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
Official Assignee of Bombay Vs. Mustafa Murtaza and ors.
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1950Bom264; (1950)52BOMLR402; [1950]18ITR751(Bom)
ORDERBhagwati, J.1. According to the evidence given by this witness, there are certain books which have come into his possession, as the Income-tax Officer, he having received them from the Anti-Corruption Branch, C.I.D., Bombay, as against his receipt dated 10th September 1949. Four books being items NOS. 2, 9, 14 and 15 in that receipt are sought to be called for from him as being relevant for the purpose of the inquiry before me. They are rough cash books of defendant 1, for several periods beginning with 5th November 1945, and ending with 17th July 1949. It is alleged by the plaintiff that there are in these books entries with regard to the receipt of rents of the Foras Road property crediting the same to defendant 1 himself even though according to the case as put forward here, the Foras Road property was gold by defendant 1 to defendant 3 by the document dated 15th May 1945. There is no doubt about the relevancy of the entries in these books. The only question that arises foe my ...
Tag this Judgment!Sahadeo and ors. Vs. Jagannath Kashinath and anr.
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1950Bom77; 1950CriLJ662
ORDERHemeon, J.1. The applicants Sahadeo and his brothers Mahadeo and Krishna were convicted and eaoh sentenced to pay two fines, each of Es. 25, Under Sections 852 and 448, Penal Oode by the Third Class Magistrate, Nagpur. They then filed an appeal in the Court of the Appellate Magistrate, Nagpur, who on 28th September 1948 after the receipt of the record passed the following order:None present. Record perused. Copy of the judgment also has not been Sled as ordered on 30th July 1948. The appeal is dismissed summarily. The L. C. be informed.The applicants have now come up in revision to this Court for the revision of the order of eon. victions and sentences or the remand of the case to the lower appellate Court for a hearing on merits.2. The case briefly stated against the appli. cants was as follows. Shrimati Yenu, daughter of Jagannath (P.W. 1.) was married to the applicant Sahadeo, but had stayed with her father from 80th May 1947 when she waa beaten by her husband. On 2nd June 1947...
Tag this Judgment!Shah Shantilal and Co. Vs. T.E. Shiborwalla
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad282
Chandra Reddi, J.1. This is a revision petition filed by the defendant against the order of the Second Judge of the Court of Small Causes, Madras, dismissing an application to set aside an ex parte decree passed on 26th August 1948. The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant residing in Bombay for recovering a sum of Rs. 636 being the amount due to him in respect of goods sold and delivered to the defendant. The suit stood posted to 4th August 1948 for hearing, and summons was taken out by the plaintiff but it was not served on the defendant till 2nd August 1948. On that date the defendant seems to have sent a telegram to the office of the Registrar of the Court of Small Causes, requesting the Court to grant him time; but this does not seem to have been brought to the notice of the Court on 4th August 1948 to which date the ease was fixed for hearing. Since the summons was not returned, it was directed that substituted service should be effected upon the defendant, and the case w...
Tag this Judgment!Kanumarla Polamma (Died) and ors. Vs. Dandaga Sooramma and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad301
Mack, J.1. The facts of this case are rather unusual. The petitioner is the plaintiff who sued her mother as defendant 1, her sister as defendant 2 and her sister's husband as defendant 3 to recover property on the basis of a settlement deed executed by her mother. The suit O. S. 640/41 was resisted by defendant 3 who claimed fall rights as an illatom son-in-law. The suit was decreed in terms of a compromise Ex. D-2 dated 20th November 1942 filed into Court on that date. The plaintiff and defendant 3, presumably with their lawyers were present and signed it. Defendant 3 filed O. S. No. 81 of 1943 on the file of the District Munsif's Court of Markapur to set aside this compromise on the ground that the real compromise, copy of which he produced, Ex. P-4, entered into by all the parties on 14th November 1942 had been suppressed and that this compromise, Ex. D-2, which was filed into Court was fraudulently substituted. That suit was dismissed, but defendant 3 who is the contesting respond...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Gadiraju Narayanaraju and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1952Mad790; (1952)IIMLJ141
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. In this case the four petitioners have been convicted for offences under Sections 325 and 323 and 323 read with Section 34 I.P.C. The first accused is sentenced to four months' R.I. and a fine 'of Rs. 100 for an offence under Section 325 I.P.C. and the others are sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100 each for offences under Section 323 and 323 read with Section 34 I.P.C.2. The evidence on which these petitioners have been convicted has been accepted by both the courts below and after going through it, I see no reason to reject it. But the learned advocate has raised questions of law which arise on the following facts:3. The defence closed its case on 2nd December 1947 and C.W. 1 was examined on 16th December 1947 and the Magistrate had posted it for arguments (at the instance of the defence counsel) to 21st December 1947. On 21st December 1947 the pleader instead of advancing arguments, presented a petition under Section 526(8) Cri.P.C. praying for an adjournment a...
Tag this Judgment!Ejahar Mollah Vs. Golam Robbani
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1952Cal203
ORDERG.N. Das, J.1. This Rule was obtained by the petitioner who is a purchaser of an occupancy holding under a Kobala dated 17-3-1947 against an order of the lower appellate court allowing an application for pre-emption under Section 26 (F), Bengal Tenancy Act.2. Mr. Mukherjee, appearing for the petitioner, contends that the lower appellate court was wrong in holding that the petitioner was estopped from stating that there was no sub-division of the parent, jama. To appreciate the legal position it may be stated that admittedly there was a parent jama of Rs. 7/14/-and odd which was held by Belat Ali, Ejahar Ali and Mojahar Ali. It is admittedly an ancestral jama. According to the opposite party the share of Belat Ali was eight annas and the shares of Ejahar and Mojahar were each four annas in this jama. The petitioner, who is admittedly a co-sharer in the ancestral jama, purchased the shares of some of the heirs- of Belat Ali. In the Kobala it is recited that there was kharij of the a...
Tag this Judgment!Umesh Chandra Pal Vs. the King
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1950Cal125
Das Gupta, J.1. The appellant was tried by a Special Tribunal of Alipore constituted under the West Bengal Black Marketing Act, 1948 and convicted under Section 3 read with Section 2 (h) of that Act, also under Section 3 read with Section 2 (h) and Section 6 of the Act, and under Section 474, Penal Code, and was sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment for the first mentioned offence and rigorous imprisonment for one year for the second offence. No separate sentence was passed under Section 474, Penal Code. The two sentences under the two offences under the West Bengal Black Marketing Act were ordered to run con. currently. It was further ordered that the hand printing press together with the printing outfit seized were forfeited under Sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Act.2. The prosecution case was that on the night of 25th April 1948, a Sub-Inspector of the Enforcement Branch, Calcutta, accompanied by certain other Police Officers and some search witnesses went to premises No....
Tag this Judgment!Badridas Goenka and ors. Vs. Corporation of Calcutta
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1950Cal140
ORDERSen, J.1. This Rule has been obtained by the petitioners against an order passed by Sri N. K. Ghose, Municipal Magistrate, Calcutta, whereby the petitioners have been directed to pay a fine of Rs. 100 each, the fine purporting to have been inflicted under Section 493, Calcutta Municipal Act.2. The facts briefly are as follows: On 15th September 1948, the Corporation of Calcutta filed an application before the aforesaid Municipal Magistrate under Section 363, Calcutta Municipal Act. The Corporation prayed for the demolition of certain structures constructed at 43 Netaji Subhas Road on the ground that these constructions were made without the sanction of the Corporation and also on the ground that the constructions infringed certain bye-laws framed for buildings under the Calcutta Municipal Act. It was stated in the petition that the Corporation detected this unauthorised building on 10th January 1948. Before the learned Magistrate the persons complained against, that is to say, the...
Tag this Judgment!Gopal Vs. the Crown
Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1950HP18
Bannerji, J.1. The appellant, Gopal, was tried before the Court of Sessions Judge, Mahasu, on a charge of shooting at a man, named Kharia, of village Kudral (Pargana Mafciana) in Theog, under Section 807, Penal Code, and of participating in the shooting and killing of a man, named Karam Das, of the same village, under Section 302, read with Section 34, Penal Code.2. Paras Ram, alias Palta, was also tried with his brother, Gopal, the appellant, on a charge of shooting and killing Karam Dag, under Section 302, Penal Code and of participating in shooting at Kharia, on a charge under Section 307, read with Section 34, Penal Code.3. The assessors found the accused Paras Bam, alias, Palta, innocent of both the charges and the learned Sessions Judge, agreeing with the opinion of the assessors, observed that 'the guilt of Paras Ram, alias, Palta, has not been brought home to him'. He accordingly acquitted him.4. Agreeing with the opinion of the assessors, the learned Sessions Judge found the a...
Tag this Judgment!Rajrathna Naranbhai Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1950Bom197; (1950)52BOMLR89; [1950]18ITR122(Bom)
Chagla, C.J.1. The only question that we have to consider in this reference is, what is the proper depreciation that should be allowed to the assessee in respect of machinery.2. The assessee is the Rajrathna Naranbhai Mills Co., Ltd., and they are situated in the Baroda State. They were assessed to income-tax for the first time in the year 1940-41. Now one of the permissible allowances in respect of the business is Under Section 10(2) (vi) for depreciation of buildings, machinery, plant or furniture being the property of the assessee, to the extent of a sum equivalent to such percentage on the written down value thereof as may in any cage or class of cases be prescribed. Written down value is defined in Section 10 (5) (c) as in the case of assets acquired before the commencement of the Indian Income-tax (Amendment) Act, 1989, the actual cost to the assessee less for each financial year since the acquisition the amount of depreciation applicable to the assets at the rates in force for e...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 6758
- 6759
- 6760
- 6761
- 6762
- 6764
- 6765
- 6766
- 6767
- 6768
- Next ›
- Last »