Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1954SC278
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This appeal, which has come before us on special leave, is directed against a judgment of a Division. Bench of the Allahabad High Court, dated 19th September 1951, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 333 of 1951 by which the learned Judges affirmed, with slight modification, the judgment and order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Budaun made in Sessions Trial No. 142 of 1950 and upheld the conviction of the appellant under sections 302 and 364 of the Indian Penal Code and the sentences of death and transportation for life passed thereunder.2. The facts of the case lie within a short compass. The prosecution story is that Lalman and Thanni, the two murdered persons, were brothers and belonged to a well-to-do family of traders who were residents of village Kurha Shahpur in the district of Budaun and had a sugar manufactory at that place. Lalman's son is named Itwari. On the day of occurrence, which is 11th of December 1949, at about 5 p.m. in the afternoon, while the work...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1954SC279; 20(1954)CLT247(SC)
S.R. Das, J.1.The appellant before us -- a young woman of 20, years of age -- was convicted on the 18th April 1953 by the Additional Sessions Judge of Cuttack under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for having murdered one Panchali, a girl of 7 years of age, and also under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code for having dishonestly removed a pair of gold Naulis from the person of the deceased girl.The Additional Sessions Judge made a reference to the High Court under Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code for the confirmation of the sentence of death passed by him for the offence under Section 302, Indian Penal Code. The appellant also appealed before the High Court against her conviction and sentence. By the judgment dated the 25th May 1953 the High Court upheld the conviction and sentence and accepted the reference and rejected the appeal. The High Court, however, gave leave to the appellant under Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution of India to appeal to this Court.2. The pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1953SC455; [1953]24ITR405(SC); [1954]1SCR171
Mahajan, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta delivered in a reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, whereby the High Court answered the question referred in the affirmative. 2. The assessees is a partnership concern. When income-tax was paid under the Act of 1918, the partnership concern consisted of three partners, Mathews, Figgies and Notley. The name of the firm was A. W. Figgies & Co., and its business was that of tea brokers. There were several changes in the constitution of the firm resulting in a change in the shares of the partners. In 1924, Mathews went out and his share was taken over by Figgies and Notley. In 1926 another partner Squire was introduced. In 1932 Figgies went out, and from 1932 to 1939 the partnership consisted only of Notley and Squire. In 1939 Hillman was brought in and the partnership consisted of these three partners. In 1943 Notley went out and the partnership business was carried on by the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1953SC453; [1953]24ITR415(SC); [1954]1SCR167
Patanjali Sastri, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta answering a question referred to it by the Income-tax Appellant Tribunal under section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. 2. The appellant is a private limited company incorporated in the year 1935 under the Indian Companies Act with the following objects, among others, set out in the memorandum of association : To carry on and undertake any business, transaction, operation or work commonly carried on undertaken by bankers, capitalists, promoters, financiers, concessionaires, contractors, merchants, managers, managing agents, secretaries and treasurers. To purchase or otherwise acquire, and to sell....... stock, share....... business concerns and undertaking. To invest and deal with the moneys of the company not immediately required for the company's business upon such securities and in such manner as may from time to time be determined. 3. The company held a large number of sha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1953SC456; [1953]24ITR395(SC); [1954]1SCR158
Patanjali Sastri, C.J. 1. This batch of appeals arises out of a reference made to the High Court at Allahabad by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, under Section 26 of the Excess Profits Tax Act, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. The assessment challenged in these appeals relate to different chargeable accounting periods but the questions raised are the same in all the cases. 2. The appellants constitute a Hindu undivided family consisting of four branches representing the four sons of one Sohan Pathak deceased. The family carried on business at Banaras in money-lending and Banaras brocade under the name and style of Sohan Pathak & Sons. In the assessment relating to the chargeable accounting period ending on October 8, 1943, the appellants alleged that there was a partial partition among the members of the family on July 16, 1943, whereby the Banaras brocade business was divided in equal shares among the four branches and that, on the next days, the adult members ...
Tag this Judgment!