Privy Council Cases

Gour Mohan Roy and ors. Vs. Sailendra Nath Saha Chowdhary

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : AIR1950Cal152

P.B. Mukharji, J.1. The plaintiffs in this suit claim to be sub-tenants in respect of certain portions of the premises in suit. Defendant 1 is the superior landlord and defendants 2 and 3 are alleged to be the tenants of such superior landlord.2. This is a suit by the plaintiffs for a declaration that the order for possession of the Small Causes Court, Calcutta, dated 2nd March 1948, passed against defendants 2 and 3 Bhupen Chandra Ghose and Lalan Chandra Ghose (herein-after referred to as the Ghose defendants) does not bind the plaintiffs and for a declaration that the plaintiffs are the sub-tenants of the premises in suit entitled to reside therein until the lawful termination of their sub-tenancy and for injunction restraining defendant 1 Sailendra Nath Saha Chaudhury (hereinafter referred to as the landlord defendant) from executing the Small Causes Court decree or order for possession against the plaintiffs.3. The case of the plaintiffs is that they are and have been the sub-tenan...

Ghulam Sarwar Khan Vs. Abdul Wahab Khan

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : (1950)52BOMLR166

Simonds, J.1. In this appeal, which is brought from a judgment and decree of the Judicial Commissioner, North West Frontier Province, dated July 28, 1948, a large number of questions have been debated upon which their Lordships think it unnecessary to express any opinion. The question which is decisive of the matters in dispute is a simple one and the relevant facts can be shortly stated.2. Respondent No. 1 to this appeal, Abdul Wahab Khan, claiming that under and by virtue of a deed of August 23, 1939, he had acquired from one K.B. Muqarrab Khan, since deceased, all the rights which the latter enjoyed under a certain mortgage dated May 25, 1921, brought the suit out of which this appeal arises to enforce his rights as mortgagee under that mortgage. His suit was dismissed on various grounds by the Additional Subordinate Judge, Peshawar, on November 24, 1942, but his appeal from that decision was substantially allowed by the Court of the Judicial Commissioner.3. It appears to their Lord...

Mohanlal Hargovind Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, C.P. Berar

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : (1950)52BOMLR169

Greene, J.1. This appeal raises a short question as to the application of Section 10(5) para, xii of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, as amended by the Indian Income-tax (Amendment) Act, 1939, in respect of assessments on the appellants for the years 1940-41 and 1941-42. That paragraph provides that in computing profits or gains of a business for the purpose of Income-tax an allowance is to be made for 'any expenditure (not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee) laid out or expended wholly or exclusively for the purpose of such business.' Certain expenditure claimed by the assessee to be a permissible deduction under this paragraph and admitted to have been made 'wholly and exclusively for the purpose' of the business of the appllants was disallowed by the Income-tax Officer. His order was confirmed successively by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Nagpur, and by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay. Application was made ...

Durga Prosad Chamaria Vs. Sewakishendas

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : (1950)52BOMLR171

Radcliffe, J.1. The purpose of this appeal is to secure the setting aside of an interim award made on January 9, 1941, by Sir Manmatha Nath Mukherjee, sitting as sole arbitrator appointed by agreement of the parties to a partnership suit. An application by appellant No. 1 to set aside, remit or modify the award was dismissed by the High Court at Calcutta on March 7, 19-11, and on March 10, 1941, the same Court made a decree that the award should be carried into effect. An appeal was taken to the High Court in its appellate jurisdiction, and on May 28, 1946, that appeal was dismissed. It is from the judgment and orders made on that appeal that the present appeal reaches this Board.2. It is necessary to make some reference to the facts that led up to the arbitration in order to appreciate what it is of which the appellants complain. The arbitration concerned the affairs of a partnership business known as Hurdutroy Chamaria or Hurdutroy Chamaria & Co. The business seems to have been origi...

Ghulam Sarwar Khan and Others Vs. Abdul Wahab Khan and Others

Court : Privy Council

Reported in : AIR1949PC330

Lord Simonds: In this appeal which is brought from a judgment and decree of the Judicial Commissioner, North West Frontier Province, dated 28th July 1943, a large number of questions have been debated upon which their Lordships think it unnecessary to express any opinion. The question which is decisive of the matters in dispute is a simple one and the relevant facts can be shortly stated. [2] The first respondent to this appeal, Abdul Wahab Khan, claiming that under and by virtue of a deed of 23rd August 1939, he had acquired from one K. B. Muqarrab Khan, since deceased, all the rights which the latter enjoyed under a certain mortgage dated 25th May 1921, brought the suit out of which this appeal arises to enforce his rights as mortgagee under that mortgage. His suit was dismissed on various grounds by the Additional Subordinate Judge, Peshawar, on 24th November 1942, but his appeal from that decision was substantially allowed by the Court of the Judicial Commissioner. [3] It appears t...

Sha Shivraj Gopalji Vs. Edappakath Ayissa Biand Others

Court : Privy Council

Reported in : AIR1949PC302

Lord Simonds: In this appeal, which is brought from a judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Madras setting aside a judgment and order of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Cochin, the appellant claims that he is entitled to proceed in execution against certain properties of the respondents under circumstances which must be somewhat fully set out. [2] The respondents are Mappilla Mohammedans of Malbar in the Province of Madras and are governed by the Marumakkathayam law under which descent is traced in the female line. Their joint family like that of the local Hindus is known as a tarwad and the branches of the tarwad as tavazhi. Formerly the members of a tarwad had only a right of maintenance and could not enforce a partition of the family properties, but under the Mappilla Marumakkattayam Act, 1938 (Madras Act No. XVII [17] of 1939), they can obtain a share of the properties by partition or alternatively have the tarwad properties registered as impartible. [3] The e...

V. Rm. Km. M. Kulandaivelan Chettiar Vs. Official Receiver of South Ar ...

Court : Privy Council

Lord Reid: The appellant is the son of Muthappa Chetti, defendant 2 and respondent 3 in this suit, and the deceased Deivanai Achi who were both members of the Nattukottai Chetti community. On the occasion of their marriage in 1897 a hundi or bill for Rs. 3,062-8-0 was given by the bride's family to the husband's father Muthayya Chetti and an entry was made in the books of Muthayya Chetti's firm on 16th December 1897, in the following terms: "Credit- In respect of sending the hundial obtained from V. T. M. for streedhanam amount to R. M. AR. AR. of Madras as per the letter of the said person, principal Rs. 3,062-8-0 ; interest Rs. 66-3-6 ; in all as per the two items together with Madura current rate of interest as settled in the presence of 1. P. R. K. M. and 2. A. AR. S. as on 17th of the current Avani (31st August 1897) ...... Rs. 3,128-11-6". [2] V. T. M. was the bride's family vilasam and P. R. K. M and A. AR. S. were members of the family. So far there is no dispute but there is n...

Messrs Mohanlal Hargovind of Jubbulpore Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax ...

Court : Privy Council

Reported in : AIR1949PC311

Lord Greene: This appeal raises a short question as to the application of S. 10 (2), para. xii, Income-tax Act, 1922, as amended by the Income-tax (Amendment) Act, 1969, in respect of assessments on the appellants for the years 1940-1 and 1941-2. That paragraph provides that in computing profits or gains of a business for the purpose of income-tax an allowance is to be made for "any expenditure (not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee) laid out or expended wholly or exclusively for the purpose of such business." Certain expenditure claimed by the assessee to be a permissible deduction under this paragraph and admitted to have been made "wholly and exclusively for the purpose" of the business of the appellants was disallowed by the Income-tax Officer. His order was confirmed successively by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Nagpur, and by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay. Application was made to that Tribunal for a r...

Durga Prosad Chamria and Another Vs. Sewkishendas Bhattar and Others

Court : Privy Council

Reported in : AIR1949PC334

Lord Radcliffe: The purpose of this appeal is to secure the setting aside of an interim award made on 9th January 1941, by Sir Manmatha Nath Mukherjee, sitting as sole arbitrator appointed by agreement of the parties to a partnership suit. An application by appellant 1 to set aside, remit or modify the award was dismissed by the High Court at Calcutta on 7th March 1941, and on 10th March 1941, the same Court made a decree that the award should be carried into effect. An appeal was taken to the High Court in its appellate jurisdiction and on 28th May 1946, that appeal was dismissed. It is from the judgment and orders made on that appeal that the present appeal reaches this Board. [2] It is necessary to make some reference to the facts that led up to the arbitration in order to appreciate what it is of which the appellants complain. The arbitration concerned the affairs of a partnership business known as Hurdutroy Chamria "or Hurdutroy Chamris and Co. The business seems to have been orig...

Rukn-ul-mulk Syed Abdul Wajid and ors. Vs. R. Vishwanathan and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : AIR1950Kant33; AIR1950Mys33

Medapa, C.J. and Mallappa, J.1. The appellants in these two regular appeals are defendants 1 to 3 in O.S.No. 60 of 1944 on the file of the District Judge, Civil & Military Station, Bangalore, as well as in O.S. No. 56 of 1942-43 on the file of the District Judge, Bangalore City, re-numbered as O.S. No. 60 (A) after its transfer to the District Court, Civil & Military Station, Bangalore. These two suits were disposed of by a common judgment and it is against this judgment of the District Judge, Civil & Military Station decreeing the two suits as prayed for that the appellants have come up in appeal. The appeals were first heard by Sri Balakrishnaiya and Sri V. Kandaswami Pillai JJ but on a difference of opinion, they were referred to a Full Bench by Sri Balakrishnaiya J. and have come up, therefore, for decision before the Full Bench.2. The three plaintiffs in the two suits referred to above are sons of V. Ramalinga Mudaliar who died after disposing of the plaint schedule properties und...