Court : US Supreme Court
George Moore Ice Cream Co., Inc. v. Collector - 289 U.S. 373 (1933) U.S. Supreme Court George Moore Ice Cream Co., Inc. v. Collector, 289 U.S. 373 (1933) George Moore Ice Cream Co., Inc. v. Collector of Internal Revenue No. 675 Argued April 19, 20, 1933 Decided May 8, 1933 289 U.S. 373 CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Syllabus 1. Section 1014 of the Revenue Act of 1924, amending R.S., 3226, provides that no suit to recover a tax alleged to have been erroneously or illegally assessed or collected shall be maintained until claim for refund or credit has been filed, and that such suit may be maintained whether or not the tax was paid under protest. It further provides: "This section shall not affect any proceeding in court instituted prior to the enactment of this Act." Held: Page 289 U. S. 374 (1) That the former rule requiring a protest at the time of payment as a condition precedent to recovery is abolished as to any suit brought after th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
FRC v. Nelson Brothers Bond & Mortgage Co. - 289 U.S. 266 (1933) U.S. Supreme Court FRC v. Nelson Brothers Bond & Mortgage Co., 289 U.S. 266 (1933) Federal Radio Commission v. Nelson Brothers Bond & Mortgage Co. (Station WIBO) No. 657 Argued April 11, 1933 Decided May 8, 1933 * 289 U.S. 266 CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Syllabus 1. Congress can confer administrative authority on courts of the District of Columbia, but jurisdiction to review administrative questions cannot be exercised by this Court. P. 289 U. S. 274 . 2. Under the amended Radio Act, which limits review of the Radio Commission by the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia to "questions of law" and provides "that findings of fact by the Commission, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive unless it shall clearly appear that the findings of the Commission are arbitrary or capricious," the function of that court is no longer administrative, but is p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1934Mad115
Ramesam, J.1. This is an appeal against the decree of the District Judge of South Malabar in O.S. No. 3 of 1929. The suit was filed under Section 73, Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act 2 of 1927, In the plaint the following reliefs were prayed for: (a) removing such of the defendants from their places as trustees of Tirumullapalli temple as the1 Court finds to be guilty of fraud or gross mismanagement ; (b) framing a scheme of management for the Tirumulapalli temple in Karalamanna Amsam, Wallu-vanad taluk, in consultation with the Board of Religious Endowments; (c) directing defendants 1 to 5 and 11 and 12 to render an account of their management after producing all account books and documents and other temple property in their possession or power and pay such sums as are found due; (d) directing defendants 1 to 5 and 11 and 12 to surrender all temple articles, jewels, documents, keys, etc., in their possession or power; (e) directing defendants 1 to 5 and 11 and 12 to pay damages f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 148Ind.Cas.1155
Ramesam, J.1. This is an appeal against the decree of the District Judge of South Malabar in Order Section No. 3 of 1929. The suit was filed under Section 73 of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, II of 1927. In the plaint the following reliefs were prayed for:(a) removing such of the defendants from their places as trustees of Tirumullapath temple as the Court finds to be guilty of fraud or gross mismanagement;(b) framing a scheme of management for the Tirumullapalli temple in Karalamanna Amsorn, Walluvanad Taluk, in consultation with the Board of Religious Endowments.(c) directing defendants Nos. 1 to 5 and 11 and 12 to render an account of their management after producing all account books and documents and other temple property in their possession or power and pay such sums as are found due.(d) directing defendants Nos. 1 to 5 and 11 and 12 to surrender all temple articles, jewels, documents, keys etc. in their possession or power.(e) directing defendants Nos. 1 to 5 and 11 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Rogers v. Hill - 289 U.S. 582 (1933) U.S. Supreme Court Rogers v. Hill, 289 U.S. 582 (1933) Rogers v. Hill No. 732 Argued May 11, 1933 Decided May 29, 1933 289 U.S. 582 CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Syllabus 1. In a stockholder's suit to compel corporate officers to account for money received as extra compensation and to enjoin further payments, the plaintiff moved on the pleadings for judgment or, in the alternative, that payments be enjoined pendente lite. The District Court without passing on the merits, granted the temporary injunction. On appeal from the order, the Court of Appeals dealt with the merits adversely to the plaintiff in its opinion, but its decree merely reversed the injunction order and directed that mandate issue in accordance with "this decree," and the mandate directed further proceedings in accordance with "the decision" of the court. Upon receiving the mandate, the District Court entered a decree dismissing the b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1934Bom189; (1934)36BOMLR277; 152Ind.Cas.267
Tyabji, J.1. The question in this appeal is whether an oral charge in favour of the appellants is to have priority over two mortgages by registered deeds in favour of the respondents.2. The appellants contend that their charge being prior in point of time ought to have priority of effect. The argument before us was that Section 100 of the Transfer of Property Act refers to charges as distinct from mortgages; that, by reason of Section 9 of the Act, which provides that 'A transfer of property may be made without writing in every case in which a writing is not expressly required by law,' and in the absence of any such provision in regard to a charge as is contained in Section 54 of the Act in regard to sale, in Section 59 in regard to mortgages, in Section 107 in regard to leases, in Section 118 in regard to exchanges, and in Section 123 in regard to gifts,-charges may be created without writing; that if a charge can be created without writing, then Section 17 of the Indian Registration ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1933Cal754
C.C. Ghose, Ag. C.J.1. This is an application by two persons named Brojendra Nath Gupta who is described as the editor, printer and publisher of the Advance newspaper and Anil Chandra Dutt Gupta who is described as the keeper of the Sudhan Press where the newspaper in question is printed, under Section 23 of Act 23 of 1931 (The Indian Press Emergency Powers Act, 1931), praying that certain orders of His Excellency the Governor of Bengal in Council dated 9th June 1933 calling upon these two petitioners to deposit cash or securities to the extent of Rs. 2,000 each may be set aside in the circumstances stated in the petition. Under orders of His Excellency the Governor of Bengal in Council notices under Sub-section (3), Section 7 and Sub-section (3), Section 3 of the said Act were served on these two petitioners directing them to deposit with the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, security to the amount of Rupees 2,000 each in money or the equivalent thereof in securities of the Gover...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 145Ind.Cas.881
C.C. Ghose, Actg. C.J.1. This is an application by two persons named' Brojendra Nath Gupta who is described as the Editor, Printer and Publisher of the 'Advance' newspaper and Anil Chandra Dutt Gupta who is described as the keeper of the Sudhan Press where the newspaper in question is printed, under Section 23 of Act XXIII, of 1931 [The Indian Press (Emergency Powers) Act, 1931] praying that certain orders of His Excellency the Governor of Bengal in Council dated June 9, 1933, calling upon these two petitioners to deposit cash or security to the extent of Rs. 2,000 each may be set aside in the circumstances stated in the petition.2. Under orders of His Excellency the Governor of Bengal in Council notices under Sub-section 3 of Section 7 and Sub-section 3 of Section 3 of the said Act were served on these two petitioners directing them to deposit with the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, security to the amount of Rs. 2,000 each in money or the equivalent thereof in security of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 147Ind.Cas.148
Mukerji, J.1. This is a revision purporting to have been filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code and Section 107 of the Government of India Act. It arises out of an election petition filed by the applicant, Mr. Ghulam Nizam Uddin, against the opposite party, Mr. Akhtar Husain Khan. The respondent was elected a member of the District Board of Agra and his election was challenged by the applicant. The Respondent produced before the District Judge, who heard the election petition, a document, said to have been signed by the applicant, by which it was alleged, he said that he had agreed for a consideration of Rs. 50 which he had already received, to withdraw the case, as he, the applicant was aware of the weakness of his case. The District Judge inquired into the allegation of this adjustment of the election petition before him, and having come to the conclusion that the matter in dispute had been adjusted as alleged, he dismissed the petition.2. In this Court the applicant has...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1933All764
Mukherji, J.1. This is a revision purporting to have been filed under Section 115, Civil P.C., and Section 107, Government of India Act. It arises out of an election petition filed by the applicant, Mr. Ghulam Nizam Uddin, against the opposite party, Mr. Akhtar Husain Khan. The respondent was elected a member of the District Board of Agra and his election was challenged by the applicant. The respondent produced before the District Judge, who heard the election petition, a document, said to have been signed by the applicant, by which it was alleged, he said that he had agreed for a consideration of Rs. 50, which he had already received, to withdraw the case, as he, the applicant, was aware of the weakness of his case. The District Judge inquired into the allegation of this adjustment of the election petition before him, and having come to the conclusion that the matter in dispute had been adjusted as alleged, he dismissed the petition.2. In this Court the applicant has challenged the va...
Tag this Judgment!