Privy Council Cases

Chandan Vs. the Crown

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : 1951CriLJ917

Harnam Singh, J.1. Chandan applt. 30/35 years old, of village Osri has been convicted under Part II of Section 304, I. P.C. & sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment, Chandan appeals.2. The facts so far as material are that on 28-4-1948, Jug Lal deceased, a grazier by profession, went with a flock of she-goats to the fields. The flock was grazing near a field of the accused, who had come there along with a cart for harvesting & taking the gram. Jug Lal's she-goats trespassed into Chandan's field. Jug Lal thereupon went after the trespassing animals to take them out. Chandan, however, abused Jug Lal & taking a bludgeon called khaivla beat Jug Lal. Jug Lal fell down on the spot & expired soon after.3. At the time the incident took place there were three other grazier boys nearabout that field, namely, Earn Chandar P. W. 3, Ratna P. W. 6 & Rulia P. W. 7. Seeing the incident Ram Chandar want to the village Bhalai & informed Kuraria P. W. 1 who, accompanied by the village chaukidar l...

Dr. Niranjan Nath Vs. Sardar Mal and anr.

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : AIR1950Raj31

ORDER1. This is a revision against the order of the Additional District Judge, Jodhpur, refusing to reverse the order of the Sub-Judge, Jodbpur, dated 6th November 1948. 2. The facts which gave rise to this revision are that the ancestors of one Kushal Raj mortgaged certain house property to the ancestors of Shivnath Mal on 14th December 1850 for a sum of Rs. 1431 (Bijeshahi). After the expiry of 80 years which is said to be the period of redemption of mortgage in Marwar, Sardar Mal the non applicant died a suit for possession of the said property by pre-emption while the said Suit was still pending. Kushal Raj effected a second mortgage of the said property on 22nd October 1936 in favour of Dr. Niranjan Nath for a sum of Rs. 225 with authority to pay up the first mortgage and the value of improvements and interest thereon, which were mentioned to be Rs. 6500. The suit for pre-emption was dismissed on the ground that the first mortgage was a subsisting one. 3. Sardarmal thereafter purc...

SefudIn and ors. Vs. K.G. Raj

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : AIR1950Raj58

ORDERSharma, J.1.s is an application by Shefuddin, Abid Hussin, Ibrahim and Kamaruddin of Udaipur for writ of certiorari and prohibition against Shree K.G. Raj of the Rehabilitation Department and arises out of the following circumstances.2. A notice with the following contents under the signatures of Shri. K.G. Raj for Deputy Custodian, Evacuee Property, Udaipur, was pasted on 12th October 1949 on a Shop and a Flour Mill belonging to the petitioners.'The under-mentioned property is hereby declared as evacuee property under Section (2) (f) of the Rajasthan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Ordinance 1949 No. XIV [14] of 1949 and notified as such under Section 6, and possession taken by ma under Section 7 on behalf of the custodian evacuee property Government of Rajasthan. Any person aggrieved may prefer an appeal in 30 (thirty) days hereof under Section 5 or Section 30 of the Ordinance to the Custodian Evacuee Property, Government of U. S. R. against the order of the undersigned. D...

Commissioner of Income and Excess Profits Tax Vs. Coimbatore Pioneer M ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1950Mad661; [1950]18ITR213(Mad)

Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. The following question was referred to us by the Appellate Tribunal under Section 66(1), Income-tax Act :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the amendment of Article 12 of the Articles of Association of the Company can be said to be a transaction with the main purpose of avoidance or reduction of the liability to Excess Profits Tax within the meaning of Section 10-A, Excess Profits Tax Act ?' 2. The assesses in this case is a company incorporated under the Companies Act and carries on business at Coimbatore. During the accounting year from 1st July 1941 to 30th June 1942 the company was assessed to Excess Profits Tax and the resolution of the company amending Article 12 of the Articles of Association was set aside by the Excess Profits Tax Officer under Section 10-A, Excess Profits Tax Act. This decision, however, was reversed by the Appellate Tribunal who disagreed with the conclusion of the Excess Profits Tax Officer. Hence this referenc...

Bhagabati Devi Vs. Bholanath Banerjee

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : AIR1950Cal440,54CWN474

ORDERGuha, J.1. This revision case at the instance of the tenant defendant arises out of an application under Section 18 read with Section 12(1)(b), West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1948, hereinafter called the Act of 1948 rescinding a decree for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent from July 1945 to May 1946. The decree was passed by the trial Court on 17th March 1948 and an appeal against it was dismissed on 22nd November 1948. The Act of 1948 came into force on 1st December 1948 and the application under Section 18 read with Section 12(1)(b) was filed on 10th December 1943, the tenant being still in possession of the disputed premises. In the application it was stated that all arrears of rent up to November 1948, i.e. up to filing of the application had been paid by the tenant applicant and rescission of the ejectment decree was prayed for. The learned Munsif dismissed the petition holding that by payment contemplated under Section 12(1)(b) of the A...

Chandu Lal Agarwalla and Another Vs. Khalilur Rahaman and Others

Court : Privy Council

LORD SIMONDS: In this appeal, which is brought ex parte from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal affirming a judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge, Jalpaiguri, it is necessary for their Lordships to deal only with one of the many questions which have in the course of the proceedings been debated in the Courts of India. Upon all other questions it has been properly conceded by learned counsel for the appellants that the judgments under appeal cannot seriously be challenged. 2. The single question argued before the Board was as to the validity of the plea raised by the appellants that the claim of the plaintiffs in the present suit to be lawful heirs of one Safiquddin, who died intestate on 11th March 1924, was res judicata in a previous suit, namely Suit no. 1 of 1922 which had been heard and determined by the Subordinate Judge of Jalpai-on 23rd August 1924. If that plea was valid, there was no question but that the appeal must succeed:...

Nagarmel and Others Vs. Bajranglal and Another

Court : Privy Council

Reported in : AIR1950PC15

LORD SIMONDS: This appeal is brought from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Patna of 8th February 1944, which affirmed (save for a certain modification in regard to interest) a judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Sambalpur of 9th November 1938. 2. At all relevant times the appellants carried on business as traders at Sambalpur as a Hindu joint family under the name and style of Ramanand Ganpatrai. Appellant 1 was the managing member ; appellants 2 and 3 are his nephews and appellant 4 is the son of appellant 3. 3. The respondents are the sons and heirs of one Thanduram, who was plaintiff 1 in the proceedings out of which this appeal arises bat has since died. At all relevant times these three persons carried on business as a Hindu joint family as dealers in rice and money-lenders at Bambalpur under the name and style of Thaanduram Bajranglal. 4. It is not disputed that between these two firms there had been prior to 8th November 1934, a course of comm...

Ramkrishna Krishnarao Kulkarni Vs. Ramchandra Shriniwas Kulkarni and O ...

Court : Privy Council

Reported in : AIR1950PC20

SIR JOHN BEAUMONT: This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay dated 23rd March 1943, allowing the respondents' appeal against a judgment and, decree of the First Class Subordinate Judge of Dharwar dated 27th July 1940. 2. The suit out of which this appeal arises was filed on 10th January 1936, by the appellant as plaintiff in the Court of the First Class Subordinate Judge of Dharwar wherein be claimed as the adopted son of one Krishnaji to be entitled to a half share of the coparcenary property described in the schedules to the plaint. 3. The facts giving rise to the suit are these Shrinivas and his two sons Ramachandra, who was defendant 2 in the suit and is respondent 1 in this appeal, and Krishnaji were members of an undivided joint Hindu family. Ramchandra had two sons who are respondents 2 and 3, and a daughter who is respondent 4. Krishnaji died on 6th January 1930, leaving a widow, Radhabai, but no issue. On 16th December 1932, Radhaba...

Onkarmal Agarwalla Vs. Tulsinath Gogoi

Court : Guwahati

Thadani, Ag. C.J.1. This is a reference made by the learned Sessions Judge, Upper Assam Districts, reporting to this Court Case no 1512-0 of 1947-Onkarmal Agarwalla v. Tulsi Nath Gogoi-Under Section 417, Penal Code, disposed of by Mr. T. Ahmed, Magistrate, 1st Glass, Dibrugarh.2. In November 1947, the complainant, Onkarmal Agarwalla, delivered a quantity of rice to Tulsi Nath Gogoi, with instructions to deliver the same to the Manager of the Singlijan T.E. and to obtain a cheque from him for the price. The accused Tulsinath Gogoi obtained a cheque from the Manager of the Singlijan T.E., but did not give it to the complainant. The complainant, thinking that the Manager had not given the accused Tulsinath a cheque, asked the accused to go with him to the Manager of the Singlijan T.E. on the way, the accused, on the pretext of answering a call of nature, patted company with the complainant and never returned. The complainant made inquiries from the office of the Tea Estate and was i...

Khagendra Narayan Deb Vs. Ranee Purnima Debi

Court : Guwahati

Ram Labhaya, J.1. This ia an application under 5. 439, Criminal P.C. seeking to get aside the order of the learned Sessions Judge, h. A. D., dated I6fch May 1949, by which ho Bet aside the order of the 8. D. 0., Mangaldai, dated 12th May 1948, by which the S. D. 0. had ordered an elephant, a guddi (trappings) and a chain to be returned to tbe petitioner.2. It appears that the petitioner had lodged a first information report on 25th January 1913 alleging that his elephant had been stolen by the accused-respondent. Three days later, on 28th January 1948, the elephant was seized by the police from the possession of the respondent. The police, however, did not send up a case against the respondent for theft, but instituted proceedings Under Section 117, Penal Code. On 26th April 1948, the S. D. 0. transferred the case Under Section 147, Penal Code, to the 2nd E. A. 0. for disposal. While this case waa pending before the 2nd E. A. 0., the police requested the 8. D. 0, to make an order conf...