Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1951SC101; [1951]19ITR168(SC); (1951)IMLJ310(SC); [1950]1SCR961
Fazl Ali, J. 1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Madras on a reference made to it under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in connection with the assessment of the appellant to income-tax for the year 1942-43. The question of law referred to the High Court was as follows :- 'Whether in the circumstances of the case, the assessee (a Hindu undivided family) is 'resident' in British India under section 4A(b) of the Income-tax Act.' 2. The circumstances of the case may be briefly stated as follows. The appellant is the karta of a joint Hindu family and has been living is Ceylon with his wife, son and three daughters, and they are stated to be domiciled in that country. He carries on business in Colombo under the name and style of the General Trading Corporation, and he owns a house, some immoveable property and investments in British India. He has also shares in two firms situated at Vijayapuram and Nagapatnam...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1951SC111; [1950]191ITR182(SC); (1951)IMLJ328(SC); [1950]1SCR969
Kania, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the High Court at Bombay delivered on a reference by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under the Indian Income-tax Act. The material facts are these. The assessees (appellants) are the executors of the will of Mr. J. K. Dubash who died on the 9th of April, 1942, having made his last will on the 8th of April, 1942. Probate of the will was issued to the executors on the 10th of August, 1942. During his life-time, the testator carried on the business of shipping agents. Clause 13 of the will contains directions about carrying on this business of the testator till its disposal. It directs the executors to carry on the business as a going concern after his death with power to make fresh contracts and discharge the existing and future liabilities and all other usual and necessary powers, unless special circumstances arose which, in the opinion of the executors, made it expedient to sell the business earlier. This business was to be carried o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1951SC108; [1951]19ITR191(SC); (1951)IMLJ366(SC); [1950]1SCR1008
Kania, C.J. 1. This is an appeal from the judgment of the High Court at Calcutta (Harries C.J. and Chatterjea J.) pronounced on a reference made to it by the Income-tax Tribunal under section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act. The relevant facts are these. The respondents are a private limited company which was brought into existence to float various companies including cotton mills. In November, 1932, the Basanti Cotton Mills Ltd. was incorporated and the respondents were appointed their managing agents. Their remuneration was fixed at a monthly allowance of Rs. 500 and a commission of 3 per cent. on all gross sales of goods manufactured by the Mills Company. The fixed monthly allowance was liable to be increased in the event of the capital of the company being increased. The details are immaterial. It appears that certain hundis were drawn by one of the directors of he respondent company, acting in the capacity of the managing agents of the Mill Company, in the name of the Mill Comp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1951SC103; (1951)IMLJ333(SC); [1950]1SCR949
Mukherjea, J.1. This appeal is directed against an appellate judgment of a Division Bench of the Madras High Court dated November 27, 1945, reversing the decision of the Subordinate Judge of Mayuram made in Original Suit No. 34 of 1943. 2. There is no dispute about the material facts of the case which lie within a short compass and the controversy centers round one point only which turns upon the construction of a wall left by one Kothandarama Ayyar to whom the properties in suit admittedly belonged. Kothandarama, who was a Hindu inhabitant of the District of Tanjore and owned considerable properties, died on 25th April 1905, leaving behind him as his near relations his adoptive mother Valu Ammal, his widow Parbati and two daughters Nagammal and Gnanambal, of whom Nagammal, who became a widow during the testator's life time had an infant daughter named Alamelu. Kothandarama executed his last will on 13th March, 1905, and by this will, the genuineness of which is not disputed in the pre...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1951SC144; (1951)53BOMLR472; (1951)IMLJ314(SC); [1950]1SCR979; [1950]SuppSCR979
Kania, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the High Court at Bombay. Although the record is heavy and many points were argued in the trial court and in the court of appeal at Bombay, the important point argued before us is only one. 2. The appellants (plaintiffs) are a firm of commission agents in Bombay. The respondents (defendants) were their constituents. Accounts between the parties in respect of their dealings were made up and settled up to the 30th of October, 1943. Piecegoods and yarn continued to be purchased and consigned by the plaintiffs to the defendants' joint family firm thereafter. One bale of piecegoods was purchased and despatched in November, 1943. In January, 1944, restrictions were imposed against the consignment of piecegoods and/or yarn outside Bombay by rail without obtaining the necessary previous permit from the Textile Commissioner at Bombay. On or about the 6th February, 1944, Mohanlal of the defendants' joint family firm came to Bombay and the plaint...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1953SC436
Fazl Ali, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant after obtaining special leave to appeal from the Privy Council against the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Patna in a contempt proceeding.2. It appears that one Ramrajib Singh was detained under the Bihar Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1947, in pursuance of an order issued by the Provincial Government on 19-2-1948. He applied to the High Court at Patna under Section 491, Criminal P. C., and, on 30-7-1948, the High Court directed him to be 'released forthwith.' The very same day, a copy of the High Court's order was forwarded to the District Magistrate, Bhagalpur, for information and necessary action, and it reached the District Magistrate's office on 31-7-1948. Ramrajib Singh was not however released until 8-8-1948. On 2lst September, he filed in the High Court an application for taking action for contempt of Court against the Province of Bihar, the District Magistrate, Bhagalpur, and the Superintendent, Centr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1951SC69; (1951)53BOMLR402; [1951]2SCR51
Fazl Ali, J.1. I have read the judgment prepared by my brother, Mahajan J., and generally agree with his conclusions and reasonings, but, having regard to the importance of the points raised, I wish to add a short judgment of my own. 2. There are really three questions to be decided in this appeal, and they are as follows : (1) Whether the Bombay City Civil Court Act, 1948 (Act XL of 1948), is ultra vires the Legislature of the State of Bombay; (2) Whether in any event Section 4 of the above Act is ultra vires the State Legislature; and (3) Whether the Bombay High Court has jurisdiction to try the suit. 3. The first and the third questions have been answered by the High Court in favour of the appellant, and the second question has been answered in favour of the respondents. In this Court, the appellant attacked the judgment of the High Court in so far as it concerns the second question, whereas the first respondent attacked it in so far as it concerns the first and the third questions....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1951SC124; [1950]1SCR940
Kania, C.J.1. These are three criminal miscellaneous petitions asking for special leave to appeal to the Supreme Court under article 136 of the Constitution of India. 2. All the accused were charged with being members of the Communist Party wedded to the policy of overthrowing the existing Government at Hyderabad by violence and establishing in its place a communist regime. It is alleged that they demanded subscriptions towards their communist organization and some of the villagers who did not meet their demands were abducted on the 21st of September, 1948, and murdered. They were charged with various offences including murder before a special tribunal established under the regulations promulgated by the Military Governor under the authority of H.E.H. the Nizam and convicted and sentenced to death on the 9th, 13th and 14th of August, 1949, by separate judgments. The petitioners appealed from those judgments to the Hyderabad High Court and the High Court, by its judgments dated the 12th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1951SC41; (1951)53BOMLR499; [1951]21CompCas33(SC); [1950]1SCR869
Kania, C.J.1. This is an application by the holder of one ordinary share of the Sholapur Spinning and Weaving Company Ltd. for a writ of mandamus and certain other reliefs under article 32 of the Constitution of India. The authorized capital of the company is Rs. 48 lakhs and the paid-up capital is Rs. 32 lakhs, half of which is made up of fully paid ordinary shares of Rs. 1,000 each. 2. I have read the judgment prepared by Mr. Justice Mukherjea. In respect of the arguments advanced to challenge the validity of the impugned Act under articles 31 and 19 of the Constitution of India, I agree with his line of reasoning and conclusion and have nothing more to add. 3. On the question whether the impugned Act infringes article 14, two points have to be considered. The first is whether one individual shareholder can, under the circumstances of the case and particularly when one of the respondents is the company which opposes the petition, challenge the validity of the Act on the ground that i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1951SC23; [1951]19ITR132(SC); [1951]2SCR1
Patanjali Sastri, J. 1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the High Court of Judicature in West Bengal reversing a finding of the Second Subordinate Judge of 24 Parganas at Alipore that he had jurisdiction to proceed with a suit after substituting the Province of East Bengal (in Pakistan) in the place of the old Province of Bengal against which the suit had originally been brought. 2. The facts leading to the institution of the suit are not in dispute. The Bengal Agricultural Income-tax Act was passed by the Provincial Legislature of Bengal in 1944. It applied to the whole of Bengal and purported to bring under charge the agricultural income of, inter alia, 'every Ruler of an Indian State.' Acting under the provisions of that Act, which came into force on 1st April, 1944, the Income-tax Officer, Dacca Range, sent by registered post, a notice to the Manager of the Zemindari Estate called Chakla Roshanabad belonging to the Tripura State but situated in Bengal outside the territories of...
Tag this Judgment!