CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
In Re: Murch - Appellant
Decided On : 02-04-1879
Probate Duty - Administration - Act XIII of 1875 - The assets within the jurisdiction of the Court at the time of the grant of administration are liable to the ad valorem duty, and Section 19c of Act XIII of 1875 has no application as the property has not paid any duty under the Succession Act previously.
Fact of the Case:
The case involves the liability of assets within the jurisdiction of the Court at the time of the grant of administration to the ad valorem duty.
Finding of the Court:
The assets in question were within the jurisdiction of the Court at the time of the grant of administration, and the Administrator-General could not have obtained possession of them otherwise than by virtue of the grant, therefore they are clearly liable to the ad valorem duty. Section 19c of Act XIII of 1875 has no application as the property has not paid any duty under the Succession Act previously.
Issues: Whether the assets within the jurisdiction of the Court at the time of the grant of administration are liable to the ad valorem duty, and whether Section 19c of Act XIII of 1875 is applicable.
Ratio Decidendi: The assets are liable to the ad valorem duty as they were within the jurisdiction of the Court at the time of the grant of administration, and the Administrator-General could not have obtained possession of them otherwise. Section 19c of Act XIII of 1875 is not applicable as the property has not paid any duty under the Succession Act previously.
Final Decision: The assets are liable to the ad valorem duty, and Section 19c of Act XIII of 1875 has no application.
JUDGMENT
Richard Garth Kt., C.J. - I am of opinion that, as the assets in question were within the jurisdiction of this Court at the time of the grant of administration, and the Administrator-General could not have obtained possession of them otherwise than by virtue of the grant, they are clearly liable to the ad valorem duty.
2. Section 19c of Act XIII of 1875 has no application to the present case, because the property in question has never yet paid any duty here under the Succession Act, and the fact of probate duty upon the same property 'having been previously paid in England by the deceased executrix, is no ground for exempting it from duty in the hands of the Administrator-General.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.