Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1924All137; 75Ind.Cas.329
1. This is a Reference by the Commissioner of Income-Tax, under Section 66 (2) of the Indian Income-Tax Act, XI of 1922. The assessees, at whose instance the Reference has been made, are a firm carrying on business at Hathras, in the Aligarh District, under the style of the 'Lalla Mal Hardeo Das Cotton Spinning Company' they may be conveniently referred to hereafter as 'the objectors.'2. In the petition which led to the Reference, they sought to raise sundry questions of detail in respect of which no reference had been made. The Commissioner's action in this respect has been perfectly correct. The Commissioner is required to refer to the High Court any question of law arising out of any order made by him under Section 32 of the Act. The objectors are seeking to raise questions not referred to in their petition of appeal to the Commissioner; obviously no reference can be made to the High Court on any such question.3. There remain two points set forth in the Reference. One of these is of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1950Ori67
Ray, C.J.1. The four cases, mentioned above, arising out of as many petitions, were some of the pending cases in respect of which the jurisdiction of the Patna High Court ceased from the 26th July, under Orissa High Court Constitution Order. They have since been transferred to this Court, and heard analogously, as the points for decision are common to all and will be governed by this order.2. Criminal Misc. 2/48 has been filed by one Saradhakar Naik of Bamra State, seeking interference of this Court, in the matter of illegal arrest and detention of one Jaydev Thakur of Bamra State and to order him to be set at liberty.3. Similarly, Cr Misc. nOS. 3, 4 and 5 of 1948 arise out of petitions filed, respectively, by Jayadev Naik of Bamra, Rual Naik and Pravakar Das of Kalahandi, in relation to the arrests and detentions of Batnakar Patra of Bamra, Nilakanth Patnaik and Lingaraj Daa of Kalahandi. In all the petitions, the legality of arrests and detentions of the prisoners has been challenged...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1950Ori169
Ray, C.J. 1. The petition ig directed against an order of remand passed by Sri B. C. Das, District Judge of Cuttaok-Dbenkanal, in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 87 of 1948, reversing an order dated, 4th qetober 1948 of Sri B. S. Patnaik, Additional Subordinate Judge of Cuttack, in Money Suit No. 8/342 of 1948/47. The suit was for recovery of Rs. 2193-12-0 being the sum borrowed with interest accrued thereon, under two handnotes executed by the opposite party in favour of the petitioner. The defendant resisted the suit, while accepting that the hand-notes were genuine and for consideration, with a plea of payment. The material date on which and since when the events giving rise to this application occurred is 3rd July 1948. On that date, the plaintiff was ready to go on with the hearing of the suit, and filed a list of witnesses. The defendant interposed a plea, as a barrier to the suit, by a petition purporting to be one undtr Order 23, Rule 3, Civil P. C. for recording as a compromise an aw...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 50Ind.Cas.895; (1919)36MLJ367
John Wallis, C.J.1. This is a Letters Patent appeal from the decision of Sadasiva Aiyar, J., who held (Bake-well, J. dissenting), that the court has power to relieve against a provision in a mulgeni or permanent lease, a form of agricultural lease in use in South Canara for re-entry by the landlord on breach of a covenant or condition against any alienation by the lessee of his mulgeni right except in the manner therein provided. The lease, which is inartistically drawn, provides in substance that, if the lessee or his representatives have to sell or mortgage their mulgeni right, they are first to give a written notice to the lessor or his heirs, and, if they fail to act on it or to reply thereto, the lessee is to be free to make the alienation, but that alienations in contravention of these provisions are to be void, and the lessor is to be at liberty to re-enter and enjoy the land inclusive of improvements. This we read as meaning that the lessee is to give notice to the lessor of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1921Mad137; 61Ind.Cas.461; (1921)40MLJ25
John Wallis, C.J.1. This case raised questions of some importance under the Transfer of Property Act as to the transfer of mortgages and of actionable claims by way of gift, and we have taken time to consider our judgment.2. The facts may be very briefly stated. A few days before his death one Pothi Naicker executed Exhibit-50, an unregistered instrument by which he made an immediate disposition of property consisting of mortgages, promissory notes, and book-debts allotting the items in Schedule I to the defendants, the sons of a deceased son, and the items in Schedule 2 to the plaintiff, the daughter and only surviving child of another deceased son. It is not disputed that this disposition in the deed was intended to take effect at once. Exhibit 50 recites this, and is borne out by the oral evidence of the plaintiff's mother, the 1st witness for the defence in Original Suit No. 26 of 1917 which was tried along with the present suit, that the promissory notes and mortgage deeds mention...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1935Mad232; (1935)68MLJ41
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The question raised in this case relates to the construction of Section 17(2)(vi) of the Indian Registration 4ct. Under the clause as it originally stood, 'decrees and orders of Courts and awards' were excepted from registration; but by an amendment made by Section 10 of the Transfer of Property (Amendment) Supplementary Act, 1929, the following clause was substituted:any decree or order of a Court except a decree or order expressed to be made on a compromise and comprising immoveable property other than that which is the subject-matter of the suit or proceeding.2. In Hementa Kumari Debi v. Midnapur Zemindari & Co. (1919) L.R. 46 IndAp 240 (246) : I.L.R. Cal. 485 : 37 M.L.J. 525 the Judicial Committee held, having regard to the wording of Order 23, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, that where a suit is adjusted by a lawful agreement between the parties, the proper course is to recite the agreement in the decree or annex it as a schedule to the decree, but in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
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!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1928)55MLJ444
Madhavan Nair, J.1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal raises the question whether an appeal lies under Section 476-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the High Court from an appellate order of the District Judge making a complaint which the District Munsif refused to make when an application was made to him under Section 476.2. The facts are briefly these. The appellant was the 1st defendant in O.S. No. 57 of 1925 in the District Munsif s Court, Palghat, and the respondent was the 2nd defendant. The suit was on a promissory-note said to have been executed by both the defendants to the plaintiff. The appellant contended that the suit note was not executed by him. His contention being upheld the suit was decreed against the respondent. The respondent then moved the District Munsif under Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to present a complaint to the Sub-divisional First Class Magistrate of Palghat charging the appellant with having intentionally given false evidence in a jud...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1932Mad474; (1932)62MLJ720
Reilly, J.1. These cases refer to two Banks which have been registered under the Co-operative Societies Act, namely,' the Madras Central Urban Bank, Limited, and the Madras City Co-operative Bank, Limited, both of which carry on their operations in Madras. The Commissioner of the Corporation of Madras demanded profession tax from these two Banks tinder Section 111 of the Madras City Municipal Act of 1919. Under that section only persons who are not liable to companies' tax under Section 110 of the Act are liable to profession tax. Both the Banks objected to the Commissioner's demands, at that stage apparently maintaining that they were liable neither to profession tax nor to companies' tax. They appealed to the Standing Committee of the Corporation, which rejected their appeals. Then, under Rule 15 of SchIV of the City Municipal Act they appealed to the Court of Small Causes and at that stage contended that, if they were liable to be taxed at all, it was under Section 110 of the Act to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1891)ILR14Mad186
Muttusami Ayyar, J.1. The appellants are parties interested in the due administration of an endowed public charity in Tanjore, and the respondent is its present trustee by right of inheritance. The former charged the latter with negligence and misconduct and instituted this suit in the District Court of Tanjore to remove him from the office of trustee and to have another appointed in his place. The Judge held that he had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit under Section 539 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and, relying on the decision in Narasimha v. Ayyan I.L.R. 12 Mad. 157), dismissed the claim with costs.2. The contention in appeal is that the Judge has jurisdiction, and if he has no jurisdiction, he ought to have returned the plaint to be presented to a Court of competent jurisdiction. It is urged that since Narasimha v. Ayyan I.L.R. 12 Mad. 157), was decided, Section 539 has been amended, and that, as pointed out in Chimpa v. Pattabhirama (Appeal No. 199 of 1887 not reported), th...
Tag this Judgment!