|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 18 of 18 Records
-
1954 (7) TMI 30 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
... ...
... ... ..... mnify the defendant against any decree for costs that might be passed against him. The plaintiff in a conceivable case might also the prejudiced by the action being wrongly resisted by the insurance company when the defendant may not want to defend the action. In such a case, it would be open to the Court to secure the plaintiff's costs by ordering the deposit of a substantial sum in Court by the insurance company. But there is not the slightest danger in this case of the plaintiff not being able to recover the costs from the insurance company and, therefore, such a question does not arise. 7. We will, therefore, set aside the order of the learned Judge and pass the following order Liberty to the appellants to defend the suit in the name of the defendant. The appellants to give an indemnity indemnifying the defendant against any order for costs of the suit being made against him. 8. Costs of the motion and the costs, of the appeal costs in the cause. 9. Order accordingly.
-
1954 (7) TMI 29 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the end of one year they would consider whether to extend the tenancy or not. The defendant could not perhaps vacate the premises forthwith and therefore he thought of extending the period of tenancy by this means. There is nothing on the record to show that the respondent had suffered actual loss on account of the defendant's continuing in possession. The trial Court did not consider why it was necessary to allow damages to the plaintiff. The first appellate Court has gone into that matter and considered it proper that damages should not be allowed in the present case. The grant of damages is in the discretion of the Court and I do not see good grounds to interfere with that discretion which has been exercised by the first appellate Court in the present case. The cross-objection is therefore disallowed. 34. The result is that both the appeal and the cross-objection are dismissed. The parties will receive costs from each other in proportion to their success in this Court.
-
1954 (7) TMI 28 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ments introduced are ultra vires of the Provincial Legislature as they had no power to tax transactions, which are not sales of goods." It will be appreciated that these remarks would apply to the case on hand if it be held that the supply of refreshments by the club to the members does not amount to a sale in law. However, we do not now finally decide the question whether the supply of refreshments by a non-proprietary incorporated club to its members amounts to a sale or not. We have merely indicated some of the aspects of the matter into which it may become necessary to go more fully on a later occasion. We refrain from giving a decision here and now on this matter in view of our conclusion that in the absence of a profit motive a transaction would not be a sale as that word is defined in the Act. 42. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. 43. Mr. Jayarama Aiyar stated that he argued the case as a member of the Club. There will be therefore no order as regards costs.
-
1954 (7) TMI 27 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... r. Jamieson and Mr. Buist when they allowed the lime to expire. 9. The Registrar did not appoint a new arbitrator in place of Mr. Jamieson. 10. The Court consisting of Mr. Jamieson and Mr. Luke had no authority to make the award. The ward is therefore invalid. 11. The petitioner urged certain other contentions in support of this application. By consent the point with regard to the constitution of the Court has been tried first without prejudice to the other contentions raised by the parties in the pleadings. 12. I pass the following order - I adjudge and declare that the award No. 1086 Of 1953, being case No. 407 of 1952 of the Bengal Chamber of Commerce and Industry, is null and void on the sole ground that the Court which made the award was defectively constituted and had no authority to make the award. This order is without prejudice to the other contentions raised by the parties in this application. 13. The respondent must pay the petitioner the cost of this application.
-
1954 (7) TMI 26 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... istration of a district and in no sense could he be considered to be a court. Apart from it, the conferring on the Collector the powers of a civil Court under the proviso to Section 46(2), is conclusive to show that the Collector is empowered to act as the Chief Officer of the revenue administration of the district while proceeding under Section 48, and as a civil Court only while acting under the proviso to Section 46(2). The arrest being in pursuance of a Warrant by an executive authority, it directly attracts the application of Article 22(1) and (2) and in such cases, the procedure prescribed in Article 22(1) and (2) has to be followed before depriving the personal liberty of the citizen. There is, therefore, obvious inconsistency between Section 48, Revenue Recovery Act, and the provisions of Article 22(1) and (2) of the Constitution, and Section 48 to the extent it is inconsistent with the provisions of Article 22 of Part III of the Constitution must be considered void.
-
1954 (7) TMI 25 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ial interest was held by the joint family and that the property should revert to the joint family and become partible property. In other words, this was not a case of Bheemayya purchasing the property in derogation to the joint family but the joint family itself purchased it and is not the case of the Chairman of the Committee referred to in the Calcutta decision buying property but the Committee itself buying the property. It is this entity or person which is hit by Section 66, C.P.C. Therefore, though it has become theoretical in view of our previous findings, we hold that Section 66, C.P.C., on the pleadings of the joint family of Bheemayya, will constitute a bar for the recovery of the two items of properties covered by the sale certificates. 37. In the result A.S. No. 499 of 1950 is dismissed with costs, and in A.S. No. 500 of 1950, the decree of the lower Court is modified in the manner stated above. Each party will bear his costs in the appeal, and in the lower Court.
-
1954 (7) TMI 24 - HYDERABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... vice connected with a temple in that section must be property given to the temple for the performance of service, or given as remuneration for performing service in a temple. The words cannot conceivably take in grants made to individuals subject to the performance of service, for the Act is neither intended nor purports to confiscate private properties. The explanation is only intended to enlarge the scope of the definition to take in properties described in the main section, even though the math or temple ceased to exist or ceased to be used as a place of religious worship. It is not intended to enlarge the scope of the definition so as to take in properties given to the individuals burdened with service. We, therefore, respectfully follow the aforesaid decision and hold that Section 44-B does not apply to grants burdened with service. 16. In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed but as the learned Counsel for the respondents reported no instructions, without costs.
-
1954 (7) TMI 23 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nants who would be affected by this decision, and therefore we would adjourn this matter for a fortnight. On that day if the tenants appear we will hear their advocate. If none of the tenants appear, we will hear counsel on either side if they wish to supplement their arguments in any way. Otherwise we will proceed to give judgment. 11. Per Crmiam. This matter has now come up before us, having been adjourned on the last occasion to enable the tenants to appear if they were so advised. The tenants have been served and no tenant is appearing to contend that there is no liability to pay the local cess. For the reasons given in our judgment, we will, therefore, proceed to make the necessary order, and the order which we make is that the Collector will dispose of the application made by the petitioner for assistance in the light of this judgment according to law, bearing in mind the provisions of Section 87 of the Land Revenue Code. 12. The State to pay the costs of the petition.
-
1954 (7) TMI 22 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n the petitioners being heard or being allowed to show cause and no rules of natural justice have been violated. 12. A point has also been taken by Mr. Purshottam that the water-charge under Section 169 not being a tax, the coercive machinery with regard to recovery of tax is not available to the Municipality. The simple answer to that is the provision of Section 169 Sub-clause (3) which in terms provides that a person who is charged for water by measurement or who has compounded for a fixed periodical sum shall not be liable for payment of the water-tax, but any sum payable by him on account of water and not paid when it becomes due shall be recoverable by the Commissioner as if it were an arrear of water-tax. It is because of this provision that a notice has been given by the Municipal Commissioner under Section 202 and he will proceed to levy distress under Section 203 of the Act. 13. The result is, the petition fails and the rule is discharged with costs. 14. Discharged.
-
1954 (7) TMI 21 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he had withdrawn a sum of Rs. 28,000 from the Lloyds Bank for several years preceding the year of account. It is necessary that the assessee should have given further material to indicate what was the disbursement out of the total income and satisfied the authorities in that manner that on the material date the cash balance in his hand was not less than the amount of Rs. 28,000 which was the value of the high denomination notes. It is clear that the Income-tax authorities are right in holding that the assessee has failed to give sufficient explanation of the source and nature of the high denomination notes which he encashed on the 19th January, 1946. For these reasons we are of opinion that the sum of Rs. 13,000 representing high denomination notes encashed on the 19th January, 1946, was income liable to income-tax, and the question referred to this High Court must be answered against the assessee and in favour of the Income-tax department. We assess hearing fee at Rs. 250.
-
1954 (7) TMI 20 - NAGPUR HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nt out to me any provision in the Sales Tax Act, 1947, or in any other enactment empowering the State Government to issue such a direction. Section 11-B of the Sales Tax Act gives an option to a dealer to appear in proceedings under the Act through a legal practitioner and does not authorise imposition of any conditions on the appearance by the legal practitioner who may be engaged by him. The only conditions that can be enforced are, therefore, those which may be specified at the time of his enrolment as a pleader. The restriction imposed by the State Government cannot, therefore, be maintained. 5.. The petition is allowed and the direction issued by the State Government that the petitioner shall not conduct sales tax cases in the Amravati district for a period of two years from the date of his retire- ment is quashed. In the circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs. The outstanding amount of the security be refunded to the petitioner. Petition allowed.
-
1954 (7) TMI 19 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ct scope of Article 226 or the cases to which it would apply. Suffice it to say that on any construc- tion of the Article the present case falls within it and it would be open to us to interfere with the assessment order, which we are satisfied was improper and illegal. The petitioners have further exhausted all the remedies which were available to them under the General Sales Tax Act, as it then stood. There can, therefore, be no technical objection to this Court interfering to quash this assessment. The result is that the petitioners are entitled to the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the order passed by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer dated 7th June, 1950, as confirmed by the Commercial Tax Officer and the Board of Revenue, in so far as it relates to the levy of a double tax on the sum of Rs. 11 lakhs odd, as mentioned before and such an order will issue. The petitioners will be entitled to their costs of this petition. (Advocate s fee Rs. 150). Petition allowed.
-
1954 (7) TMI 18 - TRAVANCORE AND COCHIN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... (3) of Article 286 of the Constitution, any goods to be essential for the life of the community but only an enactment providing for the continuance during a limited period of powers to control the production, supply and distribution of, and trade and commerce in, certain commodities. Section 2 (a) of the Act states that in that Act, unless there is any- thing repugnant in the subject or context essential commodity means any of the following classes of commodities and enumerates there- under food stuffs as item No. (1). Even if I assume that jaggery is included in the term food stuffs the assumption will not be of any avail to the petitioner as a definition clause like section 2 of Central Act No. XXIV of 1946 is not the same thing as the declaration contemplated by Article 286 (3) of the Constitution and cannot do duty for such a declaration. No other point was urged before me. The petition fails and is hereby dismissed with costs, advocate s fee Rs. 100. Petition dismissed.
-
1954 (7) TMI 17 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ax leviable from each of these respondents is confirmed and the fine which is imposed is reduced to Rs.100 in each case that is to say, in C. A. No.490 of 1953 it is reduced from Rs.600 to Rs.100 in C.A. No.491 of 1953 it is reduced from Rs.1,000 to Rs.100 in C.A. No.492 of 1953 it is reduced from Rs.200 to Rs.100 in C.A. No.493 of 1953 the fine being only Rs. 100 it is confirmed in C. A. No. 494 of 1953 it is reduced from Rs. 200 to Rs. 100 in C. A. No. 495 of 1953 it is reduced from Rs. 600 to Rs. 100 in C. A. No. 496 of 1953 it is reduced from Rs. 300 to Rs. 100 and in C. A. No. 497 of 1953 it is reduced from Rs. 200 to Rs. 100. The excess fine wherever it has been paid will be refunded to the respective accused. But the tax which has been ordered to be paid by the first Court will remain in all these cases. Two months time is granted for payment of the tax and the fine. Appeals allowed. (1) 1952 3 S.T.C. 396 (1952) 2 M.L.J. 593. (2) 1953 4 S.T.C. 188 (1953) 1 M.L.J. 739.
-
1954 (7) TMI 16 - NAGPUR HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... at may be available in the course of the proposed assessment proceedings. Since the question whether the petitioner is a dealer was answered by the Commissioner in the negative, the question whether the pressing charges include the cost of hessian and iron hoops, which the petitioner has to supply, was not argued at the Bar and we do not therefore decide that question. 29.. It is unfortunate that the authorities did not act up to the representation made to this Court by the Additional Government Pleader in the previous case. It is equally unfortunate that the Additional Government Pleader should justify their action. In our view, this is an abuse of the process of this Court. 30.. In the result, the petition is allowed with costs. The order dated 12th June, 1953, and the notices issued thereunder in Form No. VI and Form No. XII are quashed. Counsel s fee Rs. 200. After deducting the paper book costs, if any, the deposit amount be refunded to the petitioner. Petition allowed.
-
1954 (7) TMI 15 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... class of articles specified in the section. But it is contended by Mr. Somasundaram that though his client had not complied with one of the conditions of the licence, the condition which was not complied with was not a very material condition, and therefore, it could be ignored. I do not see any justification for that distinction between material and non-material conditions in the provisions of Sec- tion 8 of the Act. Once it is conceded that the condition laid in rule 12 is a condition subject to which the licence is issued, it follows that non-compliance with such condition disentitles to the exemption under Section 8 of the Act. I would, therefore, hold that even if the plaintiffs are commission agents within the meaning of Section 8 of the Act, they not having complied with the condition of the licence are not exempted from payment of the tax. The judgment of the lower Court is, therefore, correct. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. No leave. Appeal dismissed.
-
1954 (7) TMI 14 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Charges – Rectification of register of ... ... ... ... ..... cured creditors of the company. An order to extend the time for registration may be made notwithstanding that the company is insolvent or that a meeting has been convened to consider a resolution for voluntary winding up. But, as mentioned before, we are directly governed by the language of section 120 (2) and that makes it clear that unsecured creditors would not have any right to contend that an extension of time for registration made after the winding up order would not give the charge holder the rights of a secured creditor. With respect to the learned Judge, we do dot agree with him that he was helpless in the matter. But we agree with him that this is a case in which it must be held that the omission to register in time was due to inadvertence or some other sufficient cause. We allow the appeal and make the order of extension of time under section 120 of the Companies Act, as prayed for. No orders as to costs. The official liquidator will have his costs from the estate.
-
1954 (7) TMI 13 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Winding up – Power to order public examination of promoters directors, etc. ... ... ... ... ..... ion. The liquidators, to avoid the bar of limitation, had perforce to file the misfeasance application in August, 1950. But that fact should not go against them. It must not be overlooked that if the public examination could not be held till now, it was entirely due to the conduct of the appellant and others, who were objecting to it, pending this proceeding or that. It does not lie in their mouth now to say that there should be no public examination whatever. Having successfully escaped such examination so far, the appellant and persons like him cannot now turn round and practically found a right on their own default. The learned Judge in our opinion exercised his discretion properly in directing public examination of the appellant. It appears that Ramaswami Gounder J. has made an order that the misfeasance applications would be posted after the public examination was over. We see no reason to interfere with the order of the learned Judge. The appeal is dismissed with costs.
|
