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
Phaltan Sugar Works Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Phaltan State ...
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1949]17ITR499(Bom)
CHAGLA, C.J. - These five references raise common questions of law. All these reference 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.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 the September 17, 1942. During the accounting year ending in September 30, 1938, this company made a profit of Rs. 3,94,653, but it did not distribute any part of these profits by the 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 the September 17, 1942, an order was issued by the Inc...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City Vs. the Finaly Mills Ltd., Bom ...
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1949]17ITR595(Bom)
CHAGLA, C.J. - The question that we have to consider in this reference is wholly covered by a recent decision of this Court reported in Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City v. Century Spinning Weaving and . In that case this Court held that the expenditure incurred for applying for trade mark under the Trade Marks Act was an expenditure attributable to revenue inasmuch as it was recurring and it did not bring into existence an asset or an advantage for the enduring benefit of the trade and also that the expenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the assessees business.Now in this case the assessees, the Finaly Mills Ltd., also claimed that the expenditure incurred by them with regard to the registration of their trade mark was a revenue expenditure. The department contested this on the ground that the case of the assessees was distinguishable from the case which we decided in Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City v. Century Spinning Weaving and ., and the d...
Tag this Judgment!Puro Goudo and ors. Vs. Sri Uday Pratap Singh Deo
Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1952Ori223
Panigrahi, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the Zamindar of Shergada Estate for delivery of possession of 39.49 acres of land in village Brahmahatya within the ambit of his zamindari and for other reliefs.2. The plaintiff's case is that the suit lands bearing survey Nos. 60, 107 and 115 are his 'hetta' or private lands and that the defendants No. 6, 7, 8 and 20 took them on lease for Fasli 1348 and entered upon the lands as his tenants, that the lease was renewed by a registered document for the subsequent Fasli, but that at the instigation of one Gobind Pradhan the defendants refused to surrender possession and claimed occupancy rights in them. The dispute between the parties led to initiation of proceedings under Section 145, Criminal P. C., and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed an order upholding the possession of the defendants. The plaintiff was, therefore, obliged to file the suit for declaration of his title and for a permanent injunction restraining the said de...
Tag this Judgment!Ghulam Bhik Vs. Rustom Ali and ors.
Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1949P& H354
Harnam Singh, J.1. Rustam Ali adult and Didar Ali minor, sons of Fateh Mohd. Rajput, defendant 2 instituted a suit challenging the sale of the land in suit by their father Fateh Mohammad in favour of Ghulam Bhik defendant 1 on the ground that the land being ancestral qua the plaintiffs the sales were not for consideration and legal necessity and therefore not binding on the plaintiffs under the rule of custom governing the parties.2. Ghulam Bhik defendant 1 admitted that the parties were governed by custom and that the land in suit was ancestral qua the plaintiffs. He, however, maintained that the alienations were for considerations and legal necessity.3. Now, the alienations were made on the foot of two sale deeds dated 16th November 1937 and 25th July 1940 for Rs. 900 each. On the pleadings of the parties the trial Court framed the following issue: 1. Are the sales in suit for consideration and legal necessity?4. The trial Court found that the first sale was for legal necessity to th...
Tag this Judgment!Jagannath Vs. Badri Prashad and ors.
Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1949P& H359
ORDERS.R. Das, C.J.1. This is a petition by one Jagan Nath for revision of the order of the learned District Judge, Delhi, dated 7th July 1948 which affirmed the order made on 16th December 1947 by the Insolvency Judge, Delhi, whereby the petitioner and one Piaray Lal were adjudged insolvents. The facts shortly are as follows:2. On 8th August 1946 one Badri Prashad and one Manohar Lal claiming to be the creditors of the firm of Jagan Nath Ram Nath presented a petition in the Court of the Insolvency Judge, Delhi, for adjudicating Jagan Nath, Ram Nath (the minor son of Jagan Nath) and Piarey Lal as proprietors of the firm. Later on, some more creditors came in and were added as petitioning creditors and an amended petition was filed on 10th October 1946. It may also be mentioned here that at some subsequent stage the name of the infant Ram Nath was struck out from the record and the proceedings continued against Jagan Nath and Piarey Lal.3. The acts of insolvency on which the petition wa...
Tag this Judgment!K.M. Oosman and Company Alias K.M. Khadir Brothers by Managing Proprie ...
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1949)2MLJ84
Subba Rao, J.1. These two appeals arise out of two cross suits, O.S. Nos. 13 of 1944 and 14 of 1944, filed by the respective parties for declaration of their title in the trade-marks and for an injunction restraining the other parties from interfering with their rights. One K.A. Kadir Sahib, father of defendants 2 to 6 and husband of the 7th defendant carried on business in partnership with another, S. A. Sattar Sahib, under the name and style of ' S.A. Sattar and K. A. Kadir and Co.' Sattar Sahib died in June 1938. Kadir Sahib, the other partner filed O.S. No. 363 of 1938 on the file of the District Murisiff's Court, Vellore, for a declaration that the firm of ' S.A. Sattar and K. A. Khadir and Co.' was dissolved on 10th June, 1938, and for accounts. The suit was settled by arbitration. The arbitrators, on 25th March, 1940, decided to sell the properties of the firm and the trade-marks separately in auction and also to sell the.amount of .decree dues and the arrears of shop rent in an...
Tag this Judgment!Gummalapura Tagginamatada Kotturuswami Vs. Setra Viravva and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1949)2MLJ582
Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment and decree of the District Judge of Bellary dated 26th November, 1945, in O.S. No. 39 of 1943. That suit was filed on behalf of all the reversioners by the appellant, Gummalapura Tagginamatada Kotturuswami, head of the Lingayat Togginamutt at Kampli, claiming to be the nearest reversioner of the estate of his natural brother, Setra Kari Virappa, given away in adoption, for a declaration that the adoption of Kotrabasayya, the second defendant, on 11th October, 1942, by Setra Viravva, the first defendant and widow of Kari Virappa, was invalid, as not being in conformity with the will of Kari Virappa, Exhibit P-2(a), dated 10th October, 1920 and on other grounds and not binding on the plaintiff and the other reversioners. The estate is worth about a lakh of rupees. Setra Kari Virappa was given in adoption to one Virappa Devaru and this was referred to in Virappa Devaru's will Exhibit P-1 dated 4th February, 1899. That adoptio...
Tag this Judgment!K.M. Oosman and Co. Alias K.M. Khadir Brothers by Managing Proprietor, ...
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1951Mad681
Subba Rao, J. 1. These two appeals arise out of two cross suits, O. S. Nos. 13 of 1944 and 14 of 1944, filed by the respective parties for declaration of their title in the trade marks and for an injunction restraining the other parties from interfering with their rights. One K. A. Kadir Sahib, father of defendants 2 to 6 and husband of the 7th defendant carried on business in partnership with another, S. A. Sattar Sahib, under the name and style of 'S. A. Sattar and K. A. Kadir and Co'. Sattar Sahib died in June 1938. Kadir Sahib, the other partner filed O. S. No. 363 of 1938 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Vellore for a declaration that the firm of 'S. A. Sattar and K. A. Kadir and Co' was dissolved on 10-6-1938 and for accounts. The suit was settled by arbitration. The arbitrators, on 25-3-1940, decided to sell the properties of the firm and the trade marks separately in auction and also to sell the amount of decree dues and the arrears of shop rent in another lot. Pursu...
Tag this Judgment!Gummalapura Tegginamatada Kotturuswami Vs. Setra Viravva and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1952Mad609
Panchapakesa Aiyar, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment and decree of the District Judge of Bellary dated 26th November 1945 in O. S. No. 39 of 1943. The suit was filed on behalf of all the reversioners by the appellant, Gummalapura Tegginamatada Kotturuswami head of the Lingayat Teginamutt at Kampli, claiming to be the nearest reversioner of the estate of his natural brother, Setra Kari Virappa, given away in adoption, for a declaration, that the adoption of Kotrabasayya, the second defendant, on 11th October 1942, by Setra Viravva, the first defendant and widow of Kari Virappa, was invalid, as not being in conformity with the will of Kari Virappa, Ex. P. 2 (a) dated 10th October 1920 and on other grounds and not binding on the plaintiff and the other reversioners. The estate is worth about a lakh of rupees. Setra Kari Virappa was given in adoption to one Virappa Devaru and this was referred to in Verappa Devaru's will,' Ex. P. 1, dated 4th February 1899. That adoption also ha...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Vellingiri
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad613
ORDERRajagopalan, J.1. The charges against the petitioner who was accused 1 in the lower Court were in the alternative (1) under Sections 457 and 380, Penal Code that he broke into the house of P. W. 1 and committed theft of a bicycle; and (2) that he dishonestly possessed M. Os. 2 and 3, a dynamo and a light, which formed part of the bicycle alleged to have been stolen. The conviction it-self was with reference to the second of the charges, punishable under Section 411, Penal Code. The conviction was confirmed on appeal. Hence this petition for revision. 2. The bicycle was missed from the house of P. W. 1 on 6th December 1946. That it mast have been stolen, can admit of no doubt. The bicycle itself was abandoned. Only the light and the dynamo were removed The petitioner was arrested on 27th June 1947. On that day the Sub-Inspector of Police recorded Ex. P-3. The case for the prosecution was that the statements made by the petitioner in Ex. P-3 led to the recovery of M. O. 2 from P. W....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 6694
- 6695
- 6696
- 6697
- 6698
- 6700
- 6701
- 6702
- 6703
- 6704
- Next ›
- Last »