Privy Council Cases
Colonial & appellate judgments
Browse Privy Council & House of Lords decisions
Search appeals from Indian High Courts decided by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and related appellate benches - foundational authority for constitutional and commercial law.
Colonial & appellate
Results · Orissa
Saradhakar Naik and ors. Vs. the King
Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1950Ori89
Ray, C.J.1. The subject-matter of this order is a petition by the petitioners in Cr. Misc. Cases NOS. 2, 3, 4 and 5 of 1948, for a certificate under Sub-section (i) of Section 205, Government of India Act, 1935, as adapted.2. The question is not free from difficulty. It is due to an anomalous position arising out of the fact that the cases arise out of certain criminal proceedings, started against the petitioners, under laws extended to the areas of Bamra and Kalahandi States,--not being parts of the Province of Orissa--by the Government of Orissa, in exercise of a jurisdiction delegated to them by the Government of Indian Dominion under Extra Provincial Jurisdiction Act. The questions that call for solution are :'(a) Whether the Federal Court of India has jurisdiction in the areas in which the oases arose ; and (b) Whether the order of this Court, in relation to the States area, is subject to the appellate jurisdiction of the Federal Court.' 3. The Federal Court has been re-establish...
Tag this Judgment!The King Vs. Tustipada Mandal and ors.
Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1951Ori284
Ray, C.J.1. This appeal is directed against an order of acquittal recorded by Rai BahadurCharu Chandra Coari, Ses. J. Cuttack, in Cri. App. No. 70-C of 1947, reversing the order of conviction passed by the Sub-Divisional Mag. Jaipur, in the case of Emperor v. Tustipada Mandal & 5 others, under Schedule 0, Orissa Essential Articles Control & Requisitioning (Temporary Powers) Act (I [l] of 1947).2. The reaps, six in number, belong to the dist. of Burdwan in the Province of Bengal. They were prosecuted for attempting to transport 21 bullocks from the Province of Orissa in contravention of cl. 3, Orisaa Livestock (Control of Movement & Transactions) Order 1917, made & promulgated in exercise of the powers conferred by Schedule , Orissa Essential Articles Control & Requisitioning (Temporary Powers) Act 1947, in supersession of all existing orders on the subject, by the Govt. of Orissa. On 2-6-1947, the resps. were found passing through Dharmasala (in the dist. of Cuttaek) en-route Bhadrak w...
Tag this Judgment!Gurubaru Praja and anr. Vs. the King
Court : Orissa
Reported in : 1950CriLJ72
Ray, C.J.1. The appellants have been convicted of murder and sentenced to transportation for life. The deceased Godra Jani is to oar tain extent a relation of the appellants having married their mother, the first informant, after she was divorced by their father, Dalima Praja, who, it is said, is still alive. It is Bug. gested by the prosecution that the appellants felt aggrieved that the deceased Godra Jani had kept their mother as a wife. Besides there were oertain other reasons, suoh as, Godra Jani having practised witchcraft and having thereby killed one of the brothers of the appellants which caused oertain animosity against him. On the date of occurrence (8th July 1946), the appellants, Godra Jani, P.Ws. 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 11, 12 and several other persons about 10 to 20 in number had gone to cremate the dead body of one Biting Kondhuni, appellants' father's elder sister The cremation was over some time in the morning. As customary, the entire party proceeded to a liquor shop for hav...
Tag this Judgment!P. Venkata Rao Vs. King
Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1951Ori281
Ray, C.J.1. The petnr. P. Venkata Rao, has been convicted Under Section 161, I. P. C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three months & to a fine of Rs. 500 & in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months.2. The complainant, Radhamohan Subudhi (p. w. 8), is a small trader in Dry Fish. He has certain other co sharers & co-partners in the buainess besides his neighbours & villagers, who also trade in the self-same commodities. It is said that on 19-11-1946, he & one Brabmaohari approached the petnr. (who was then the Station Master of Kalupara Railway Station) to settle with him as to what would be the rate per bag of Dried Pish to be paid to him, as inducement or reward, for indenting a waggon for transporting the Dried Fish from Kalupara Rly. Station to various other stations. Their case was that priviously the Station Master had been receiving Rs. 3 per bag but, of late, was making a higher demand. The prosecution story goes on to say that after some hig...
Tag this Judgment!Padmalabha Panda Vs. Appalanarasamma and ors.
Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1952Ori143
Ray, C.J.1. The question, involved in this appeal, is whether a plaintiff can avail himself of the benefits of the doctrine of part performance of a contract for sale as against an invasion on his rights by an attaching creditor of the transferor (promisor.) He had objected to the attachment by advancing a claim in Order XXI, Rule 58, Civil Procedure Code. The claim having been rejected he brought the suit, out of which this Second Appeal arises.2. The appeal was heard 'ex parte', and the learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant No. 1 obtained a decree for costs against them invite our attention to such authorities as could be cited by the respondent had he been represented before us.3. The facts, in short, are that the disputed properties belonged to defendants 2 to 12. Defendant No. 1 obtained a decree for costs against them. After decree, passed on 2-9-1936, the aforesaid defendants separated amongst themselves and the disputed properties fell to the share of defendant ...
Tag this Judgment!Udaypratap Singh Deo and ors. Vs. Krushna Padhano and anr.
Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1952Ori95
Ray, C.J.1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal for recovery of Mustajari rent to the extent of Rs. 3700 and odd in respect of a lease commencing on the 1st of July 1935 and ending on the 30th June 1936. The plaintiff, when he granted the lease, was a mortgagee. The lands appertained to an estate jn the district of Ganjam known as Sanokimedi Estate. Succession to this estate has been the subject of continuous and protracted litigation and which, if I can say so, has not yet been at its end. As the question of title to grant the lease has been raised by the tenants (respondents) who resisted the validity of the plaintiff's claim, certain facts, in relation to the succession of the estate and the litigation about that, have to be mentioned. The village, in respect of which Mustajari rent has been claimed admittedly lies within the ambits of that estate. One Braja Kishore was the admitted holder of this estate. He died in 1906. He was succeeded by a collateral agnate, by name, Purusottam who die...
Tag this Judgment!Rahim Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax.
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!Giridharilal Seetaram and Bros. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax Bihar a ...
Court : Orissa
Reported in : [1949]17ITR282(Orissa)
RAY, C.J. - This arises out of a case stated by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, under Section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act. The simple facts are that the assessee firm had been registered as a partnership firm for years preceding the assessment year in question. Under the law, every partnership firm is required to renew its registration for every year of assessment. In the present case, the application for registration, or to speak more properly, for renewals of registration, was filed on June 30, 1944. One of the partners (Reghunath) died on February 27, 1944, according to the terms of the partnership agreement (7th para.) it was agreed between the founders of the firm that the partnership business would not stand dissolved but shall continue to be carried on by the surviving partners with survivors or heirs or executors or administrator of the deceased partner as the case may be. The application for renewals of registration was signed by Kishorilal, son of Raghunath. ...
Tag this Judgment!Kalpataru Das Vs. Commissioner of Hindu Religious Endowments Adn ors.
Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1949Ori46
Ray, C.J.1. This revision is directed against an order of the Additional Subordinate Judge of, Cuttack returning the plaint of a suit under Section 64 Orissa Religious Hindu Endowments Act, (Act IV [4] of 1939) to the plaintiff to be presented to the-proper Court. As this order is appelable under Order 43, Rule 1 (a), Civil P.C., this revision should be treated as miscellaneous appeal. No question o deficiency of court fee arises as the court-fee already paid is sufficient for an appeal against an order.2. The only contention that arises in this appeal is whether the Subordinate Judge had, the jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The contention has relevance to certain provisions of the Act. Section 64 provides that if any dispute-arises over an order passed by the Religious Endowments Commissioner as to whether the, temple or muth is an institution as defined in the Act or whether it is an excepted temple, the party affected by such an order may institute a suit in 'the Court' to modif...
Tag this Judgment!Bansidhar Onkarmal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax.
Court : Orissa
Reported in : 15(2009)CLT94; [1949]17ITR247(Orissa)
NARASIMHAM, J. - The question that has been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Calcutta Branch, Patna to us for opinion as follows :-'Whether in the circumstances of the case the sum of Rs. 8,675 is allowable either as a trading loss or as an expenditure laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business within the meaning of Section 10(2)(xii) of the Act ?'[Presumably Section 10(2)(xii) of the Act ?The facts found by the Tribunal are these :-The assessee carries on the business of selling yarn, speculating on cotton and money-lending. He claimed deduction of Rs. 8,675 in respect of the accounting year commencing from October 21, 1941, and ending on December 8, 1942, on the ground that the said sum was stolen from the iron safe inside his shop by one Jauhar Mal who was a relation of the assessee and who was also working as the accountant of his firm during the year in question. The shop of the assessee used to be closed at about 8 p.m., and the iro...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »