of the sons of the testator, no citation was issued to him, and in due course, probate of the Will, which is dated 12th October 1946 was issued on 22nd December 1947. On 7th May 1948, Hiralal made an application for the revocation of the probate on the ground of absence of citation on him. This application was heard by Majumdar J. who held that the want of citation was a 'just cause' within the meaning of Section 263, Succession Act, and by his order dated 20th July 1948, he revoked the said grant. The directions given by Majumda...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1949)2MLJ217
P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. The question referred to the decision of the Full Bench is, when a decree is passed in favour of a firm, can payment outside Court to one partner/decree-holder bind the other partner/decree-holders Though the question is in general terms, it is necessary to state the facts of the case to understand the implications of the question. On 18th August, 1942, the District Munsif of Anantapur passed a preliminary decree for sale in a suit on a mortgage in favour of the firm of Eeranti Seethayya and company against the' two defendants who are the appellants before us. The firm was represented by its managing partner, Eeranti Seethayya. The final decree was duly made on 17th July, 1943. On the 12th October, 1944, the execution petition (E.P. No. 467 of 1944) was filed by the decree-holder firm by its managing partner, Eeranti Seethayya, to recover a sum of Rs. 3,342-8-0, by sale of the mortgaged properties. While this application was pending, on 22nd March 1945, the judg...
Tag this Judgment!