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
Latest Privy Council judgments
Ruby General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. the Comr. of Income-tax
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1952Cal355
R.P. Mookerjee, J.1. This is a reference under Section 66 (1), Income-tax Act, raising a question dependant on an interpretation of E. 2, Sch. II with the explanatory sub-para, of Excess Profits Tax Act (xv [15] of 1940).2. The assessee company, Ruby General Insurance Co. Ltd., is a company incorporated in India carrying on different branches of insurances including Life, Eire, Marine & general insurances. We are not concerned with the Life Insurance branch of the business but only about the method of calculation to be adopted for determining the excess profits tax payable in respect of the other branches for the accounting period commencing from 1-9 1939 and ending December 1939. The Co. having exercised option as regards standard profits under the second proviso to Section 6 (1), Excess Profits Tax Act, such standard profits have to be calculated by applying the statutory percentage to the average capital employed in the business during the relevant chargeable accounting period.3. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Piggot Chapman and Co.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1952Cal414
R.P. Mookerjee, J.1. This is a reference Under Section. 66 (1), Income Tax Act. On an application, by the Commissioner of Income Tax Calcutta, the following question of law has been formulated by the Tribunal for answer by this Court.'Whether in the circumstances of the case a sum of Rs. 6698/- paid out to Mr. Mitchell-Innes. wholly & exclusively for the purposes of the business was a revenue expenditure so as to-be allowable as an admissible deduction under Section 10 (2) (XII), Income Tax Act (as it stood, before its amendment in 1946).'2. Messrs. Piggot Chapman & Co. is a firm of exchange brokers Mr. Mitchell-Innes & Mr. Danbeny who were working in partnership as exchange brokers, under the name & style of Halford Smith & Co. entered into ah agreement on 22-10-1919 with the partners of the assessee-firm Piggot Chapman & Co. It is not necessary for our present purpose to state in full the terms of this agreement. Broadly speaking Messrs. Mitchell-Innes & Danbeny who were the sole exc...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Calcutta Vs. Messrs. Piggot Chapman and Co ...
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1949]17ITR317(Cal)
MOOKHERJEE, J. - This is a reference under Section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act. On an application by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Calcutta, the following question of law has been formulated by the Tribunal for answer by this court :-'Whether, in the circumstances of the case, a sum of Rs. 6,698 paid out to Mr. Mitchell Innes wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business was a revenue expenditure so as to be allowable as an admissible deduction under Section 10(2)(xii) of the Income-tax Act (as it stood before its amendment in 1946).'Messrs. Piggot Chapman & Co. is a firm of exchange brokers Mr. Mitchell Innes and Mr. Daubeny, who were working in partnership as exchange brokers under the name and style of Halford Smith & Co., entered into an agreement on October 22, 1919, with the partners of the assessee-firm Piggot Chapman & Co. It is not necessary for out present purpose to state in full the terms of this agreement. Broadly speaking, Messrs. Mitchell Innes and Daubeny, wh...
Tag this Judgment!General Insurance Co., Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bengal.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1949]17ITR331(Cal)
MOOKHERJEE, J. - This is a reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act raising a question dependent on an interpretation of Rule 2 of Schedule II with the explanatory sub-paragraph of the Excess Profits Tax Act (XV of 1940).The assessee company, Ruby General Insurance Co. Ltd., is a company incorporated in India carrying on different branches of insurances including life, fire, marine and general insurances. We are not concerned with the life insurance branch of the business but only about the method of calculation to be adopted for determining the excess profits tax payable in respect of the other branches for the accounting period commencing from September 1, 1939, and ending December, 1939. The company having exercise option as regards standard profits under the second proviso to section 6(1) of the excess Profit under the second proviso to section 6(1) of the Excess Profits Tax Act such standard profits have to be calculated by applying the statutory percentage to th...
Tag this Judgment!Gulzari Lal and ors. Vs. Sm. Sarju Bai and anr.
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1949All604
Malik, C.J.1. This is an appeal under Clause 10. Letters Patent, against an order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 18th December 1947.2. One Lala Chander Sen deposited a box containing jewellery in the Allahabad Bank Limited, Hathras Branch, in the joint names of himself and his wife, Mt. Sarju Bai. Sarju Bai filed a Suit (No. 54 of 1942) for a declaration that the ornaments belonged to her and were her stridhan property and that Chander Sen had no right or interest in them. Chander Sen contested the suit on the ground that a large part of the jewellery contained in the box belonged to his first wife and that there were some ornaments which belonged to him and the plaintiff's claim that all the ornaments belonged to her was false. The suit was, however, decreed by the lower Court and Chander Sen filed an appeal in this Court (First Appeal No. 217 of 1944). During the pendency of the appeal Chander Sen died on 15th May 1947. An application was thereupon filed by three p...
Tag this Judgment!Kr. Sardar Singh Vs. Hardwargir
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1949All608
Malik, C.J.1. The point raised by learned Counsel for the appellant in this Letters Patent appeal was never raised in any of the lower Courts nor even before the learned Single Judge of this Court.2. The plaintiff filed a suit on the basis of a document of the year 1862 and claimed that the plaintiffs predecessors had granted a lease to the ancestors of the defendants with a condition that the lessees would vacate the land whenever the lessors wanted it. Defendants 1 to 3 were admittedly the descendants of the original lessees. Defendant No. i had contested the suit that he had nothing to do with the lease of 1862, and that he did not belong to the family of defendants 1 to 3 but was a tenant independently in his own right on payment of a certain rent. His plea found favour with the lower appellate Court and the suit was dismissed as against him.3. Before the learned Single Judge the only point raised was whether defendant 4 belonged to the family of the original lessees and was theref...
Tag this Judgment!Mt. Haliman Khatoon Vs. Mt. Ahmadi Begum and ors.
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1949All627
Agarwala, J.1. This appeal arises out of proceedings under the Guardians and Wards Act. Three persons applied to be appointed guardian of the person of a male minor, named, Mohammad Ayub aged about four years. These three persons were Ahmadi Begam, father's mother's mother of the minor, Zohra Khatun, father's sister of the minor and Mt. Haliman Khatun, own mother of the minor who is the appellant before us. The minor's father Mohammad Yaqub died on 19th January 1944. After his death, Mt. Haliman Khatun, on 1st December 1944, married Ahmad Husain, her father's sister's son. The learned Judge of the Court below held that by this marriage Mt. Haliman Khatun had forfeited her right to be appointed as the guardian of the person of her minor son. He therefore appointed Zohra Khatun, father's sister of the minor as the guardian of his person. It is against this order that Mt. Haliman Khatun has filed these three appeals.2. Under the Muhammadan law mother is entitled to the custody (hizanat) o...
Tag this Judgment!Pydah Suryanarayanamurthy Vs. Pydah Ramakrishnayya and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1949)1MLJ513
Mack, J.1. The petitioner was the first defendant in a suit for dissolution of partnership and accounts. A decree was passed against him to pay Rs. 52,958-15-4. In an appeal against this decree he tried to get away with court-fee on the appeal memorandum valued at Rs. 3,100 adopting the tentative valuation in the plaint. The appeal memorandum was objected to by the District Court office and ultimately the District Judge directed the appeal to be numbered. The Court-fee Examiner subsequently took objection to the valuation and the District Judge upholding his objection directed the appellant to pay a deficit court-fee of Rs. 1,522-7-0, ad valorem court-fee, on the decree he sought to avoid.2. Mr. Somasundaram concedes that the court-fee on the appeal memorandum is correct and in accordance with the Full Bench decision in Dhanukoti, In re (1938) 1 M.L.J. 638 : I.L.R. 1938 Mad. 598. The only point he takes is that under Section 12(1) of the Court-Fees Act the District Judge had given a de...
Tag this Judgment!Chunilal Vs. the Governor-general in Council as Representing G.i.P. Ra ...
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1949)1MLJ538
Mack, J.1. Appellant is the plaintiff; One Chunilal, who consigned by goods train a dealwood-box containing goods to Bombay on 12th May, 1945. The box was lost in transit. He sued the M. & S. M. and the G.I.P. Railways represented by the Governor-General in Council to recover the value of its contents, namely, Rs. 2,031-12-0. The Principal City Civil Judge gave him a decree only for Rs. 142 with proportionate costs against the G.I.P. Railway only, it not being disputed that it actually received the box in transit from the M. & S. M. Railway. The learned Judge found that the box in question actually contained the following articles as claimed by the plaintiff (1) two gross red-blue pencils worth Rs. 72, (2) 5 gross black lead pencils worth Rs. 70, (3) 20 gross swadeshi brass nibs worth Rs. 480, (4) 700 dozen sewing machine English needles worth Rs. 1,400, (5) 3 dozen playing cards worth Rs. 9-12-0. Plaintiff examined P.W. 2, the proprietor of the shop who supplied these goods to the pla...
Tag this Judgment!Narayanaswami Reddi and ors. Vs. Al. Vr. St. Veerappa Chettiar and anr ...
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1949)1MLJ656
Mack, J.1. The petitioners were respondents I to 4 in an application filed by the decree-holder under Order 21, Rule 97, Civil Procedure Code, impieading them as obstructors to his taking delivery. They out forward the position that it was barred by a previous application under the same provision of law E.A. No. 59 of 1946 filed in a previous execution petition E.P.R. No. 158 of 1945 which was dismissed as 'not pressed' on 17th March, 1947, and that the decree-holder's remedy was only by a suit within one year under Order 21, Rule 103, Civil Procedure Code. The District Munsiff negatived this contention and held that a fresh application for removal of obstruction, was maintainable.2. The short relevant facts are these. The obstruction the decree-holder encountered took place on 26th December, 1945. He filed E.A. No. 159 of 1946 against the present petitioners under Order 21, Rule 97 on 26th January, 1946. This execution application after several adjournments was dismissed as 'not press...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 6678
- 6679
- 6680
- 6681
- 6682
- 6684
- 6685
- 6686
- 6687
- 6688
- Next ›
- Last »