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
Nagamma Shedthi Vs. Korathu Hengsu and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1949)2MLJ413
Raghava Rao, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was instituted by respondents 1 to 6 before us in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of South Kanara for a declaration that the decree obtained by the appellant against the family of themselves and respondents 7 to 9 and 19 in O.S. No. 387 of 1936 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Mangalore did not bind them. That was a suit filed by the appellant as releasee of the suit properties from the auction purchaser thereof in execution of the decree in O.S. No. 39 of 1928, Sub-Court, South Kanara at Mangalore, which had been obtained on the basis of a mortgage effected by the present fifth defendant, by the father of the present defendants 6 to 9 and by the father of the present defendants 10 to 12, who together with their sons and the 13th defendant, their step-brother were the mulgars of the suit properties. The defendants in O.S. No. 387 of 1936 who contested it by filing a written statement were the mulgeni tenant...
Tag this Judgment!K.R. Kesavan Vs. the South Indian Bank Ltd.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad226
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant against the decision of our learned brother, Yahya Ali J., dismissing the appeal preferred against the order of the Master.2. The respondent to this appeal is the South India Bank Ltd., which instituted a suit C. S. No. 480 of 1947, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 10310-10-0 from the defendant. The suit was instituted under summary procedure provided under 0rder 7, Rule 6, Original Side Rules and under 0rder 37, Rule 2, Civil P. C. 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. Bathnasabapathi Nadar and Sons. The drawee of the cheque negotiated if 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 dishonoured on 16th April 1947. The...
Tag this Judgment!Bejoy Dutta and ors. Vs. the King and anr.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1951Cal452
ORDERSen, J.1. The facts which it is necessary to state in connection with this rule briefly are as follows : One Mahamaya Dasi filed a petn. of complaint on 24-7-1948 against the petnrs. The allegations made against them were that on the day of the solar eclipse, the 26th of Raisakh between 9 & 10 A. M. the petnrs. assaulted her with blows & slaps. The assault was a result of a dispute which had arisen between her & the petnrs. who were her tenants. Upon this complaint being filed the accused were summoned under Section 352, I. P. C. On a date fixed for hearing the complainant was absent & the accused were acquitted in accordance with the provisions of Section 247, Cr. P. C. Thereafter on 23-10-1948 a second complaint was filed by Mahamaya Dasi against these petnrs. with respect to the same occurrence & making virtually the same allegations against them. In this petn. the place of assault was stated. It was said that Mahamaya was assaulted in her kitchen. In the former case no mention...
Tag this Judgment!Jethabhai Hirji and Co. Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1949)51BOMLR708
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. The question that arises on this reference is', whether a certain amount paid by an employer to his employees is a valid deduction under Section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act,' 1922, and in order to determine it we have got to consider whether it is an expenditure laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business of the assessee. The assessee employed two persons by the name of Jamnadas and Purshottamdas to attend to a branch business of his. Jamnadas was employed in samvat year 1993 on a salary of Rs. 125, and Purshottamdas was employed in samvat year 1995 on a salary of Rs. 111. On September 1, 1940, the assessee agreed to pay to each of these employees a commission of 20 per cent, on the net profits of the branch in addition to their respective salaries, and pursuant to this agreement each of the employees was paid Rs. 6,000 in the year of account. The Income-tax Officer considered the claim and allowed only a sum of Rs. 1,000 i...
Tag this Judgment!Jethabhai Hiraji and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1950Bom29
Chagla, C.J.1. The question that arises on this reference is whether a certain amount paid by an employer to his employees is a valid deduction under Section 10 (2) (xv), Income-tax Act, 1922, and in order to determine it we have got to consider whether it is an expenditure laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business of the assessee. The assessee employed two persons by the name of Jamnadas and Purshottamdas to attend to a branch business of his. Jamnadas was employed in samvat year 1993 on a salary of RS. 125, and Purshottamdas was employed in samvat year 1995 on a salary of Rs. 111. On 1st September 1940, the assessee agreed to pay to each of these employees a commission of 20 per cent. on the net profits of the branch in addition to their respective salaries, and pursuant to this agreement each of the employees was paid Rs. 6000 in the year of account. The Income-tax Officer considered the claim and allowed only a sum of Rs. 1000 in all for both the e...
Tag this Judgment!Punjabhai Dipchand Vs. Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1949Bom415; (1949)51BOMLR715
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. By this reference the assessee seeks to challenge an order made by the Excess Profits Tax Officer under Section 10A of the Excess Profits Tax Act. The assessee is a firm carrying on business at Ahmedabad in piece-goods, and the partners of the firm are one Punjabhai Dipchand and Goculdas Chhotalal. On June 28, 1941, another firm of the same name was started at Jorawarnagar in the Wadhwan State, which is an Indian State, and in that firm Punjabhai and Goculdas were partners and there was also a third partner by the name of Chunilal Tribhovan. This firm made certain profits, and the question is whether the profits of this firm are liable to payment of excess profits tax.2. Now, Section 5 of the Act which deals with the application of the Act contains a special exception in the case of business done in an Indian State, and it expressly provides that the Act shall not apply to any business the whole of the profits of which accrue or arise in an Indian State. It is not d...
Tag this Judgment!Pujabhai Dipchand Vs. Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax, Bombay Mofus ...
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1949]17ITR482(Bom)
CHAGLA, C.J. - By this reference the assessee seeks to challenge an order made by the Excess Profits Tax Officer under Section 10A of the Excess Profits Tax Act. The assessee is a firm carrying on business at Ahmedabad in piece-goods, and the partners of the firm are one Pujabhai Dipchand and Goculdas Chhotalal. On the June 28, 1941, another firm of the same name was started at Jorawarnagar in the Wadhwan State, which is an Indian State, and in that firm Pujabhai and Goculdas were partners and there was also a third partner by the name of Chunilal Tribhovan. This firm certain profits and the question is whether the profits of this firm are liable to payment of excess profits tax.Now, Section 5 of the Act which deals with the application of the Act contains a special exception in the case of business done in an Indian State, and it expressly provides that the Act shall not apply to any business the whole of the profits of which accrue or arise in an Indian State. It is not disputed in t...
Tag this Judgment!Jethabhai Hirji and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City.
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1949]17ITR533(Bom)
CHAGLA, C.J. - The question that arises on this reference is whether a certain amount paid by an exployer to his employees is a valid deduction under Section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and in order to determine it we have got to consider whether it is an expenditure laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business of the assessee. The assessee employed two persons by the name of Jamnada and Purshottamdas to attend to a branch business of his. Jamnadas was employed in Samvat year 1993 on a salary of Rs. 125, and Purshottamdas was employed in Samvat year 1995 on a salary of Rs. 111. On the September 1, 1940, the assessee greed to pay to each of these employees a commission of 20 per cent. on the net profits of the branch in addition to their respective salaries, and pursuant to this agreement each of the employees was paid Rs. 6,000 in the year of account. The Income tax Officer considered the claim and allowed only a sum of Rs. 1,000 in all ...
Tag this Judgment!Devkaran Nanjee Banking Co., Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Excess Profits T ...
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1950]18ITR47(Bom)
CHAGLA, C.J. - The assessee is the Devkaran Nanjee Banking Co., Ltd., and the questions that arise for our consideration deal with the construction of certain provision of the Excess Profits Tax Act (XY of 1940), and the first question that we have to consider is whether the assessee bank is entitled to the benefit conferred upon assessees under Rule 5 of Schedule I to the Act. Schedule I contains rules for the and under Rule 2 of that Schedule, any borrowed money and debts shall be deducted for the purposes of computing the average amount of capital. Therefore, if the bank borrowed any moneys, those moneys could not go to the increase of the average amount of capital used by the bank. But there is an exception contained in rule 5 of schedule I, and that exception is that notwithstanding the provisions of rule 2 of Schedule II the amount of loan or debentures from a bank carrying on a bona fide banking business or effected by means of a public issue of debentures secured on the propert...
Tag this Judgment!Nathu Ram V. Godse Vs. the Crown
Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : 1949CriLJ834
ORDERHarnam Singh, J.1. Nathu Ram V. Godse has been found guilty by-Shri Atma Charan, I. C, S. Judge, Special Court, Delhi, under Section 120B, Penal Code read with s. 302 of the Code, under B. 19 (c), Arms Act Cr in the alternative under Section 114, Penal Code read with Section 19(c), Arms Act,, under Section 19 (f), Arum Act, under Section 5, Explosive Substances Act Cr in the alternative under Section 5, Explosive Substances Act read with Section 6 of the Act, under Section 4(b), Explosive Substances Act read with Section 6 of the Act, under B. 6, Explosive Sub-stances Act read with Section 6 of the Act, under Section 115, Penal Code read with Section 302 of the Code and under Section 302, Penal Code and has been sentenced (1) to two years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 19 (c), Arms Act, Cr in the alternative under Section 114, Penal Code read with Section 19 (c), Arms Act, (2) to two years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 19 (f), Arms Act, (3) to three years' rigorous im...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 6692
- 6693
- 6694
- 6695
- 6696
- 6698
- 6699
- 6700
- 6701
- 6702
- Next ›
- Last »