Privy Council Cases

Perla Satteyya Chetti Vs. Grandhi Venkataramanayya

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1950Mad119

Govinda Menon, J.1. This raises a question of some importance regarding the practice and procedure observed in the lower Courts, though, instances like the one in question are not of common occurrence.2. The plaintiff in O. S. No. 146 of 1943 on the file of the District Munsif, Vizagapatam, is the appellant in the second appeal. He filed the suit, out of which this second appeal arises, in the first instance in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Vizagapatam, for the recovery from the defendant of 55 cents of land on the ground that the same was encroached upon by the defendant. The plaint was presented in the Court of the Subordinate Judge on 3rd February 1942 by two practitioners, Messrs C. V. Somayajulu and P. Gangadharam, with a properly executed and attested vakalat in their favour. The suit was numbered as O. S. No. 10 of 1942 in the usual course and summons was ordered to the defendant. The defendant who appeared contested that the suit has been over-valued for the purpose of pe...

East India Prospecting Syndicate Vs. Commissioner of Excess Profits Ta ...

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : AIR1952Cal40,[1951]19ITR571(Cal)

Harries, C.J.1. This is a Reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, in respect of the assessment of the East India Prospecting Syndicate, Calcutta, to excess profits tax.2. The Syndicate claimed that it was not liable to pay excess profits because it was not carrying on a business within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940. The Tribunal found that it was carrying on a business but it was requested by the syndicate to state a case for the opinion of this Court. The Tribunal stated a case and formulated the following question for the opinion of this Court.'Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessee can be said to be carrying on a 'business' within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Excess Profits Tax Act, so as to bring the income in question within the charge to excess profits tax?'3. The facts of the case giving rise to this dispute can be shortly stated 'as follows:4. Sometime in the year 1919 the Villiers C...

Harimohan Dutt Vs. C.K. Sen and Co. Ltd.

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : AIR1952Cal391

P.B. Mukherji, J.1. This is a suit by the plff. for the recovery of possession of the first floor & the three rooms in the ground floor in premises No. 60, Harrison Road, Calcutta, in the occupation Calcutta 391 of the deft. Co. & for a decree for the sum of Rs. 3,400/- on account of arrears of rent & for mesne profits.2. The plff's. case is that the deft. co. was a monthly tenant in respect of the said premises at a rent of Rs. 200/- per month commencing from the month of August 1943. On 16-9-1943 the deft. Company paid a sum of Rs. 200/- as advance payment of rent. On 15/16-1-1945 the plff. gave a notice to the deft. Company to quit & vacate the said premises on the expiry of the month of January 1945. The plff. claims Rs. 3,600/-out of which he has given credit for the advance payment of Rs. 200/- making a total claim of Rs. 3,400/- only being rent at Rs. 200/- per month from August 1943 to January 1945.3. The deft, filed its written statement & has taken a number of points therein....

Gauri Ram Vs. Jaishi Ram and anr.

Court : Himachal Pradesh

Reported in : AIR1950HP1

Bannerji, C.J1. This is an appeal against a judgment and decree of the Chief Court, dated 23rd Asoj 2003, reversing a judgment and decree of the District Judge dated 17th Bhadon 2003, and restoring the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge, dated 2nd Jeth 2003, by which the suit was decreed. 2. One Jaishi Ram, who was made a party to the suit as a defendant but who has not put in his appearance throughout these proceedings, in execution of an ex parte decree obtained by him against the plaintiff Jainand had Jainand's shop sold. The defendant, Gauri Ram, is the auction-purchaser. The shop was sold on 27th Magh 1997 and the sale was confirmed on the same date. The auction purchaser, Gauri Ram, then obtained possession of the shop. 3. In Har 1999, sixteen months after the date of the confirmation of the sale, Jainand brought this suit for a declaration that the sale was illegal and without jurisdiction and should be declared null and void on grounds of fraud practised on the Court....

Gilmour Vs. Coats and Others

Court : House of Lords

Lord Simonds MY LORDS, The Appellant, Ethel Gilmour, is the present Prioress of the Carmelite Priory of St. Charles' Square, Notting Hill, London. In that capacity she appeals against a judgment of the Court of Appeal, whereby that Court dismissed an appeal from a judgment of Mr. Justice Jenkins who had in effect declared the purposes of the Carmelite Priory not to be charitable in the technical sense which the law ascribes to that word. The question arises in this way. By a declaration of trust made on the 10th June, 1946, between the Respondent, Evelyn Dudley Coats, of the one part and herself and George Bellow (therein called "the Trustees") of the other part a sum of 500 cash was settled upon trust after payment of costs for investment as therein mentioned and to hold the resulting trust fund " Upon trust if the purposes of the Roman Catholic Community situate and known as the Carmelite Priory, St. Charles' Square, Notting Hill, in the County of London, are charitable to apply the ...

Shreedhar Mahadeo Paranjape Vs. State Through Police

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Reported in : AIR1950MP9; 1950CriLJ655

ORDERSanghi, J.1. On 20th March 1949 the applicant was arrested by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Indore City, by the order of the District Magistrate, Indore District, made Under Section 3(2), Maintenance of Public Order Act (vil [7] of 1949). On 24th March were communicated to the applicant the grounds on which the order had been made against him as required by 8. S of the Act. The grounds as furnished to the accused were as follows:Whereas you belong to R. S. S. which has been declared unlawful by the Government. You are a leader of the said Association and indulging in euch acts to bring into hatred the Government established by law in India and promoting or attempting to promote feelings of enmity or hatred between different classes of subjects and to prejudice the maintenance of public order on public safety.On 1st April 1949 the petitioner made a petition to this Court Under Section 491, Criminal P.C. praying that an order for his release from custody be made as it was ill...

Balram Das Vs. Harakh Chand and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : AIR1949All754

Seth, J.1. These two appeals arise out of the same case in the following circumstances : On 12th January 1945, the date fixed for the hearing of the appeal, the appellant was absent. He had engaged two lawyers. They were sent for, but they refused to address arguments in the appeal saying that they had no instructions. The Court then proceeded to dismiss the appeal, with the following order:I see no force in this appeal which the vakils for the appellant did not argue on the excuse that they have no instructions. The respondents' vakil is present. Appeal dismissed with costs.Treating this order to be an order of dismissal for default, an application was made for the restoration of the appeal. That application was also rejected. Second Appeal No. 1007 of 1945 has been filed against the decree of the lower appellate Court dismissing the appeal itself and F.A.F.O. No. 37 of 1915 has been filed against the order refusing to restore the appeal.2. It is obvious that both these appeals cannot...

Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal Vs. N. C. Mandal.

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : [1949]17ITR591(Cal)

CHATTERJEE, J. - The Commissioner of Income-tax has caused the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to refer the following question to this Court for its opinion :-'Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case Mr. N. C. Mandal was entitled to relief under Section 25(3) in respect of his share of income from the firm of N. C. Mandal & Co., Solicitors, for the period March 1, 1943, to March 15, 1944.'The facts are admitted and are as follows : Mr. N. C. Mandal who was a senior attorney of this Court had been carrying on his business or profession as an attorney. In 1925 he entered into partnership with another solicitor, Mr. K. L. Mandal, and both carried on business as attorneys of this Court under the name and style of N. C. Mandal and Co. On March 1, 1944, two new partners were taken in and the shares were redistributed. Formerly, Mr. N. C. Mandal had 12 annas share. That share was continued. Mr. K. L. Mandal had 4 annas share. That share was reduced to 2 annas. The two new partners we...

Bhagi and anr. Vs. the Crown

Court : Himachal Pradesh

Reported in : AIR1950HP35

1. Three accused persons. Bhagi, Bholar and Moti were tried before the Sessions Judge, Chamba, the first two for offences under Sections 302 and 457, Penal Code and the third for offences under Sections 460 and 411, Penal Code. Bhagi and Bholar were found guilty under Section 460, Penal Code and sentenced to transportation for life. Moti was convicted under Section 411, Penal Code and sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment. 2. The date of the judgment of the trial Judge is 11-6-2004 S. Moti will have served out his sentence by now. He is not an appellant in this Court. Bhagi and Bholar have appealed separately against their conviction and sentence. But as the facts are the same and their conviction and sentence are under the same section of the Penal Code and the same point of law is involved, the judgment will govern both the appeals. 3. The prosecution story is that one Dehnju of the village Taretha, some ten miles from Chamba, was found dead in his house on 3rd Har, 2003. In ...

Fatma Binti Hafidh Vs. the Administrator-general, Zanzibar Protectorat ...

Court : Privy Council

Reported in : AIR1949PC254

Lord Porter: This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeal for Eastern Africa dated 5th October 1946 which reversed the judgment of the High Court of Zanzibar given in favour of the appellant and dismissed her action with costs. [2] The appellant claimed that she was the daughter of Hafidh bin Muhammad el-Busaidi (hereinafter called Hafidh) and of his slave concubine Panya and as such, under the law of the Ibadhi sect of which her parents were members, to be entitled to her share of her father's estate. [3] Her mother was originally the slave of Hafidh's mother, Binti Juma, and was said to have been given by her as a slave concubine or "suria" to her son. [4] It is common ground that in order to establish such a claim it must be proved, (1) that the mother was given to the father as a concubine and slave, (2) that by reason of the gift the woman given must have ceased to be the slave of the original owner and have become the slave of the man to whom she was given, (3) that s...