Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : May-19-1950
Reported in : AIR1950SC27; 1950CriLJ1383; (1950)IIMLJ42(SC); [1950]1SCR88
1. This is a petition by the applicant under article 32(1) of the Constitution of India for a writ of habeas corpus against his detention in the Madras Jail. In the petition he has given various dates showing how he has been under detention since December, 1947. Under the ordinary Criminal Law he was sentenced to terms of imprisonment but those convictions were set aside. While he was thus under detention under one of the orders of the Madras State Government, on the 1st of March, 1950, he was served with an order made under section 3(1) of the Preventive Detention Act, IV of 1950. He challenges the legality of the order as it is contended that Act IV of 1950 contravenes the provisions of articles 13, 19 and 21 and the provisions of that Act are not in accordance with article 22 of the Constitution. He has also challenged the validity of the order on the ground that it is issued mala fide. The burden of proving that allegation is on the applicant. Because of the penal provisions of sec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Jan-18-1950
Reported in : AIR1950Ori125
Narasimham, J.1. These six revision petitions are against the order of the District Munsif of Aaka rejecting six execution petitions Nos.269, 271, 272, 273, 276 and 277 of 1944 on the ground that they were barred by limitation. The revision petitions were first heard by my Lord the Chief Justice sitting singly and he was pleased to refer to a larger Bench in view of the doubt entertained by him regarding the correctness of two Division Bench decisions of the Patna High Court reported in Banwari Narain v. Ramhari Narain, A. I. R (29) 1942 pat. 335: (197 I. C. 217) and Mohammad Sadique Mian v. Mdkabir Sao, A. I. E. (29) 1942 Pat. 410 : (21 Pat. 866).2. The material facts which are not in dispute are as follows: Execution petn. no. 269 of 44 arose out of a Small Oause Court suit which was disposed of on 1st August 1944 and the remaining five execution petitions arose out of Small Cause Court suits which were disposed of on 8th August 1941. In all those suits, the decrees were actually dra...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : May-04-1950
Reported in : AIR1950SC134; (1950)52BOMLR719; [1950]181ITR472(SC); [1950]1SCR335
Kania, C.J. 1. This is an appeal from a decision of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay upon a reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay, under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act. The respondent firm, the assessees, carried on business of manufacturing and dealing in oil during the relevant accounting periods. They are a registered firm under the Income-tax Act and are residents in Bombay. They own three mills at Bombay and one at Raichur for manufacturing oil from groundnuts. The oil produced at Raichur is sold partly at Raichur and partly in Bombay. Their liability to pay income-tax in respect of their whole profits is not disputed under the Income-tax Act. The question is in respect of their liability under the Excess Profits Tax Act for the oil manufactured at Raichur, but sold in Bombay. 2. The assessees contend that in respect of such oil a portion of the profits earned by them is attributable to their business of manufacturing oil at Raichur and that...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-09-1950
Reported in : AIR1950Mad631; [1950]18ITR302(Mad)
Viswanatha Sastri, J.1. The question that has been referred to us is as follows: 'Whether in the circumstances Section 42, Income-tax Act, as amended in 1939, would apply to 'residents' as well?'The facts out of which this reference arises may be briefly stated. The assessee is a merchant carrying on business in Madras in paper and stationery and has been assessed as an individual resident and ordinarily resident in British India. In February 1942, the assessee opened a branch of his business at Mysore where paper and articles of stationery were sold. It is common ground that there have been no remittances of money or profits from Mysore to British India. The Income-tax Officer, however, found that there was an intimate business connection between the bead office at Madras and the branch at Mysore, and held that a portion of the profits earned by the business at Mysore should be deemed to have accrued or arisen in British India by reason of Section 42 (1), Income-tax Act of 1922, as am...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : May-04-1950
Reported in : [1950]18ITR472(SC)
KANIA, C.J. - This is an appeal from a decision of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay upon a reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay, under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act. The respondent firm, the assesses, carried on business of manufacturing and dealing in oil during the relevant accounting periods. They are a registered firm under the Income-tax Act and are residents in Bombay. They own three mills at Bombay and one at Raichur for manufacturing oil from groundnuts. The oil produced at Raichur is sold partly at Raichur and partly in Bombay. Their liability to pay income-tax in respect of their whole profits is not disputed under the Income-tax Act. The question is in respect of their liability under the Excess Profits Tax Act for the oil manufactured at Raichur, but sold in Bombay.The assessees contend that in respect of such oil a portion of the profits earned by them is attributable to their business manufacturing oil at Raichur and that portion ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Apr-14-1950
Reported in : AIR1951Mad437; (1950)2MLJ607
ORDERViswanatha Sastri, J.1. This civil revision petition is directed against an interlocutory order of the Subordinate Judge of Tuticorin in O. P. No. 33 of 1949, a petition for the issue of a succession certificate under Succession Act (XXXIX [39] of 1925), holding that he had jurisdiction to entertain the application. The contention of the petitioner in this Court is that the Subordinate Judge had no jurisdication. There is no notification of the Provincial Government under Section 388(1), Succession Act, 1925, empowering Subordinate Judges to issue succession certificates. Under Section 26, Sub-section (3), Succession Certificate Act (vii [7] of 1889) there were three notifications by the Local Government conferring jurisdiction on Courts inferior to a District Court to issue succession certificates. Effect of these successions issued under that Act is one of the matters that fall to be decided in this case. The provisions of Act XIV [14] of 1926 passed by the Indian Legislature, w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Dec-01-1950
Reported in : AIR1951Bom369; (1951)53BOMLR268; ILR1951Bom626
Bavdekar, J. 1. The opponent in this case one Hiralal Manilal Mody is a sweetmeat seller. He prepares sweet-meats & also sells them. Upon information received, the Inspector of Rationing raided his residential premises, his shop, where he sells sweet-meats & his godown. Nothing was found in the shop which could be objected to under the Essential Supplies (Temporary Bowers) Act, 1946, but in the residential premises of the opponent there were found 165 lbs. of wheat & wheat flour & 277 lbs. of rice. Other things were also found, but it is not necessary to refer to them for the purpose of the present appeal. The opponent in this case was possessed in respect of the persons who were living with him in his residential premises nine ration cards & it is not in dispute that if the opponent was entitled to have in his possession all that would be warranted by these nine ration cards he was in possession of 106 lbs. of rice in excess of what he could possess. The opponent's defence, however, w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Sep-14-1950
Reported in : AIR1951Mad147; (1951)IMLJ628
Satyanarayana Rao J.1. This is a petn. under Article 226, Const. Ind. for the issue of a writ of certiorari for calling the records & quashing the order of the State of Madras in G. O. No. Ms. 1517 Public General dated 10-3-1950 declaring under Section 16, Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1908, the People's Education Society as an unlawful assocn. The petnr. is the General Secretary of the People's Education Society registered in November 1947 under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (XXI [21] of 1860), & is also a barrister-at-law & an advocate of this Court & the Supreme Ct.2. The objects of the Society as stated in the affidavit of the petnr. are among others '(a) to encourage, promote, diffuse, & popularise useful knowledge in all science & more specially Social Science; (b) to encourage, promote, diffuse & popularise political education among people; (c) to encourage, promote or popularise the study & understanding of all social & political problems & bring about social & political r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Apr-13-1950
Reported in : AIR1951All529
Kidwai, J.1. Dr. H. S. Dubey, formerly Medical Officer of Health at Lucknow, died on 31-10-1942. He was Brahman and had married a Brahman wife from whom he had two sons, the plaintiffs, Rama Shankar and Karuna Shankar, and two daughters, Shanti Devi and Kanti Shukla. Dr. Dubey's Brahman wife died in 1927 and, it is no longer disputed, he went through the ceremony of marriage under the Indian Christian Marriage Act (XV [15] of 1872) with Mrs. Chandramani Dubey, a Christian by religion. A son, Udai Shankar and a daughter, Kamni, were born of this union.2. For some time after Dr. Dubey's death there were no disputes between the parties and, in two litigations, Mrs. Chandramani Dubey and the six children were all impleaded as his legal representatives without any objection by any of them. Later, however, relations became strained and, on 25-4-1944, the two plaintiffs, denying the factum of the marriage and alleging that, in any case, it was legally void and ineffectual, instituted the suit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Jul-27-1950
Reported in : AIR1951Ori138
Panigrahi, J.1. This is an appeal by the State of Orissa Against an order of acquittal recorded by the Learned Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj, in a case arising under Schedule 88 Penal Code.2. The case for the prosecution is that the accused Oriya Sama Majhi disobeyed an order under Schedule 44 criminal P. C. promulgated on 5-2-49, in the Bamangati Subdivision of Mayurbhanj District, prohibiting the residents there in from carrying bows and arrows or any deadly weapons. It is alleged that the accused was moving about on 31-3-49 in his village, Maranda, with a bow, arrows, and a sword shouting that he would kill his enemies with, these weapons. The order under Schedule 44 was duly promulgated on 5-2-49, and it is proved that the accused had knowledge of the ban imposed under this order. The trying magistrate recorded a finding that the accused intentionally disobeyed the order and that the disobedience caused danger to human life and safety.He accordingly convicted the accused of an offence...
Tag this Judgment!