Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Dec-23-1948
Reported in : 1949CriLJ756
Khosla, J.1. This is a petition under a. 23, Press (Emergency Powers) Act, XXIII [23] of 1981. The petitioner before us is Shree Kidar Nath, the keeper of the Press known as the Printers Ltd., of Ambala Cantonment. He was ordered by the East Punjab Government to deposit a sum of Rs. 8,000 as security under Section 3, Sub-section (8), Press (Emergency PowerB) Act on account of the publication of an article 'Yeh kaun aya hai' in the 'Weekly Insaf of 4th August 1948. It was alleged that this article contained matter which 'tends directly or indirectly to bring into hatred or contempt the Government established by law or to excite disaffection towards the said Government' within the meaning of clause (d), Sub-section (l) of Section 4, Indian Press (Emergency Powers) Act. The petitioner has moved this Court for the cancellation of the order of the Punjab Government.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner raised three points before us. He argued in the first place that incitement to violen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Dec-21-1948
Reported in : 1949CriLJ701
Mushtaq Ahmad, J.1. The questions referred to the Full Bench are set out in the referring order in these terms:(1) Does the mere possession of cloth which was not to be possessed after 31st December 1944, in view of Clause 14, Sub-clause (1) (a), Cotton Cloth and Yarn (Control) Order 1943, amount to so contravening the provisions of that Order as to be punishable under B, 81 (4), Defence of India Rules or would it amount to such contravention if such poaeession be without lawful authority or lawful exouse?(2) Whether the general consideration that the authorities did not, either in this Control Order or in directions issued thereunder, provide the mode in which the dealers were to act in the event of such cloth remaining with them undisposed of, would itself amount to a 'lawful excuse.'(3) Whether the existence of lawful excuse depends on the dealers taking some active step prior to 31st December 1944, for getting rid of the cloth before or after 31st December 1944.2. The full facta of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Dec-21-1948
Reported in : AIR1949All473
Mushtaq Ahmad, J.1. The questions referred to the Full Bench are set out in the referring order in these terms:(1) Does the mere possession of cloth which was not to be possessed after 31st December 1944, in view of Clause 14, Sub-clause (1) (a), Cotton Cloth and Yarn (Control) Order 1943, amount to so contravening the provisions of that Order as to be punishable under Rule 81 (4), Defence of India Rules or would it amount to such contravention if such possession be without lawful authority or lawful excuse?(2) Whether the general consideration that the authorities did not, either in this Control Order or in directions issued thereunder, provide the mode in which the dealers were to act in the event of such cloth remaining with them undisposed of, would itself amount to a 'lawful excuse.'(3) Whether the existence of lawful excuse depends on the dealers taking some active steps prior to 31st December 1944, for getting rid of the cloth before or after 31st December 1944.2. The full facts...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Dec-20-1948
Reported in : (1949)51BOMLR942
Reid, J.1. The appellants in this case were, during the material time, partners of the firm of Rai Bahadur Bansilal Abirchand which carried on business both within British India and elsewhere. Each appellant had a quarter share in the firm. The firm was a registered firm resident in British India within the meaning of the Indian Income-tax Act. The first appellant was not ordinarily resident and the second appellant was not resident in British India within the meaning of that Act. A considerable part of the firm's income arose or accrued outside British India and was not brought into or received in British India. The question in the present case shortly stated is whether the appellants are bound to include in their total incomes for the purpose of Indian income tax the whole of their shares of the firm's income or whether they are entitled to exclude a proportion of those shares corresponding to the proportion of the firm's income which arose or accrued outside British India.2. The app...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Privy Council
Decided on : Dec-20-1948
Lord Reid: The appellants in this case were, during the material time, partners of the firm of Rai Bahadur Bansilal Abirchand which carried on business both within British India and elsewhere. Each appellant had a quarter share in the firm. The firm was a registered firm resident in British India within the meaning of the Indian Income-tax Act. The first appellant was not ordinarily resident and the second appellant was not resident in British India within the meaning of that Act. A considerable part of the firm's income arose or accrued outside British India and was not brought into or received in British India. The question in the present case shortly stated is whether the appellants are bound to include in their total incomes for the purpose of Indian income-tax the whole of their shares of the firm's income or whether they are entitled to exclude a proportion of those shares corresponding to the proportion of the firm's income which arose or accrued outside British India. [2] The a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Dec-16-1948
Reported in : (1949)51BOMLR442
Harilal Kania, Kt., C.J.I have read the judgment prepared by Mukherjea J. I agree with the reasoning and conclusion of that judgment and have nothing to add.Mukherjea, J.1. This appeal is directed against a judgment of a division bench of the Calcutta High Court dated November 14, 1944, by which the learned Judges reversed a decree of dismissal made by the Subordinate Judge, First Court, Alipore, in a suit for partition and accounts.2. The material facts are not controverted and may be briefly stated as follows. The properties which are described in the schedules to the plaint belonged admittedly to one Kedar Nath Das, who died on December 18, 1920, leaving behind him a will which was executed on July 5, 1916. The near relatives of Kedar who survived him were his wife Golapmoni, two sons-Bejoy Sashi and Benoy Sashi-and two daughters Hemnalini and Mrinalini. There were four grandsons also born during the life-time of the testator and actually in existence at the date of his death, three...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Nov-26-1948
Reported in : AIR1950Mad22
ORDERRajagopalan, J.1. The three charges against the petitioners were (1) that in the mouth of April or May 1946 they cheated Albert Correa, P. W. 10, at Verapurzha in Travancore State, (2) that about the month of March 1946 they cheated P. W. 11, V. Hormis, at Cheranallur in Cochin state and (3) that in about February 1946, again at Cheranallur in Cochin, they cheated P. W. 12, M. C. Simon, and that they committed offences punishable under Section 420 read with Section 37, Penal Code, The petitioners have applied to have these charges quashed.2. On the date of the offences complained of the accused were 'native Indian subjects of His Majesty within the meaning of Section 4, Clause (1), Penal Code, as it stood on that date. The offences were alleged to have been committed in Travancore and Cochin which were beyond 'British India' within the meaning of Section 4(1), Penal Code. Section 188, Criminal P. C., prescribed the sanction of the political agent or of a local Government before cr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Nov-24-1948
Reported in : AIR1950Bom101
Bavdekar, J.1. These are two applications under Section 491, Criminal P. C. in respect of two persons against whom orders have been made under the Foreigners Act. The two persons are Mr. and Mrs. Raab, and it is the case of the Crown that out of them Mr. Raab was, before an order was issued by the Maharaja of Baroda conferring upon him the status of a subject of the Baroda State, a naturalized subject of the Republic of Costa Rica and Mrs. Raab was a Czechoslovak. It is not in dispute that on 8th November 1947, His Highness the Maharaja of Baroda passed an order recognising Mr. Raab as a Baroda State subject, and it is not disputed before us that, if this was a valid order in its inception and is still a valid order, then in that case Mr. and Mrs. Raab will be both subjects of the Baroda State, Mr. Raab, because of the order, and Mrs. Raab because of the provision of international law by which a wife attains the status, as far as nationality is concerned, of her husband. It appears fro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Nov-24-1948
Reported in : (1949)51BOMLR287
Harilal Kania, Kt., C.J.1. The appellant is the agent of the Gwalior Durbar. The Durbar was participating in various trade and business operations, in and outside the Gwalior State for many years. The record shows that those activities in any event existed in 1924 when the predecessor of the present Maharaja was on the throne. That Maharaja had appointed Mr. F.E. Din-shaw as his agent in Bombay for his, trade or business operations. The record shows that money was advanced as loan and also on the security of immovable properties. The Gwalior Durbar as such has not been treated as an assessee under the Indian Income-tax Act, but in respect of certain trading and business operations of the Durbar the Indian Income-tax authorities sought to make the Durbar liable under the Government Trading Taxation Act, III of 1926. Section 2 of that Act, which alone is material for the present case, runs as follows:-2 (1) Where a trade or business of any kind is carried on by or on behalf of the Govern...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Nov-12-1948
Reported in : 1949CriLJ684
Rajamannar, C.J.1. The appellants in the above appeals were accused 1 to 4 in case No. 10 of 1948 at the first criminal sessions of this Court in the year 1948. All the four appellants were found guilty by a majority of the jury of the offence of conspiracy to murder the late Dr. Habibulla, The appellants in criminal Appeal No. 183 of 1948 were found also guilty of murdering him, while the appellants in criminal Appeal Nos. 188 and 182 of 1948 were found guilty abetting the murder. The majority verdicts of the jury were accepted by Bell J. who tried the case, and they were sentenced to death. The appeals were pro-ferred under Section 411A, Criminal P. 0., which bad been added to the Code by Act xxvi [26] of 1948, with the leave of the appellate Court on matters of law and fact. The appeals came up for hearing before Horwill and Govinda Menon JJ. The learned Public Prosecutor raised a preliminary objection that the appeals were not maintainable, because Act xxvi [26] of 1913 was invalid...
Tag this Judgment!