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
H.M. Muhammad Ibrahim Vs. M.R. Abdul Hafeez Sahib
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1949)2MLJ114
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. The only question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the District Judge of West Tanjore had or had not jurisdiction, to entertain an application under Section 62 of the Lunacy Act for directing a judicial inquisition regarding the lunacy of an idiot, Muhammad Ismail by name, aged 22 on the date of the petition. The petition was dismissed in limine by the District Judge on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to entertain it and' that it would be open to the petitioner to renew the application if and when the idiot returned to the jurisdiction of that Court. According to the learned Judge the alleged idiot was a permanent resident in Mysore state and therefore, he had no jurisdiction to direct a judicial inquisition regarding the lunacy of the idiot. This order of the learned District Judge was confirmed on appeal by Horwill, J. The learned Judge was also of the same opinion as the learned District Judge- for the reason that, as the alleged...
Tag this Judgment!Kuppuswami Asari Vs. Manickasari
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1949)2MLJ126
Viswanatha Sastri, J.1. The question that arises for decision in this case is whether the Hindu Law of Inheritance (Amendment) Act II of 1929 has any application to succession to the stridhanam property of a Hindu lady or whether the succession is governed by the ordinary rule of Hindu law unaffected by the provisions of Act II of 1929.2. One Rajammal was the last owner of the property now in dispute. Her husband, Arunachala Asari had a sister and a sister's son from whom the plaintiff has purchased the property. The defendants set up title of the paternal uncle's son of Arunachala Asari as heir to the property of Rgjammal. The question is whether the sister and sister's son of Arunachala Asari could be deemed to be stridhanam heirs of Rajammal in preference to paternal uncle's son of Arunachala. If the ordinary Hindu law of succession were to apply it is clear that Rajammal having died without issue, her husband and his sapindas would be the heirs to her stridhanam property. The quest...
Tag this Judgment!Digambarrao Hanmantrao Deshpande Vs. Rangrao Raghunathrao Desai
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1949Bom367; (1949)51BOMLR623
Bhagwati, J.1. This is a first appeal from a decision of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, at Hubli, who dismissed the plaintiff's suit.2. The suit came to be filed by the plaintiff under the following circumstances. The plaintiff's father initiated a suit, being suit No. 438 of 1911, in the First Class Subordinate Judge's Court at Dharwar, by filing a pauper petition No. 5 of 1910 against his brother Laxmipati and others including one Hanmant Krishna Deshpande who was defendant No. 21 in the suit. The suit was a suit for partition claiming a half share in the ancestral properties, the properties included in the suit being Survey Nos. 49, 52, 116, 17 and 20. This suit had a chequered career 'as appears from the judgment delivered by this Court in Digambar Hanmant v. Shrinivas Laxmipatirao (1937) F.A. No. 84 of 1934, decided by 1937 (Unrep.). The plaintiff's father having died in the meanwhile the plaintiff filed and prosecuted the appeal, and it appears that on December 15, 1937, a dec...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. S.N. Bhayya
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1950Bom26
Chagla, C.J.1. The assessee Mr. Bhayya was assessed for the assessment year 1914-45 as a Hindu undivided family. He was under an obligation to pay a sum of Rs. 500 per month to his mother as maintenance, and this obligation was crystallized by a decree of the Court which gave to the widow a charge on the joint family properties in respect of this maintenance. Having paid this maintenance pursuant to the decree, the assessee claimed the payment as a permissible allowance under Section 9(1)(iv), Income-tax Act. The Tribunal took the view that this was a permissible deduction, and the Commissioner of Income-tax has come before us on a reference.2. In a very recent decision reported in Prince Khanderao Gaekwar v. Commissioner, I.T. 50 Bom.L.R. 368: A.I.R. 1949 Bom. 17 we laid down that the test to be applied under Section 9(1)(iv) was whether the property was subject to a valid and legal charge which could be enforced in a Court of law under which the assessee was bound to pay a certain am...
Tag this Judgment!The Broach Co-operative Bank, Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1949)51BOMLR718
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. The assessee is a co-operative bank, and its working capital in the year of account was roughly Rs. 34,00,000 and the average deposits about Rs. 29,00,000. This bank had invested in tax-free securities and taxable securities as large an amount as a sum approximately between Rs. 14,00,000 and Rs. 19,00,000. On the deposits that the bank maintained it paid as interest in the year of account a sum of Rs. 61,788; and two questions arise for our determination in this reference. One is with regard to the true effect of the first proviso to Section 8 of the Indian Income-tax Act to the extent that it is applicable to the facts of this case. Now, Section 8 deals with one of the heads which are chargeable to income-tax and that head is 'Interest on securities,' and the section provides that the tax shall be payable by an assessee on interest on securities, in respect of the interest receivable by him on any security of the Central or Provincial Government. The rest of the se...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. S.N. Bhayya
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1949)51BOMLR722
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. The assessee Mr. Bhayya was assessed for the assessment year 1944-45 as a Hindu undivided family. He was under an obligation to pay a sum of Rs. 500 per month to his mother as maintenance, and this obligation was crystallized by a decree of the Court which gave to the widow a charge on the joint family properties in respect of this maintenance. Having paid this maintenance pursuant to the decree, the assessee claimed the payment as a permissible allowance under Section 9(1)(iv) of the Indian Income-tax Act. The Tribunal took the view that this was a permissible deduction, and the Commissioner of Income-tax has come before us on a reference.2. In a very recent decision reported in Prince Khanderao Gaekwar v. Commissioner : AIR1949Bom17 we laid down that the test to be applied under Section 9(1)(iv) was whether the property was subject to a valid and legal charge which could be enforced in a Court of law under which the assessee was bound to pay a certain amount recur...
Tag this Judgment!Broach Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1950Bom45
Chagla, C.J.1. The assessee is a co-operative bank, and its working capital in the year of account was roughly Rs. 34,00,000 and the average deposits about RS. 29,00,000. This bank had invested in tax-free securities and taxable securities as large an amount as a sum approximately between Rs. 14,00,000 and Rs. 19,00,000. On the deposits that the bank maintained it paid as interest in the year of account a sum of RS. 61,788; and two questions arise for our determination in this reference. One is with regard to the true effect of proviso 1 to Section 8, Income-tax Act to the extent that it is applicable to the facts of this case. Now, Section 8 deals with one of the heads which are chargeable to income-tax and that head is 'interest on securities.' and the section provides that the tax shall be payable by an assessee on interest on securities, in respect of the interest receivable by him on any security of the Central or Provincial Government. The rest of the section is not material. The...
Tag this Judgment!Phaltan Sugar Works, Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1949)51BOMLR725
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. These five references raise common questions of law. All these references were pending before the High Court of Judicature, Deccan States, Kolhapur, and they have been transferred to us after the State of Phaltan was merged in the Province of Bombay.2. The assessee company was incorporated in the Phaltan State in the year 1933 as a private limited company and it was converted into a public limited company on September 17, 1942. During the accounting year ending on September 30, 1938, this company made a profit of Rs. 3,94,653, but it did not distribute any part of these profits by way of dividends to its shareholders who were three in number. Thereupon the Income-tax Officer took action under Section 23A (1) of the Act and ordered that all the assessable profits of the company should be deemed to have been distributed amongst the shareholders of the company. After the company was converted into a public company on September 17, 1942, an order was issued by the Incom...
Tag this Judgment!Phaltan Sugar Works Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1950Bom61
Chagla, C.J.1. These five references raise common questions of law. All these references were pending before the High Court of Judicature, Deccan States, Kolhapur, and they have been transferred to us after the State of Phaltan was merged in the Province of Bombay.2. The assessee company was incorporated in the Phaltan State in the year 1933 as a private limited company and it was converted into a public limited company on 17th September 1942. During the accounting year ending on 30th September 1938, this company made a profit of Rs. 3,94,653, but it did not distribute any part of these profits by way of dividends to its share-holders who were three in number. Thereupon the Income-tax Officer took action under Section 23(1) of the Act and ordered that all the assessable profits of the company should be deemed to have been distributed amongst the share holders of the company. After the company was converted into a public company on 17th September 1942, an order was issued by the Income-...
Tag this Judgment!The Broach Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bomb ...
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1949]17ITR489(Bom)
CHAGLA, C.J. - The assessee is a Co-operative Bank, and its working capital in the year of account was roughly Rs. 34,00,000 and the average deposits about Rs. 29,00,000. This Bank had invested in tax-free securities and taxable securities as large an amount as a sum approximately between Rs. 14,00,000 and Rs. 19,00,000. On the deposits that the Bank maintained it paid as interest in the year of account a sum of Rs. 61,788; and two questions arise for our determination in this reference. One is with regard to the true effect of the first proviso to Section 8 of the Income-tax Act to the extent that it is applicable to the facts of this case. Now section 8 deals with one of the heads which are chargeable to income-tax and that head is 'Interest on securities', and the section provides that the tax shall be payable by an assessee on interest on securities, in respect of the interest receivable by him on any security of the Central of Provincial Government. The rest of the section is not ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 6693
- 6694
- 6695
- 6696
- 6697
- 6699
- 6700
- 6701
- 6702
- 6703
- Next ›
- Last »