Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jun-17-1937
Reported in : (1937)39BOMLR1046
Macmillan, J.1. On October 26, 1926, the Collector of Bombay addressed to the appellant a notification that the Government had been pleased to sanction, under Section 8 of the Bombay City Land Revenue Act of 1876, the assessment of certain property in Bombay belonging to her described as 'Land at Bora Bazar Street, bearing N.S. [New Survey] No- 8841 and C.S. [Cadastral Survey] No. 1356.' The notification indicated the scale on which the property had been assessed, and stated that the assessment would come into force from November 1, 1926, and would be guaranteed for ninety-nine years from that date.2. Availing herself of the provisions of Section 14 of the Act of 1876, the appellant instituted a suit against the respondent, contesting the legality of the assessment. She prayed for a declaration ' that there is a right on the part of the plaintiff in limitation of the right of Government to possess and hold her said land free from assessment and that the defendant has no right to levy a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Privy Council
Decided on : Jun-17-1937
LORD MACMILLAN: On 26th October 1926, the Collector of Bombay addressed to the appellant a notification that the Government had been pleased to sanction, under S. 8, Bombay City Land Revenue Act of 1876, the assessment of certain property in Bombay belonging to her described as "Land at Bora Bazar Street, bearing N. S. [New Survey] No. 8841 and C. S. [Cadastral Survey] No. 1356." The notification indicated the scale on which the property had been assessed and stated that the assessment would come into force from 1st November 1926, and would be guaranteed for 99 years from that date. Availing herself of the provisions of S. 14 of the Act of 1876, the appellant instituted a suit against the respondent contesting the legality of the assessment. She prayed for a declaration: that there is a right on the part of the plaintiff in limitation of the right of Government to possess and hold her said land free from assessment and that the defendant has no light to levy any assessment. The learned...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Apr-06-1937
Reported in : AIR1937Mad735; 173Ind.Cas.251; (1937)2MLJ189
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, C.J.1. This appeal is from an order passed by Gentle, J., on two applications under Section 45 of the Specific Relief Act praying for an order restraining the Collector of Salt Revenue, Madras, by a writ of prohibition from conducting or holding or proceeding with an enquiry into the conduct of the two applicants. The appellant was the applicant in No. 349 of 1937. The order passed by Gentle, J., covered the contentions of both of the applicants which were identical. An interim injunction had been granted on the 8th February. Gentle, J., by his order dissolved that injunction, discharged the rule nisi and dismissed the applications.2. The appellant is an Assistant Commissioner of Salt and Customs, Central Division, Madras, to which office he was appointed on the 16th March, 1936, before which date he was Inspector of Salt and Customs, Negapatam. Certain charges had been made against the appellant and an enquiry under Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classific...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Apr-09-1937
Reported in : 172Ind.Cas.560
Nasim Ali J.1. On April 19, 1926, the appellant Durga Prosad Chamaria, obtained a decree against respondents Nos. 2 to 4 Radha Kissen Chamaria, Mati Lal Chamaria and Srimati Anar Dei Sethani in Title Suit No. 61 of 1923, in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Howrah, for Rs. 8,61,000 with interest at a certain rate up to the date of realization. Respondents Nos. 2 to 4 made certain payments from time to time towards the satisfaction of this decree, but these payments did not satisfy the entire decree. On April 1, 1933, the Certificate Officer of Howrah attached this decree under Section 19, Clause 1. Public Demands Recovery Act, in execution of a certificate filed in Certificate Case No. 1 M of 1933/34 for realization of about Rs. 3,86,000 due as arrears of income-tax to respondent No. 1, the Secretary of State for India in Council, from the appellant. On March 17, 1934, respondent No. 1 applied to the Subordinate Judge, Howrah, to whom notice of attachment was given, to realize the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Aug-03-1937
Reported in : AIR1938Cal385
Panckridge, J.1. This application for writs of certiorari and prohibition raises several interesting and important questions. The applicant Indumati Devi Chowdhuri is the widow and executrix of the late Birendra Chandra Roy Chowdhuri, who died on 12th August 1935. Birendra was the son of Hem Chandra Roy Chowdhury, zamindar of Dhakora in the district of Dacca, who died intestate some time prior to 1925. At the time of Hem Chandra's death there was an application by him pending to be declared a disqualified proprietor under Section 6 (e), Court of Wards Act, 1879. After his death, a similar application was made by his heirs, of whom Birendra was one, and they were in March 1925 declared disqualified proprietors, and in pursuance of the order the Court of Wards took charge of their property including their shares in Hem Chandra's estate. On Birendra's death the Court of Wards retained charge of his property in terms of Section 13-A, Court of Wards Act. The applicant and her co-executor, D...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Apr-05-1937
District of Columbia v. Clawans - 300 U.S. 617 (1937) U.S. Supreme Court District of Columbia v. Clawans, 300 U.S. 617 (1937) District of Columbia v. Clawans No. 103 Argued November 18, 1936 Reargued March 1, 1937 Decided April 5, 1937 300 U.S. 617 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Syllabus 1. The offense of engaging, without a license, in the business of a dealer in second-hand personal property, defined by the Code of the District of Columbia, punishable by a fine of not more than $300 or imprisonment of not more than 90 days, is to be classed as a petty offense which, consistently with Art. III, 2, cl. 3, of the Constitution, may be tried without a jury. P. 300 U. S. 624 . 2. In determining whether an offense is a petty offense that constitutionally may be tried without a jury, the severity of the penalty inflictable, as well as the moral quality of the act and its relation to common law crimes, should be considered. P. 3...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Sep-10-1937
Reported in : AIR1938All8
ORDER1. The question of law that arises for consideration in the present application in revision is whether a suit filed by Mt. Asa Devi, plaintiff opposite party, in the circumstances to be presently stated, offends against the provisions of Section 7(1)(b), U.P. Encumbered Estates Act (Act No. 25. of 1934). The Act was passed with the professed object of making provision 'for the relief of encumbered estates in the United Provinces' and the machinery provided for by the Act for the purpose is set in motion by an application to the Collector in accordance with Section 4 of the Act. It is enacted by that section that any land, lord who is subject to or whose immoveable property or any part thereof is encumbered with private debts, may make an application in writing to the Collector of the district in which his land or any portion of his land is situated stating the amount of such private debts and also of his public debts both decreed and un-decreed and requesting the Collector to appl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
Decided on : Jul-19-1937
Lord Thankerton MY LORDS, The Respondent, who is an on cost workman in one of the Appellants' coal mines, claims damages at common law from the Appellants in respect of personal injuries sustained by him on the 27th March, 1933, while employed at the Appellants' Glencraig Colliery in Fife. The case was tried before a jury, on a general issue of fault, and, on the motion of the Appellants, the trial Judge, under Rules of Court II. 49, put specific questions to the jury, to which they returned answers. The Judge directed the jury on these questions, and no exception was taken to his charge. Important questions of law were raised before the learned Judge as to the application of the special verdict, and a reclaiming motion was taken by the present Appellants against the interlocutor of Lord Jamieson, the trial Judge, who applied the verdict in favour of the Respondent. This motion was heard by the Second Division with three Judges of the First Division, who were called into consultation e...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : May-24-1937
Steward Mach. Co. v. Collector - 301 U.S. 548 (1937) U.S. Supreme Court Steward Mach. Co. v. Collector, 301 U.S. 548 (1937) Steward Machine Co. v. Collector of Internal Revenue No. 837 Argued April 8, 9, 1937 Decided May 24, 1937 301 U.S. 548 CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Syllabus 1. The tax imposed by Title IX of the Social Security Act of August 14, 1935, upon the employer of labor, described as "an excise tax with respect to having individuals in his employ," and which is measured by prescribed percentages of the total wages payable by the employer during the calendar year, is either an "excise," a "duty," or an "impost," within the intent of Art. I, Sec. 8, of the Constitution, and complies with the requirement of uniformity throughout the United States. Pp. 301 U. S. 578 , 301 U. S. 583 . 2. The enjoyment of common rights, such as the right to employ labor, may constitutionally be taxed. P. 301 U. S. 578 . Such taxation was pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-29-1937
Reported in : AIR1937Mad699; (1937)2MLJ209
M. Venkatasubra Rao, Kt., Officiating C.J.1. The question referred to the Full Bench is, whether succession to a Hindu male dying before the passing of Act II of 1929, leaving a female heir (a limited owner under the law) who is alive after the Act has come into force, is governed by the provisions of that Act. The last male holder was one Venkatakrishna, who died a minor on the 11th July, 1927. He was succeeded by his mother, Lakshmi Ammal (the first defendant) against whom the. action has been brought by the plaintiffs claiming to be the presumptive reversioners, with a view to obtain certain reliefs in regard to her deceased son's estate. The plaintiffs' right is challenged by the sister of Venkatakrishna, Sundarathammal (the second defendant in the suit) and her son, who allege that under the Act, they have a preferential right to the succession; and if this contention is well founded, the plaintiffs would cease to be the nearest or presumptive reversioners. Act II of 1929 received...
Tag this Judgment!