Privy Council Cases

Binod Behari Lal and anr. Vs. Rex

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : AIR1950All145

ORDERMalik, C.J.1. These connected revisions have been filed by Benod Behari Lal and Amrit Lal Saraiya. Amrit Lal Saraiya was the Chief Goods Clerk at Agra Port Railway Station, B. B. & C. I., and Binod Bahari Lal was the loading clerk at the same station. The applicants have been convicted under the Government of India Sugar and Sugar Products Control Order, 1943, Clause 8, for having accepted for despatch sugar from the United Provinces to Indore without the necessary permit.2. The Government of India Sugar and Sugar Products Control Order, 1943, Clause 2 (f) defines sugar as meaning, (i) any form of sugar containing more than 90 per cent. of sucrose; (ii) any sugar of crystalline structure. If, therefore, sugar has sucrose contents exceeding 90 per cent. or is of crystalline structure, it comes under this Order. Clause 8 of the Order provides that :'No sugar shall, after such date as the Controller may notify in this behalf, be offered for transport by railway, or in any manner what...

Bachchu Lal Gupta Vs. Rex

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : AIR1951All404

ORDERMalik, C.J.1. Mr. A. P. Dube, learned counsel for the applicants, and the Deputy Government Advocate are agreed that in all these oases the same point his been raised and the decision in one case would govern all the connected cases. Learned counsel have, therefore, given to me the facts of only one case (Cr. Revn. No. 1380 of 1913) as all the other cases are and to be exactly similar.2. On 16-3 1946, 60 bags of alsi were sent from Allahabad by the accused, Bachchu Lal Gupta, to a firm of commission agents at Satna, firm Sukhnandan Prasad Hanuman Prasad. The arrangement was that the commission agents would sell the alsi and after deducting their commission remit the balance to Bachchu Lal Gupta at Allahabad. Satna is in Rewa State outside the United Provinces. At the Octroi barrier at Chak Ghat the goods were weighed and entries were made in certain forms in triplicate, one form wag given to the sender, another was retained by the office and the third was given to the carrier. The...

Gomtibai Vs. Kanchhedilal

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : (1950)52BOMLR5

Madhavan Nair, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Nagpur dated September 29, 1941, which set aside an order of the Additional District Judge of Jubbulpore, dated September 20, 1939.2. The appeal arises out of an application made by respondent No. 1 for the grant of probate of a will (dated July 31, 1938), executed by one Ganesh Prasad-hereinafter referred to as the testator-on August 1, 1938, in which he had been appointed as the executor.3. The testator died on August 4, 1938, and respondent No. 1, as the executor, applied for probate of the will on August 29, 1939.4. The appellant Gomtibai is the widow of the testator. She filed a caveat under Section 284(4) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, on September 15, 1938. In her written statement she denied the testamentary capacity of the testator, alleged that he was 'mentally and physically imbecile and infirm ', and that the will had been executed under the undue influence of Maheshwar...

Kumbhan Lakshmanna and Others Vs. Tangirala Venkateswarlu and Others

Court : Privy Council

Sir Madhavan Nair: This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Madras dated 28th September 1943, which reversed a judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Masulipatam dated 6th September 1941, and allowed the plaintiff's suit with costs. [2] The appellants before the Board were defendants 1 to 30, and will hereinafter be referred to as the "defendants." Respondent 1 was the sole plaintiff in the suit. He will be referred to hereinafter as the "plaintiff." The other respondents were defendants, and are said to have changed sides and now joined respondent 1. [3] The appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiff, an Inamdar (holder of an inam), to eject a large number of cultivating ryots of lands, 20.28 acres in extent, situated in the village of Lellagaruvu, in the taluk of Bandar, Kistna District. [4] Inam is a well known word of "arabic" origin which means reward or favour. The word came into use after the Muhammadan conquest. In a...

Jadunath Roy and Another Vs. Kshitish Chandra Acharjya Choudhury and O ...

Court : Privy Council

Sir Madhavan Nair: This is an appeal from the judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta, dated 29th June 1944, affirming, with certain variations, the order, dated 25th August 1941 and the decree dated 10th May 1943 - in Misc. Case No. 18/40 - passed by the Subordinate Judge at Alipore. [2] The appeal arises from a petition made by the respondents for re-opening certain mortgage decrees obtained by the appellants respectively on 4th April 1929, 13th September 1929 and 13th December 1937 (in Title Suit No. 121 of 1927). The right to re-open the decrees was claimed under S. 36, Bengal Money-lenders Act (Bengal Act x[10] of 1940) herein referred to as "the Act". [3] The material provisions of S. 36 of the Act are these: "36. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, if in any suit to which this Act applies. . . the Court has reason to believe that the exercise of one or more of the powers under this section will give relief to the...

Sri Rajah Ravu Venkata Mahipathi Gangadhara Rama Rao Bahadur, Yuvaraja ...

Court : Privy Council

Sir Madhavan Nair: This is an appeal from a judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Madras dated 10th December 1945, delivered on a reference made to it under S. 66 (1), Income-tax Act, (Act XI [11] of 1922), as amended by various amending Acts including the Income-tax (Amendment) Act of 1939 (Act VII [7] of 1939). The appellants are the assessees. The assessment was made with respect to the year 1942-1943, the previous year being 1941-1942. [2] The question arising for determination in this appeal is whether the appellants are exempt from taxation in respect of a part of their income amounting to Rs. 7,612, derived from the sale of wood, bark, leaves, usufruct of trees, etc., on the ground that: (a) the income was derived from a permanently settled estate and (b) the income was agricultural income within the meaning of S. 2 (1), Income-tax Act, 1922. [3] Before stating the facts, it will be convenient to refer to the relevant provisions of the Madras Permanent Settlement Regulatio...

Mt. Gomtibai Vs. Kanchhedilal and Others

Court : Privy Council

Reported in : AIR1949PC272

Sir Madhavan Nair: This is an appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Nagpur dated 29th September 1941, which set aside an order of the Additional District Judge of Jubbulpore, dated 20th September 1939. [2] The appeal arises out of an application made by respondent 1 for the grant of probate of a will (dated 3lst July 1938) executed by one Ganesh Prasad hereinafter referred to as the testator on 1st August 1938, in which he had been appointed as the executor [3] The testator died on 4th August 1938, and respondent 1, as the executor, applied for probate of the will on 29th August 1939. [4] The appellant Gomtibai is the widow of the testator. She filed a caveat under S. 284, cl. (4), Succession Act, 1925, on 15th September 1938. In her written statement she denied the testamentary capacity of the testator, alleged that he was "mentally and physically imbecile and infirm," and that the will had been executed under the undue influence of Maheshwarilal, the ...

Dwijendra Nath Mukherjee Vs. Promode Kishore Mondal and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : AIR1951Cal251,54CWN673

Das Gupta, J.1. The main question which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the plaintiffs' claim for arrears of rent for the period Ashar 1342 B. S. to As win 1345 B. S. or any portion thereof is barred by limitation. The original lease for the property in suit which consists of land with a pucca structure thereon was taken by one Daud Musaji Asmal from the present plaintiffs at a rental of Rs. 180 per year, payable in four equal quarterly kists. Daud Musaji having been declared an insolvent on 24-4-1933, his interest vested in the Official Assignee. This interest was thereafter on 13-3-1937 assigned by a registered deed in favour of the present defendant. The suit was instituted on 14-7-1941.2. The two main contentions of the defendant were that the suit was barred by limitation and that in any case, he was not liable for rent beyond the date of his purchase which was on 13-3-1937.3. On the question of limitation, the defendant's case was that Art. 110, Limitation Act,...

Vishwanath Mahadev Adhikari Vs. Krishnaji Ramachandra Bodas

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : AIR1949Bom390; (1949)51BOMLR744

M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. A very short point arises for determination in these civil revision applications. Certain applications were filed for adjustment of debts under the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act (Bom. XXVIII of 1939), and from the decisions of these applications appeals were preferred as contemplated by that Act. While the appeals were pending, Act XXVIII of 1939 was repealed and Act XXVIII of 1947 was enacted, and the question that we have to consider and decide is whether the appeals should be disposed of according to the provisions of law contained in Act XXVIII of 1947 or according to the provisions of law as contained in Act XXVIII of 1939.2. Now, the material provision which helps us to decide this question as contained in Act XXVIII of 1947 is Section 56 and in that section there are three provisos to which a reference might be made. The first proviso is:Provided that all proceedings pending before any such Board shall be continued before the Court as if an applicati...

Hatimali and anr. Vs. the Crown

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : AIR1950Bom38; 1950CriLJ427

ORDERHemeon J.1. The applicants, Hatimali and Turabali were convicted and sentenced Under Sections 7 and 10, Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946, to pay fines of Rs. 20,000 and Rupees 6000 respectively by the Section 30-Magistrate, Nagpur; and in appeal the Sessions Judge, Nagpur, altered the convictions to convictions under Kr. 81 U) and 117 of the Defence of India Rules, but maintained the sentences. The applicants have now come up in revision to this Court.2. They are partners of a firm which carries on in Nagpur the business of iron and steel goods under the name 'Khan Sahib M. Hassonjee and Sons' and is a registered stockholder. The applicants were subject to the control of the Regional Deputy Iron and Steel Controller, Bombay, who by the order Ex. P-22, dated 27th August I9i6, issued, under Clause 11 of the Iron and Steel (Control of Distribution) Order, 1941, directed all stock holders to deolare their stockei on 1st September 1916, as it was intended that sales of i...