Court : US Supreme Court
Vandalia R. Co. v. Public Service Comm'n - 242 U.S. 255 (1916) U.S. Supreme Court Vandalia R. Co. v. Public Service Comm'n, 242 U.S. 255 (1916) Vandalia Railroad Company v. Public Service Commission of Indiana No. 81 Submitted November 6, 1916 Decided December 11, 1916 242 U.S. 255 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF INDIANA Syllabus Prior to the Act of March 4, 1915, c. 169, 38 Stat. 1192, and after the Act of February 17, 1911, c. 103, 36 Stat. 913, the state police power extended to the regulation of the character of headlights used on Page 242 U. S. 256 locomotives employed in interstate commerce. Atlantic Coast Line v. Georgia, 234 U. S. 280 . A judgment which correctly refused injunctive relief against such state regulation may not be attacked on writ of error as a judgment infringing federal rights (Judicial Code, 237) upon the ground that the same field of regulation has since been occupied by tho federal government under an act of Congress enacted af...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 59Ind.Cas.403
1. In these three matters Rules were issued on the same day practically based on the same fasts. They arise out of some boring operations in Mouzah Parsundi comprising of about 5,000 bighas of land (4,906 according to the Revenue Survey). The Iron and Steel Company, who are the first party in the proceedings under Section 145 initiated on the 10th July 1919, obtained as petitioners, Rule No. 847 on the following allegations, namely, that the Maharaja of Burdwan was the Zemindar of the Mouzah and sole owner of the minerals and mineral rights therein. On the 9th September 1839 he granted a putni settlement of the Mouzah to certain persons shortly referred to as the Chatterjees and Misras. On the 5th April he authorised one E.J. Seth Sam on behalf of the Parsundi Mining Syndicate to go on with boring operations in the Mouzah pending execution and registration of a formal document and Seth Sam in his turn on the 12th April 1918 authorised the petitioners to carry on boring operations there...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1929All53; 113Ind.Cas.442
Boys, J.1. The following question has been referred to the Full Bench:Whether on a true interpretation of Sections 19 and 20 Agra Pre-emption Act of 1922 the defendant vendee can defeat the plaintiff's right of pre-emption, which undoubtedly existed at the date of the institution of the suit, by acquisition of an interest equal or superior to plaintiff's in the mahal after the institution of the suit but prior to the passing of the decree by the first Court2. The reference to Section 19 in the question is inserted in manuscript after the referring order was typed. This subsequent insertion we note only because the discussion of the question in the referring order is confined to the effect of Section 20 of the Act, and no opinion has been expressed in that referring order in regard to the effect of Section 19.3. We have, however, manifestly to consider both sections. In the present case the facts are that Ramsarup on 26th March 1924, sold a zamindari house to the defendant Ramsaran Das ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1931Mad152; (1931)60MLJ551
Reilly, J.1. These two appeals relate to suits in which the Corporation of Madras claimed declarations that the Madras Electric Tramways Company and the Madras Electric Supply Corporation respectively were subject to the. control of the Commissioner of the Corporation under Sections 287 and 288 respectively of the Madras City Municipal Act. The suits were tried by the Judge of the City Civil Court, who dismissed both of them. They came on appeal before Waller, J., whose opinion was that both the Companies carried on their operations under special Acts, or what were equivalent to special Acts, inconsistent with the general Act, the City Municipal Act, and that the Corporation of Madras were not entitled to the declarations for which they sought. He upheld the decision of the City Civil Court; and it is against that decision that these two appeals have been preferred.2. I think it will be convenient to deal with the two cases separately, and, if I may say so with great respect, I doubt w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
United States v. Wood - 299 U.S. 123 (1936) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Wood, 299 U.S. 123 (1936) United States v. Wood No. 34 Argued October 20, 1936 Decided December 7, 1936 299 U.S. 123 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Syllabus 1. Bias of a prospective juror may be actual or implied -- i.e., bias in fact or bias conclusively presumed as a matter of law. P. 299 U. S. 133 . 2. The Act of August 22, 1935, concerning qualifications of jurors in the District of Columbia, leaves all prospective jurors subject to examination and rejection for actual bias. Id. 3. In dealing with an employee of the Government, summoned to jury service in a criminal case, the court should be solicitous to discover whether, in view of the nature or circumstances of his employment, or of the relation of his particular governmental activity to the matters involved in the prosecution, he has actual bias. P 299 U. S. 134 . Page 299 U. S. 12...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1939Cal210
Derbyshire, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of Lort-Williams J., delivered on 29th May 1936, wherein he gave judgment for the plaintiff for Rs. 4000 and costs and made a declaration that the plaintiff was entitled to reject a boiler with accessaries. The plaintiff, the present respondent, carries on business as an ink and sealing-wax maker under the name of the Bengal Industrial Company at Cossipore, a few miles out of Calcutta. The defendant, a German gentleman, for some years had carried on business in Calcutta as a manufacturer's agent and an import-merchant dealing mainly in papers, stationery and machinery for making paper. The parties for some years previous to 1932 had business dealings with each other. In 1932, the plaintiff wished to start the manufacture of carbon paper and with that object in view, he consulted the defendant from time to time, and the defendant assisted him with advice, and also procured same formulae for the preparation of carbon-paper. In 1932, th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1949Ori60; [1949]17ITR256(Orissa)
NARASIMHAM, J. - The questions referred to us for opinion by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Calcutta Branch, Patna, are as follows :-(1) Whether, in the circumstances of the case and on the findings of the Tribunal, the income, profits or gains in question or any part thereof accrued or arose within an Indian State and, if so, whether such income, profits or gains were received or deemed to have been received in or were brought into British India ?(2) Whether Section 42(3) of the Income-tax Act is applicable to the facts of the case The assessees headquarters is at Cuttack and he has been assessed to income-tax for the year 1943-44 in respect of his dealings in (a) nux vomica and (b) hides, horns, bones etc., which were gathered by him from several Orissa States and sold at several places in British India through his commission agents known as arhatias. The cash realised by these arhatias from the sales of the aforesaid products were all remitted to the head office at Cuttack. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
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 : Supreme Court of India
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 : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1954SC155; (1954)56BOMLR280; [1954]25ITR50(SC); [1954]1SCR444
Mahajan, J.1. This is appeal from the Judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay delivered on a reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, whereby the High Court answered the first referred question in the negative.2. The assessment in question concern the year 1943-44. A Hindu undivided family was carrying on business in Bombay, Madras and the Mysore State. Its business was taken over by a registered firm on March 17, 1942. For the purpose of this appeal however this circumstance is not material. The case has been dealt with on the assumption that a single assessee carried on business from October 10, 1948, to November 8, 1942, the relevant accounting year. According to the accounts of the assessee, during this period the Mysore branch purchased goods from the Bombay head office and the Madras branch of the value of Rs. 2,45,455. The Income-tax Officer estimated these purchases of the Mysore branch in British India at Rs. 3,00,000 and its profits at Rs. ...
Tag this Judgment!