Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jul-22-1952
Reported in : AIR1952Mad802; (1952)2MLJ464
1. I have had the advantage of perusing the judgment which my learned brother is about to deliver and while I agree with his conclusion I would venture to add a few words of my own, especially since the question argued is bereft of authority in. this court and is important from the point of view of the construction of the Registration Act. Is the compromise decree charging properties specifically mentioned in the schedule thereto but which were not in terms the subject-matter of the litigation, compulsorily registrable under Section 17(I) of the Registration Act? That it is a document which purports to create right, title and interest in immoveable property of the value of more than Rs. 100 has not been questioned; and but for the fact that Section 17(2) Clause (vi) as it originally stood exempted a decree or order of court from being compulsorily registered, the decree in question would, of necessity, be registrable. By the amendment made by Section 10 of the Transfer of Property (Ame...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Apr-30-1952
Reported in : AIR1952All848; [1952]22CompCas318(All)
Malik, C.J.1. The U. P. Union Bank Ltd. having its Head Office at Utraula was compul-sorily wound up under the Indian Companies Act by an order of this Court dated 16-12-1949. The application for winding up had been filed on 13-9-1949.2. One Ali Ahmad Jaffri had deposited a sum of Rs. 10,000 as a fixed deposit in the Delhi Branch of the Bank. The fixed deposit matured on 1-3-1948. On maturity, however, Ali Ahmad Jaffri did not get the amount paid to him and, after several attempts for its realization had failed, he came to the Head Office at Utraula and approached Akhtar Husain Eizvi who was the General Manager of the Bank and his brother Mehdi Hasan who was the Chief Secretary. The General Manager and the Chief Secretary', it is said, assured Ali Ahmad Jaffri that payment would be made, and ultimately on 11-7-1949 they issued thirteen demand drafts on the Allahabad Branch of the Bank. When Ali Ahmad Jaffri presented these drafts at the Allahabad Branch the Branch was not able to pay t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : May-12-1952
Reported in : AIR1952Cal907
ORDERBose, J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution for issue of a writ in the nature of Quo Warranto against the respondent District Board and the members thereof to exhibit the authority under which they purport to exercise the functions and powers and perform the duties of the District Board of 24-Parganas and of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman and the members thereof and also for the issue of an appropriate writ directing the respondent State of West Bengal to. revoke or cancel certain notifications issued under West Bengal Ordinance 3 of 1948 and under West Bengal Act 23 of 1948 and under Act 14 of 1950 and Act 51 of 1950.2. The petitioners are inhabitants of villages Dhop Dhopi and Dakshin Chatra in the district of 24 parganas and are qualified to vote at elections of members of the District Board of 24 parganas and to stand as candidates for election as members of the said District Board. 3. On 1st October 1886, a District Board known as the District Boar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Jan-07-1952
Reported in : AIR1952Ori318
Jagannadhadas, C.J.1. These four proceedings arise out of rules issued against certain persons for having committed contempt of this Court by publication of certain news items and articles in newspapers. To elucidate the background of these proceedings, it is necessary to state a few preliminary facts.2. In the month of April, 1951, there were examinations held at Cuttack by the Utkal University for the 'M. B. B. S. degree. These proceedings arise out of examinations for the 1st year M. B.B. S. students. The Board of Examiners submitted their results to the Syndicate on the 21st of April. The Vice-Chancellor of the University had information two days earlier, that is on the 19th April, that some questions in the written paper for the examination in Anatomy of the said 1st M.B.B.S. held on the 9th April, had leaked out. At a meeting of the Syndicate on the 21st April, the inform-mation received about the leakage of the question in the written Anatomy paper was considered by the Syndicat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Nov-18-1952
Reported in : AIR1953All488
Malik, C.J.1. This is a reference under Section 66 (1), Income-tax Act, and the question, which has been referred to us for decision, is as follows:'Q. Whether, on the finding of fact that Pandit Lachhman Prasad was, at the commencement of the Indian Income-tax (Amendment) Act of 1939, carrying on the business in his capacity as an 'individual' but was succeeded in his capacity as Karta of an Hindu undivided family by his sons under the award of 31-3-1941, the provisions of Section 25 (4) of the Income-tax Act allow any relief to him?'In other words, the question for our decision is whether the estate of Lachhman Prasad Pandey is entitled to the benefit under the provisions of Section 25 (4), Income-tax Act.2. Pandit Lachhman Prasad Pandey had three sons, Chintamani Pandey, Vishnu Datt Pandey and Hari Datt Pandey. He was assessed to income-tax from the assessment year 1918-19 to the assessment year 1926-27. It was not mentioned in what capacity he was being assessed but, from the order...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jan-11-1952
Reported in : AIR1952SC75; 1952CriLJ510; [1952]1SCR284
Patanjali Sastri, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the State of West Bengal from a judgment of a Full Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta quashing the conviction of the respondent by the Special Court established under section 3 of the West Bengal Special Courts Ordinance, 1949, (Ordinance No. 3 of 1949) which was replaced in March, 1950, by the West Bengal Special Courts Act, 1950, (West Bengal Act X of 1950) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. The respondent and 49 other persons were charged with various offences alleged to have been committed by them in the course of their raid as an armed gang on a certain factory known as the Jessop Factory at Dum Dum, and they were convicted and sentenced to varying terms of imprisonment by the Special Court to which the case was sent for trial by the Governor of West Bengal by a notification dated 26th January, 1950, in exercise of the powers conferred by section 5 (1) of the Act. Thereupon the respondent applied to the High Cour...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Oct-27-1952
Reported in : AIR1952SC369; [1953]4SCR1
Patanjali Sastri, C.J.1. This is an application under article 32 of the Constitution for relief in respect of an alleged infringement of the fundamental right of the petitioners under article 19(1)(g) or, alternatively, under article 136 for special leave to appeal from a judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta rejecting their application for the same relief under article 226. 2. As the petitioners would clearly be entitled to relief under the one or the other form of remedy if their claim was well-founded, no objection was taken to the maintainability of the present proceeding, and we desire to guard ourselves against being taken to have decided that a proceeding under article 32 would lie after an application under article 226 for the same relief on the same facts had been rejected after due enquiry by a High court. We express no opinion on that point. 3. The facts leading to this proceeding are not in dispute and may be briefly stated. The first petitioner is an Advocat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-22-1952
Reported in : AIR1953SC113; [1953]32ITR87(SC); (1953)IMLJ436(SC); [1953]4SCR486
Mahajan, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in a reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. 2. For several years prior to 1939-40 the respondents, who are brothers, had been carrying of in partnership the business of 'The Hindu,' a daily newspaper of Madras. The profits of this business had been charged to income-tax in the hands of the respondents under the Indian Income-tax Act of 1918. The firm's year of account was a period of twelve months ending with 30th June each year. In respect of the profits of the year of accounting ending 30th June, 1938, assessment was made in the year 1939-40 and the firm was charged to income-tax for the assessment year. On the 1st March, 1940, the respondents transferred their business as a going concern to a private limited company called 'Kasturi and Co. Ltd.' 3. For the assessment year 1940-41 the respondents claimed that the firm was not...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Mar-31-1952
Reported in : AIR1952SC196; 1952CriLJ966; (1952)IIMLJ135(SC); [1952]1SCR597
Patanjali Sastri, C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order of the High Court of Judicature at Madras adjudging section 15(2)(b) of the Indian Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1908 (Act No. XIV of 1908) as amended by the Indian Criminal Law Amendment (Madras) Act, 1950, (hereinafter referred to as the impugned Act) as unconstitutional and void, and quashing Government Order No. 1517, Public (General) Department, dated 10th March, 1950, whereby the State Government declared a Society called the People's Education Society an unlawful association. 2. The respondent, who was the general secretary of the Society, which was registered under the Societies' Registration Act, 1860, applied to the High Court on 10th April 1950, under article 226 of the Constitution complaining that the impugned Act and he Order dated 10th March, 1950, purporting to be issued thereunder infringed the fundamental right conferred on him by article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution to form associations or unions and seeking appr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Apr-04-1952
Reported in : AIR1952All974
Mushtaq Ahmad, J.1. Both these appeals are by the decree-holder, each arising out of proceedings relating to a separate decree. The decree out of which the appeal first mentioned arose was No. 2331 of 1933 of the Court of Judge Small Causes, Gorakhpur, and the decree out of which the other appeal arose was No. 2128 of the same year and of the same Court. I propose to deal with these appeals together.2. It is necessary, for introducing the pointsin controversy, to set forth a few facts. 3. On 30th August 1933, the decree No. 2331 of 1933 was passed by the Court already mentioned. On 16th October 1933, the decree-holder made his first application for execution to the Small Cause Court, and on the same date an order was passed transferring the execution case to the Court of Munsif, Bansgaon, where an execution case relating to another decree No. 1142 of 1933 of the Court of Small Causes Gorakhpur was already pending. On 17th September 1941 the appellant made a statement before the Munsif,...
Tag this Judgment!