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
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City Vs. the B.B. and C.i. Railway ...
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1949]17ITR509(Bom)
CHANGALA, C.J. - The question that arises in this reference is whether the assessee, the B.B. & C.I. Railway Co-operative Mutual Death Benefits Society for Indian Staff, Limited, Bombay, is exempt from income-tax under a notification issued by the Central Government under Section 60 of the Indian Income tax Act. Under Section 2(6C) of the Act, the profits of any business of insurance carried on by a mutual insurance association is income for the purpose of tax, and Section 10(7) provides a special method of computing the profits and gains of any business of insurance and the manner in which tax is to be paid on those profits and gains. Section 10(7) further provides that in place of the provisions contained in Section 8, 9, 10, 12 or 18 the rules continued in the Schedule to the Act shall be substituted. Therefore the result of this provision is that instead of computing the income of an insurance company as laid down in various sections under Chapter III, you compute them in the manne...
Tag this Judgment!Kalakkathankandi Chathan Vs. Valia Parambath Cheeru and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1949)1MLJ622
Mack, J.1. The petitioner is the plaintiff in a partition suit in which a decree was passed for the division of a small house situated in a paramba or garden about ten cents in extent, into two shares, the plaintiff being entitled to one half and defendants 2 to 6 who are strangers but who took an assignment of the other half share from the first defendant, who is plaintiff's brother, being entitled to the other half. Complications ensued in effecting a partition of this small house and garden, as may well be expected. Two commissioners appear to have been appointed--for what reason neither of the learned advocates can say--who appear to have divided the garden itself into two portions one of which they proposed to be allotted to the plaintiff and the other to defendants 2 to 6. They valued the house itself at Rs. 1,495-4-2 and proposed its allotment to the defendants. It would appear that defendant No. 1 and defendants 2 to 6 are all residing in this house. The Commissioners proposed ...
Tag this Judgment!Dawoo Doyal Kothari Vs. Giridhari Laha
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1950Cal214,54CWN12
Lahiri, J.1. This Rule was obtained by the plaintiff landlord in a proceeding under Section 41, Presidency Small Cause Court Act for the recovery of possession of room no. 27 of premises No. 57 Clive Street of which the opposite party was a monthly tenant at a rent of Rs. 75 per month. The facts of the case, which are undisputed, are as follows: the present proceeding was started on 7th March 1945, inter alia, on the ground of default in payment of rent after service of a notice to quit and on 27th July 1945 it was decreed on consent in favour of the landlord. On 29th August 1945, the Calcutta House Rent Control Order was amended by the insertion of para. 9B which inter alia provided by sub-para. (3) that where any decree or order for recovery of possession had been made before 29th August 1945 on the ground of default in payment or deposit of rent but possession had not been recovered, the proceeding for recovery of possession in execution of the decree or order shall be stayed till 2...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income-tax (Central) Vs. Nazir and Sons
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1949)51BOMLR696
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. The question that arises in this reference is whether the assessees are liable to pay a certain penalty imposed upon them by the Income-tax Officer under Section 28 of the Act.2. The facts which led up to this reference may be briefly stated. On January 16, 1940, the Income-tax Officer issued a notice under Section 22, Sub-section (4), of the Indian Income-tax Act, for production of certain accounts and documents. The assessees failed to comply with that notice. The assessment of the assessees was completed by the Income-tax Officer on February 8, 1940. In completing the assessment a note was made by the Income-tax Officer that proceedings should be taken against the assessees under Section 28(1)(a) and (h). On February 17, 1940, pursuant to that note, a notice was issued by the Income-tax Officer under Section 28 of the Act. Now when the assessment of the assessees was completed, they were not registered as a firm; but on October 12, 1940, the Income-tax Commission...
Tag this Judgment!The Comissioner of Income-tax Vs. the Kolhia Hirdagarh Co., Ltd.
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1949)51BOMLR699; [1949]17ITR545(Bom)
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. This reference raises a rather difficult and debatable question whether a certain payment made by the assessee was in the nature of a capital or revenue expenditure. The assessee is the Kolhia Hirdagarh Company, Limited, Bombay. Rai Bahadur Seth Goverdhandas acquired certain mining rights from the Central Provinces Government in 1922, and on September 14, 1939, an agreement was arrived at between Rai Bahadur Goverdhandas and Messrs. Choonilal Manilal, Ltd., for the sale of all the rights that Goverdhandas had to Messrs. Choonilal Manilal, Ltd. By this agreement the consideration that was fixed for the purchase of these rights by Choonilal Manilal, Ltd., was the payment of a sum of Rs. 75,000 in cash to Goverdhandas and the giving of fully paid up shares of the face value of Rs. 25,000 to Goverdhandas and the minimum annual dividend (including its share of income-tax and super-tax) of four annas for every ton of coal raised. Messrs. Choonilal Manilal purchased these ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax (Central) Vs. Nazir and Sons
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1950Bom28
Chagla, C.J.1. The question that arises in this reference is whether the assessees are liable to pay a certain penalty imposed upon them by the Income-tax Officer under Section 28 of the Act.2. The facts which led up to this reference may be briefly stated. On 16th January 1940, the Income-tax Officer issued a notice under Section 22, Sub-section (4), Income-tax Act, for production of certain accounts and documents. The assessees failed to comply with that notice. The assessment of the assessees was completed by the Income-tax Officer on 8th February 1940. In completing the assessment, a note was made by the Income-tax Officer that proceedings should be taken against the assessees under Section 28(1)(a) and (b). On 17th February 1940, pursuant to that note, a notice was issued by the Income-tax Officer under Section 28 of the Act. Now when the assessment of the assessees was completed, they were not registered as a firm; but on 12th October 1940, the Income-tax Commissioner made the or...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kolhia Hirdagarh Co. Ltd.
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1950Bom51
Chagla, C.J.1. This reference raises a rather difficult and debatable question whether a certain payment made by the assessee was in the nature of a capital or revenue expenditure. The assessee is the Kolhia Hirdagarh Company, Limited, Bombay. Rai Bahadur Seth Goverdhandas acquired certain mining rights from the Central Provinces Government in 1922, and on 14th September 1939 an agreement was arrived at between Rai Bahadur Goverdhandas and Messrs. Choonilal Manilal, Ltd., for the sale of all the rights that Goverdhandas had to Messrs. Choonilal Manilal, Ltd. By this agreement the consideration that was fixed for the purchase of these rights by Choonilal Manilal, Ltd., was the payment of a sum of Rs. 75,000 in cash to Goverdhandas and the giving of fully paid up shares of the face value of Rs. 25,000 to Goverdhandas and the minimum annual dividend (including its share of income-tax and super-tax) of four annas for every ton of coal raised. Messrs. Choonilal Manilal purchased these right...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Bombay Vs. Nazir and Sons, Bomba ...
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1949]17ITR486(Bom)
CHAGLA, C.J. - The question that arises in this reference in whether the assessee are liable to pay a certain penalty imposed upon them by the Income-tax Officer under Section 28 of the Act.The facts which led up to this reference may be briefly stated. On the January 16, 1940, the Income-tax Officer issued a notice under Section 22, sub-section (4), of the Income-tax Act for production of certain accounts and documents. The assessee failed to comply with that notice. The assessment of the assessee was completed by the Income-tax Officer on the February 8, 1940, in completing the assessment a note was made by the Income-tax Officer that proceedings should be taken against the assessee under Section 28(1)(a) and (b). On the February 17, 1940, pursuant to that note, a notice was issued by the Income-tax Officer under Section 28 of the Act. Now when the assessment of the assessee was completed, they were not registered as a firm; but on the October 12, 1940, the Income-tax Commissioner ma...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: L. Papayyaswamy
Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1950CriLJ34
ORDERSomasundaeam, J.1. This is a petition to quash the charge on the ground that the Court has no jurisdiction. The facts of the case are those,2. The petitioner has been prosecuted for having used three documents along with his-application to the Madras Public Services Commission for admission to a competitive examination. The three documents are said to be forged documents. They were posted at Vizagapatam on t7th July 1947 along with his application and received in the office of the Public Services Commission on 21st July 1917. After examining eight prosecution witnesses the lower Court has framed charges against the petitioner for the offences Under Section 465 and Section 405 read with Section 471, penal Code.3. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that these documents along with his application having been posted at Vizagapatam the offence of using forged documents is complete at Vizagapatam and, therefore, the only Court which has territorial jurisdiction fo...
Tag this Judgment!K.R. Kesavan Vs. the South Indian Bank, Ltd.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1949)2MLJ70
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant against the decision of our learned brother, Yahya Ali, J., dismissing the appeal perferred against the order of the Master. 2. The respondent to this appeal is the South Indian Bank, Ltd., which instituted a suit, C. S. No. 480 of 1947, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 10,310-10-0 from the defendant. The suit was instituted under summary procedure provided under Order 7, Rule 6 of the Original Side Rules and under Order 37, Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code. The claim was based on a cheque for a sum of Rs. 10,000 dated 12th April, 1947, drawn by the appellant on the Indian Bank, Ltd., Thyagarayanagar, in favour of one K.C.M.C. Rathnasabapathi Nadar and Sons. The drawee of the cheque negotiated it to the plaintiff bank and it was alleged in the plaint that it was endorsed to it for valuable consideration and that the plaintiff is a holder in due course. The cheque was presented to the Indian Bank by the plaintiff but it was dishon...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 6691
- 6692
- 6693
- 6694
- 6695
- 6697
- 6698
- 6699
- 6700
- 6701
- Next ›
- Last »