Privy Council Cases

Badridas Daga Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Central and United Provi ...

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : (1949)51BOMLR942

Reid, J.1. The appellants in this case were, during the material time, partners of the firm of Rai Bahadur Bansilal Abirchand which carried on business both within British India and elsewhere. Each appellant had a quarter share in the firm. The firm was a registered firm resident in British India within the meaning of the Indian Income-tax Act. The first appellant was not ordinarily resident and the second appellant was not resident in British India within the meaning of that Act. A considerable part of the firm's income arose or accrued outside British India and was not brought into or received in British India. The question in the present case shortly stated is whether the appellants are bound to include in their total incomes for the purpose of Indian income tax the whole of their shares of the firm's income or whether they are entitled to exclude a proportion of those shares corresponding to the proportion of the firm's income which arose or accrued outside British India.2. The app...

Ulfat Rai Vs. Sm. Kamla Devi and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : AIR1949All458

Mushtaq Ahmad, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for possession over certain zamindari and house properties. The plaintiff claimed as the adopted son of one Jawahir Mal, whose pedigree is set out below:A------------------------------------------------------------| | | | |Lakhpat Bansu Sangam Lal Jawahir Mal Shugun ChandRai Lal | | || Ranjit Ullat Rai Mithan Lal=Mt. Sunehri| (adopted son) (adopted son) || Defdt. 4. || Mt. Kamla Defdt. 1.------------------------| |Shankar Umrao| |Kashmiri Lal Defdt. 3. Italian Lal Defdt, 2.|----------------------| |Sukhbir. Ulfat Rai Plaintiff.2. The property in dispute admittedly belonged to Shugun Chand in the above pedigree, who died in 1918. His son Mithan Lal had pre-deceased him, Mithan Lal left a widow Mt. Sunehri and a daughter Mt. Kamla. On the death of Shugun Chand his property was entered in the khewat in the name of his daughter-in-law, Mt. Sunehri, who died on 28th January 1941, and on her death it came to be recorded i...

The Hulli Electricity Co. Ltd. Vs. the Province of Bombay

Court : Privy Council

Lord Uthwatts: In the proceedings out of which this appeal arises the appellants sought a declaration that the purported revocation by the respondent Government on 28th, January 1944, of a licence to supply electricity to the town of Hubli was invalid and asked for consequential relief on the footing of that declaration. Their suit was dismissed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay acting in its original jurisdiction and that decision was affirmed by that Court in its appellate jurisdiction (Stone C. J. dissenting). Many matters at issue in the suit are not now in controversy. The substantial questions before their Lordships are confined to questions of construction arising under the Electricity Act (No. IX [9] of 1910). [2] Under that Act the Government was empowered to grant to persons to be selected by the Government licences to supply electrical energy in areas to be specified in the licences and to lay down electric supply lines for the transmission of such energy. [3] Secti...

Badridas Daga and Another Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Central and ...

Court : Privy Council

Lord Reid: The appellants in this case were, during the material time, partners of the firm of Rai Bahadur Bansilal Abirchand which carried on business both within British India and elsewhere. Each appellant had a quarter share in the firm. The firm was a registered firm resident in British India within the meaning of the Indian Income-tax Act. The first appellant was not ordinarily resident and the second appellant was not resident in British India within the meaning of that Act. A considerable part of the firm's income arose or accrued outside British India and was not brought into or received in British India. The question in the present case shortly stated is whether the appellants are bound to include in their total incomes for the purpose of Indian income-tax the whole of their shares of the firm's income or whether they are entitled to exclude a proportion of those shares corresponding to the proportion of the firm's income which arose or accrued outside British India. [2] The a...

Arbind Kumar Deb and ors. Vs. Rex.

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : 1949CriLJ701

Mushtaq Ahmad, J.1. The questions referred to the Full Bench are set out in the referring order in these terms:(1) Does the mere possession of cloth which was not to be possessed after 31st December 1944, in view of Clause 14, Sub-clause (1) (a), Cotton Cloth and Yarn (Control) Order 1943, amount to so contravening the provisions of that Order as to be punishable under B, 81 (4), Defence of India Rules or would it amount to such contravention if such poaeession be without lawful authority or lawful exouse?(2) Whether the general consideration that the authorities did not, either in this Control Order or in directions issued thereunder, provide the mode in which the dealers were to act in the event of such cloth remaining with them undisposed of, would itself amount to a 'lawful excuse.'(3) Whether the existence of lawful excuse depends on the dealers taking some active step prior to 31st December 1944, for getting rid of the cloth before or after 31st December 1944.2. The full facta of...

Arbind Kumar Deb and ors. Vs. Rex

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : AIR1949All473

Mushtaq Ahmad, J.1. The questions referred to the Full Bench are set out in the referring order in these terms:(1) Does the mere possession of cloth which was not to be possessed after 31st December 1944, in view of Clause 14, Sub-clause (1) (a), Cotton Cloth and Yarn (Control) Order 1943, amount to so contravening the provisions of that Order as to be punishable under Rule 81 (4), Defence of India Rules or would it amount to such contravention if such possession be without lawful authority or lawful excuse?(2) Whether the general consideration that the authorities did not, either in this Control Order or in directions issued thereunder, provide the mode in which the dealers were to act in the event of such cloth remaining with them undisposed of, would itself amount to a 'lawful excuse.'(3) Whether the existence of lawful excuse depends on the dealers taking some active steps prior to 31st December 1944, for getting rid of the cloth before or after 31st December 1944.2. The full facts...

Debaprosad Bose Vs. the King

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : AIR1950Cal406,54CWN329

R.P. Mookerjee, J. 1. This is an appeal by Debaprosad Bose who had been found by a majority of jury guilty Under Section 366, Penal Code, and accepting the said majority verdict, the Additional Sessions Judge, 24 Parganas, convicted him and sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment.2. The prosecution case is that a certain family of Banerjees lived in the Park Circus area and subsequently shifted to Hazra Road, to a house belonging to a relation. The owner of the house occupied the second floor and the ground floor was occupied partly by Banerjee and another portion of the same floor by the accused Debaprosad Bose and his family. The two families occupying the ground floor were on friendly terms. It is alleged that taking advantage of the friendly relationship, the Accused Debaprosad had enticed the youngest daughter of Banerjee. It is stated that on 10th September 1947, the daughter had left the house on the plea of going to school but instead of going there, went to Deshapriya Par...

Bibhuti Bhusan Nandy Vs. Superintendent Presidency, Jail and anr.

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : 1949CriLJ968

Das Gupta, J.1. On 7th December 1948 on the application of Bibhuti Bhu3an Nandi stating that he was arrested on 16th November 1948, by an A. S. I. of Taltala p. a. Calcutta, and was told that the arrest was under Section 30(l), West Bengal Security Act, that he was being detained after his arrest in the Presidency Jail, Calcutta and that this detention was illegal, wrongful and improper, we issued a rule on the Chief Secretary to the Government of West Bengal and the1 Superintendent, Presidency Jail why an order under S, 491, Criminal P. C., should not be made and the petitioner set at liberty. The Bale was made returnable on 13th December 1943.2. On 13th December, the Deputy Legal Eemembrancer appeared before us, contended that the detention was in accordance with law; and in support of this contention, produced before us the original order signed by an Assistant Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, purporting to be an order under S, 16, West Bengal Security Act. This order is ...

iswar Kalimata Vs. Manager Bijni Raj Court of Wards Estate in Assam an ...

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : AIR1952Cal387

1. Three holdings Nos. 322, 322-B & 331 of sub-division 'M' of Division 6 of Dihi Pan-chanangram in mouza Kalighat had been let out in mokrari mourasi right to different persons, Durga Mohan Dass & others towards the end of the last century. The grantors were some of the shebaits of the deity Sri Sri Kalimata of Kalighat, but the mokarari mourashi grants were made by them not in their character as shebaits. In fact they made the grants on the assertion that the properties so granted were their personal Brah-matter properties. Durga Mohan Dass in course of time acquired by purchase the interest of some of the other mokarari mourashi tenants in those holdings & thus came to own a compact block of land-covering an area of 4 bighas 3 cottas & 8 chattaks & built his house. The premises were numbered by the Corporation of Calcutta as 146 & 147 Russa Road. After his death his three sons & his widow, who were his heirs, sold the said two premises on 20-2-1902 to Rani Abhoyeswari Debi, the then...

Saghir UddIn Vs. Mt. Munni and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : AIR1949All428; 1949CriLJ674

Desai, J.1. The facts in this application in revision are very simple. The applicant instituted a complaint under s. 494 and 498, Penal Code, against the opposite party. The trial Court, after recording his evidence, framed a charge against the opposite party and fixed I7tb October 1947 for cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses. When the case was called out on 17th October 1947, the complainant and his witnesses were absent and at the request of his counsel the case was adjourned to 5th November 1947. On that date also, the applicant was absent and his counsel again applied for adjournment on the ground of his illness. The trial Court was not satisfied with the plea of illness and did not understand why, even if the applioant was ill, his witnesses could not be present to be cross-examined. It rejected the application, refused to consider the evidence of the prosecution witnesses examined before the charge on the ground that they were not subjected to oross.examination, conolu...