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
Kota Kanakayya and anr. Vs. Kamepalli Lakshmayya and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1951Mad218; (1950)2MLJ379
Viswanatha Sastri, J. 1. Encouraged by a recent decision of Mack J. in Venkatrama Aiyar v. Unnamalai Ammal : (1948)2MLJ404 , Mr. V. Suryanarayana, the learned counsel for the respondents, raised a preliminary objection to the hearing of this appeal against an order of remand passed by the lower appellate Court under Order 41, Rule 23, Civil P. C. The argument is that the order of remand has been carried out and the suit decided and the remedy of the defendants, here appellants, is only by way of an appeal from the final decree. It is urged that this appeal against the order of remand has to be dismissed on that ground as was done by Mack J. in the case above cited and for the same reasons. While I appreciate the vigour of the judgment of my learned brother I venture, with respect, to think that, as an ex-pression of legal principle, it is far from convincing. As I differ from his judgment it is my duty and I shall endeavour to state as clearly as I can, the reasons which have compelled...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Maya Basuva and anr.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad452
Govinda Menon, J.1. Accused 1 and 2 in S. C. No. 107 of 1949 on the file of the Court of Session, Coimbatore division, have been convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of one Giri Gowda just after dusk on 23rd October 1948 at the village of Doddinduvadi in Coimbatore district. They were also convicted under Section 201, Penal Code, for causing disappearance of the evidence of murder. There were two other charges, viz., that against accused 1 with having caused simple hurt to Siddha Chetty (P. W. 3) and accused 2 with having caused simple hurt to Siddha Gowda (P.W. 1). For these minor offences, accused 1 was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two months and accused 2 also to rigorous imprisonment for the same period. Accused 3 who is the appellant in C. A. No. 660 of 1949 was found guilty of an offence under Section 201, Penal Code along with accused 1 and 2 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years. The referred trial and the appeals by the accused have been he...
Tag this Judgment!Panchanan Chakravarti Vs. Harisatya Bhattacharyya and anr.
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1950Cal529,54CWN610
Das Gupta, J.1. The question in this case is whether the petitioner is entitled to have the benefit of Section 18, West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act, 1948, for the purpose of rescission or variation of a decree for ejectment passed against him in Title Suit No. 125 of 1948 in the Court of the Additional Munsif, Howrah. The petitioner was a tenant under the opposite party with respect to a portion of holding no. 6, Kailash Basu 4th Bye Lane, Ramkrishnapur, at a monthly rental of Rs. 15-8-0 only. The suit for ejectment was instituted on 20th September 1947 on the allegation that the tenancy had been terminated by a notice to quit served in accordance with law. There was also a claim for Rs. 10 8 0 said to be the outstanding due on account of rent and a claim for mesne profits. It was said that the tenant had defaulted in payment of rent prior to the date of suit and so was not entitled to get the benefit of the Calcutta Rent Ordinance, 1946, which was then in force. The Court accepte...
Tag this Judgment!Sumer Vs. Rex
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1950All398
ORDERRaghubar Dayal, J. 1. Sumer was convicted by the Temporary Sessions Judge of Hamirpur at Orai of the offence under Section 412, Penal Code, and was sentenced to six years' rigorous imprisonment.2. A dacoity was committed at the house of Mahant Bhagwan Das of Banphara, police station Kotwali, Orai, in April 1916, and the dacoits had taken away gun No. 992 S. B. M. L. This gun was recovered from the possession of Sumer on 13th September 1946.3. Then is no reason to dispute the finding of fact that the gun which was stolen by the dacoits was recovered from the possession of Sumer. I am, however, of opinion that the offence made out against the accused was under Section 411, Penal Code, and not under Section 412, Penal Code.4. Section 412, Penal Code, is:'Whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property, the possession whereof he knows or has reason to believe to have been transferred by the commission of dacoity or dishonestly receives from a person, whom he knows or has r...
Tag this Judgment!Azam Ali Vs. Rex
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1950All412
ORDERDesai, J.1. The case against the applicant, a clerk constable at police station Pilkhwa, who has been convicted Under Section. 161, Penal Code, by the Courts below, was as follows.2. A stray camel was caught by one Jaipal and was tied up at his door. A Sub-Inspector of police of Pilkhwa police station went to the village on 23rd January 1947 and arrested Jaipal on the charge of stealing the camel. Though the villagers told him that it was not a case of theft, he did not release Jaipal on bail and took him to the police station where he was locked up. Ami Lal and Shiva Nandan offered security next morning and the Sub-Inspector demanded a bribe of Rs. 150/-. They borrowed Rs. 60/- from one Man Singh and paid the money to the Sub-Inspector and promised to pay the balance on the next day. On this promise, Jai Pal was released on bail. Jaipal, Shiva Nandan and Ami Lal then saw the Deputy Superintendent, Anti Corruption Department, and the Additional District Magistrate who set a trap t...
Tag this Judgment!Hing Raj Singh Vs. Raja Bhagwati Bux Singh
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1952All427
Chandiramani, J. 1. This is the defendant's appeal against the appellate decree of Mr. B. N. Zutshi, Civil Judge, Rae Bareli, dated 25-5-1945. 2. The plaintiff alleged that he waa zamindar of the land in suit and the defendant was a rank trespasser. He prayed for fixation of rent and also for a decree for arrears of rent for 1348 to 1351F. The defendant denied being a trespasserand on the contrary asserted that he was either an under proprietor or a proprietor. He also pleaded that the predecessor of the plaintiff had filed an earlier suit against him on 1933 for the same relief but that suit was dismissed in plaintiff's default under Order 9, Rule 8, Civil P. C. and accordingly the present suit was barred under Order 9, Rule 9 Civil P. C. The issue on the question of title was referred to the civil Court and the finding was that the defendant is neither an under proprietor nor a proprietor. It was also held that the previous suit did not bar the present suit. The rent was assessed at ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. the Little's Oriental Balm and Pharmace ...
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1951Mad439; [1950]18ITR849(Mad); (1950)2MLJ777
Satyanarayana Rao, J.(R.C. No. 57 of 1946)1. The following question was referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 66 (1), Income-tax Act :'Whether in the circumstances of this case, the profits made on the sales which took place in British India were 'income arising in British India' within the meaning of Section 4-A (c) (b), Income-tax Act?'The asseasee is the Little's Oriental Balm and Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Madras, which is a public limited company registered in Madras carrying on the business of manufacture and sale of medicines. Messrs. Oakley Bowden and Co. (Madras) Ltd., a private limited company, are its managing agents. The managing agency agreement conferred upon the managing agents very wide powers subject only to the control of the Board of the principal company. The control, however, is very general and is confined only to safeguarding the interests of its share-holders.2. Until the war scare of 1942, the company(in this judgment referred to as the a...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax and Excess Profits Tax, Madras Vs. the Pala ...
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1952Mad259; [1951]19ITR487(Mad)
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. These references though, they relate to different assessees arise under the Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940, & the question referred is substantially the same in both. except for the dates.'Whether In the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law, in holding that, for the purpose of computing the capital employed in the business as at the beginning & the end of the standard period 1-10-1935 to 31-12-1936 (31-1-1936 is a mistake) the value of the depreciable assets should be determined with reference to the depreciation allowable under the Indian Income-tax Amendment Act, 1939'.(The standard period in R. C. No. 63 of 1947 is from 1-1-1936 to 31-12-1936).2. In view of the arguments addressed-in these cases we had to alter the question & it was agreed that the following question brings out clearly the real bone of contention between the parties: 'Whether the profits for the purpose of Rule 5 of Schedule II should be calculated in the manner prescribed b...
Tag this Judgment!Jambapuram Subbama Vs. Jambapuram Venkata Reddi
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad394
ORDERPanchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. The petitioner, Subbamma, had filed a petition, on 9th October 1947, in the lower Court, under Section 488, Criminal P. C., against her husband, the respondent, claiming maintenance for herself, at Rs. 100 a month, and for Pullanna, her son aged 17 on the date of the petition, at Rs. 50 a month. She claimed to be the third wife of the respondent and to have married him some twenty years back. She delivered two children who died soon after birth. So, the respondent married P. W. 2's daughter as his fourth wife. This fourth wife delivered a son, Pedda Raja Reddi, and died. Thereafter the petitioner delivered her son Pulla Reddi alias Pullanna. Misunderstandings between her and the respondent arose when the respondent celebrated the marriage of his brother's daughter, Sivamma, and wanted to give her two seers of gold and Rs. 2000 in cash two which she strongly objected and even sent round notices to his debtors not to pay their dues to him. So, the respondent...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax, Madras Vs. Goculdoss Jamnadoss and ...
Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1950]18ITR277(Mad)
SATYANARAYANA RAO, J. - The question referred to us by the Appellate Tribunal is as follows :-'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the interest receipt of Rs. 43,299 in question is exempt from excess profits tax as profit of a part of a business accruing or arising in Mysore State within the meaning of the third proviso to Section 5 of the Excess Profits Tax Act ?'The question is confined to the interest receipt of Rs. 43,299. The assessee, Messrs. Gouldoss Jamnadoss and Company, are residents in British India, carring on money-lending business at Madras. The chargeable; accounting period is the period commencing from 9th November, 1942, and ending with 28th October, 1943. During that period the assessee received the sum in question as interest accrued under a loan advanced to Messrs. M.L.Varadamanayya and Sons, Mysore, under a mortgage. The property comprised in the mortgage is in Mysore and the deed was executed on Mysore stamp paper and registered at Mysore. T...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 6803
- 6804
- 6805
- 6806
- 6807
- 6809
- 6810
- 6811
- 6812
- 6813
- Next ›
- Last »