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
Sm. Nagendra Bala Hore and anr. Vs. Sree Sree Iswar Dakhina Kalimata T ...
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1950Cal503,54CWN499
G.N. Das, J.1. This rule was obtained by the petitioners who are tenants against an order dated 1st February 1949 passed by Mr. M Mukherji, learned Judge, Court of Small Causes, Calcutta, 6th Bench, rejecting an application under Section 18, West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act (XXXVIII [38] of 1948). 2. The case of the petitioners is that their predecessor was a tenant in respect of premises No. 38/4B Baghbazar Street. The landlord served a notice to quit under Section 106 T. P. Act, and started proceedings under Section 41, Presidency Small Cause Courts Act on the ground of default. The petitioners filed written statements disputing the fact that they were defaulters. On 24th August 1948 an order was made under Section 41, Presidency Small Cause Courts Act. It appears that the petitioners deposited the arrears up to July 1948. It is alleged that since the passing of the order under Section 41 they are depositing rent before the Rent Controller. On 1st December...
Tag this Judgment!Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1950Bom166; (1950)52BOMLR72; [1950]18ITR407(Bom)
Chagla , C.J.1. The assessee company is a company registered in the Baroda State and the assessment year of this reference is 1942-43 (calendar year 1941). This company is a nonresident company. It manufactures textile goods, and after the goods are manufactured, they are sold by the company ex-mills. The company has their guaranteed brokers Messrs. Jagmohandas Ramanlal & Co., and they guarantee the payment by the merchants to the company and they receive a commission for the work which they do. The contention of the company was that the company being a non-resident company it was not liable to pay any tax on its profits or income as none of the profits made by the company had been received in British India. In order to decide this question we have to consider separately three items which are the subject-matter of this reference, viz., (1) an item of Rs. 12,68,480, (2) an item of Rs. 4,40,878 and (3) an item of Rs. 6,71,735. Now, with regard to the first item of Rs. 12 68,480 the compa...
Tag this Judgment!Siddiq Ali and anr. Vs. Rex
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1950All119
Bhargava, J.1. This is an appeal by two persons, Siddiq All and Kesho Saran who have been convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge of Sitapur at Kheri, Siddiq Ali has been convicted under Section 409, Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs. 200 and under Section 467, Penal Code read with Section 109, Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs. 200 Kesho Saran has been convicted for an offence under Section 467, Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs. 200 and for an offence under Section 409, Penal Code read with Section 109, Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of BS. 200. The substantive sentences of imprisonment in the case of both the appellants have been directed to run concurrently.2. During the course of his detailed and careful arguments on behalf of the two appellants, the learned counsel for the appellants too...
Tag this Judgment!Brajakishor Pattanik and ors. Vs. Indian Union
Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1950Ori146
Jagannadha Das, J.1. Cri Misc. No. 107 of 1949: The petitioner in this case has applied to this Court under Section 491, Criminal P. C., questioning the validity of an order of detention dated 20th April 1949, passed against him, by the Government of Orissa, under Section 2, Orisaa Maintenance of Public Order Act, The petition is dated 4th June 1949, and has been forwarded to this Court through the Superintendent of Cuttack Jail where he was under detention. It bas been stated to us by the Advocate-General on behalf of the Government that this petitioner has since absconded and has gone underground. When this petition came up for hearing before us on 17th and 18th of August, we intimated to the counsel appearing for the petitioner that we would not be prepared to consider the application unless the petitioner presented himself in Court and made himself available receiving the orders of the Court. The petition was adjourned for consideration to 22nd; but the petitioner has not turned up...
Tag this Judgment!M. Maniappa Pillai Vs. I. Anthonisami Mudaliar and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad289
Rajamannar, C.J.1. The plaintiff appeals against the decree and judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Madura dismissing the suit filed by him on the following allegations. The plaintiff-appellant and defendants 1 and 2, who are respondents 1 and 2, were trading in partnership from 1941, under the name and style of C. Innasimuthu Mudaliar Sons, Madura. The partnership was dealing in mill piecegoods, yarn, bandloom goods, towels, bedsheets, carpets and other textiles. They were also exporting such goods to Ceylon. In this partnership the plaintiff was entitled to a six annas share, defendant 1, to 8 annas share, and defendant 2, to two annas share. On 14th April 1943, these three persons entered into a formal deed of partnership in which it was recited that the partnership had commenced from 7th June 1942. The partnership continued in pursuance of the terms set out in this deed till 15th June 1944. On that date a deed of dissolution was executed by and between them and it was duly registe...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: K.K.N. Mallick
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad307
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. There is no political agent now in Mysore. Therefore Section 9, Extradition Act, applies as it is stated that the requisition of the State is under Section 9 of the Act, which attracts the provisions of Section 3 of the Act. The Magistrate must therefore follow the provisions of Section 3 of the Act. It is conceded it has not been followed in this case. I therefore quash the proceedings in the case and direct the Magistrate to follow the provisions of Section 3 of the Act....
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Pesala Subrahmanyam
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad308a
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. In this case the petitioner has been convicted for having sold on 10th March 1948 a bag of salt at Rs. 5-4-0 when the controlled rate was Rs. 3-4-7 a bag. The rate of salt was fixed by means of a notification issued by the Collector of the district in the District Gazette. The notification is issued under Section 3 (2) (c) of Central Act XXIV [24] of 1946. Under that section the fair price has to be fixed by notified order. Notifled order has been defined in the Act as an order notified in the Official Gazette. Official Gazette has not been defined in the Act. But under the General Clauses Act it means the Gazette of India or as the case may be the gazette of a province. In this province the Official Gazette is Fort Saint George Gazette. It is conceded by the Public Prosecutor that there is no notification in the Fort Saint George Gazette corresponding to the notification in the Nellore Gazette. The relevant notification of the Collector in the Nellore Gazette, ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Gannon Dunkerly and Co. Ltd.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad837
Somasundaram, J.1. The petitioner in this case is a firm of building contractors and they have been convicted under Sections 42 and 123, Motor Vehicles Act, and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100.2. The case for the prosecution is that in respect of M. S. C. 109 which is a lorry owned by them they carried goods, to wit furniture, contrary to the conditions of the permit. The company has been given permits for a number of lorries of which M. S. C. 109 is one. According to the prosecution, the only goods permitted to be carried in the lorry are building materials which is mentioned as against the column 'nature of goods to be carried' which is item 8 in the permit given to them. There are about nine items in the permit starting with the name of the holder, father's name, address, area etc, type and capacity of vehicles, permitted laden weight, nature of goods, date of expiry and lastly conditions. As against this column 'conditions' it is stated that M. S. Clause 109 is permitted to carr...
Tag this Judgment!The Salt and Industries Agencies Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax-e ...
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1950Bom171; (1950)52BOMLR84; [1950]18ITR58(Bom)
Chagla, C.J. 1. The assessee before us is a joint stock company incorporated in Bombay and they are the managing agents of the United Salt Works & Industries, Ltd., which company also is incorporated in Bombay. The assessee company was appointed the managing agents under the managing agency agreement, dated 1st June 1944, and in this reference we are concerned with the assessment year 1945-46, the relevant previous year being the year ended 30th September 1944. During the year of account the United Salt Works & Industries, Ltd., made a profit of Rs. 10,12,402 from its business at Aden and a profit of Rs. 7,61,165 from its business at Kandla.2. The Tribunal took the view that the total comission payable to the assessee company amounted to Rs. 2,10,816 and out of that Rs. 1,22,750 was attributable to the Salt Works at Aden and Rs. 88,065 was attributable to the Salt Works at Kandla.3. In this reference we are only concerned with the sum of Rs. 88,065, and the narrow question that we have...
Tag this Judgment!The Porbander State Bank Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1950Bom220; (1950)52BOMLR81; [1950]18ITR134(Bom)
Chagla, C.J.1. The assessee in this reference is the Porbander State Bank and it is assessed to income-tax under the provisions of the Government Trading Taxation Act, 1926. In the year of account, which is 1st November 1940, to 31st October 1941, the gross income of the Bank was Rs. 92,064 and it received in British India interest on securities, amounting to Rs. 49,456 and dividends on shares amounting to Rs. 15,334, and the Bank claimed a deduction against its income under Section 10(2)(iii) and the deduction claimed was that it had received deposits from depositors in Porbander and it had paid interest to those depositors, and the contention of the Bank was that under Section 10 (2) (iii), the amount of interest paid by the Bank on capital borrowed for the purpose of the business of the Bank should be deducted. The department relied on the proviso to Section 10 (2) (iii). Under the proviso the deduction of interest is not permissible if that interest is paid outside British India an...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 6757
- 6758
- 6759
- 6760
- 6761
- 6763
- 6764
- 6765
- 6766
- 6767
- Next ›
- Last »