Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 32 Records
-
1953 (4) TMI 39
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the relinquishment deed executed by the zamindar. 2. Entitlement of the eldest son to the advance compensation deposited by the Government. 3. Jurisdiction of the Court of Wards under Section 34 of the Court of Wards Act. 4. Application of the doctrine of renunciation and surrender under Hindu law.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of the Relinquishment Deed:
The core issue was whether the relinquishment deed executed by the zamindar in favor of his eldest and second sons was valid. The deed purported to relinquish the zamindari estate of Sivagiri, including properties described in the schedule, in consideration of various payments and allowances. The Tribunal and the Court of Wards had previously rejected the deed, declaring it void under Section 34 of the Court of Wards Act. The Court of Wards' decision was upheld by the Government on appeal.
The Court held that the relinquishment deed was ineffective to vest any title in the eldest son, as it was void under Section 34 of the Court of Wards Act. The deed amounted to a transfer of the estate by the father to the son, which was prohibited.
2. Entitlement to Advance Compensation:
The eldest son claimed entitlement to the advance compensation deposited by the Government with the Tribunal, arguing that he became the owner of the impartible estate by virtue of the relinquishment deed. The Tribunal rejected this claim, and the Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision. The Court reasoned that the eldest son did not have any title to the property at the time of the renunciation, except the chance of succeeding by survivorship after the father's death. Therefore, the relinquishment deed could not confer any title upon him.
3. Jurisdiction of the Court of Wards:
The appellant argued that the notification by the Court of Wards was without jurisdiction, as the foundation for the exercise of jurisdiction under Sections 18 and 19 of the Court of Wards Act was a declaration under Section 17 that all the coparceners were previously declared disqualified under Section 9. The Court dismissed this argument, noting that it was not raised before the Tribunal and was too late to be raised now. Additionally, the argument assumed that all the sons of the zamindar were holding the impartible estate as coparceners, which the Court found to be without basis.
4. Application of Doctrine of Renunciation and Surrender:
The appellant contended that the relinquishment deed was effective on the analogy of renunciation of the interest of a coparcener in favor of other coparceners in the case of partible joint family property and on the analogy of the surrender under Hindu law of the estate by a limited owner to the nearest reversioner. The Court rejected this contention, explaining that the doctrine of renunciation applicable to partible property does not apply to impartible estates. The junior members of a joint family in the case of an ancient impartible joint family estate have no present interest in the property itself, only the right to take the estate by survivorship after the death of the holder. Therefore, the relinquishment deed could not vest any title in the eldest son.
The Court also rejected the application of the doctrine of surrender, noting that it is peculiar to the limited owner under Hindu law and does not apply to a full owner of property. The doctrine of surrender brings about a civil death or self-effacement of the limited owner, accelerating succession and letting in the next reversioner. This doctrine has no application to the case of a full owner of property, such as the holder of an impartible estate.
Conclusion:
The Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision that the eldest son did not become the owner of the impartible estate of Sivagiri and was not entitled to the advance compensation deposited by the Government. The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at Rs. 750.
-
1953 (4) TMI 38
Issues Involved: 1. Validity of the cancellation of the lease granted to the first respondent. 2. Jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain the appeal. 3. Compliance with statutory rules and regulations governing fisheries settlement. 4. Legality of the State Government's actions and decisions.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of the Cancellation of the Lease Granted to the First Respondent: The State Government of Assam initially granted a lease to the first respondent, which was later cancelled and regranted to another party. The State Government argued that it was not bound by the laws and regulations governing such transactions. However, the court found that the Government had acted within the confines of the laws by which it is bound. The judgment stated, "the settlement was the act of the Deputy Commissioner and fell within the four corners of the rules. That vested the first respondent with a good and legal title to the lease."
2. Jurisdiction of the High Court to Entertain the Appeal: The first respondent filed an appeal to the High Court under rule 190 and applied for a mandamus under article 226 of the Constitution. The High Court granted the prayer, acting under rule 190 as an appellate tribunal. The Supreme Court upheld this jurisdiction by stating, "As the Deputy Commissioner was the only authority competent to settle these fisheries, subject of course to sanction, we are bound to hold that the act of cancellation and the act of resettlement were his acts however much he may have acted under the direction and orders of a third party. That at once vested the High Court with jurisdiction to entertain the appeal against his actions under rule 190."
3. Compliance with Statutory Rules and Regulations Governing Fisheries Settlement: The court examined the compliance with the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886, and the rules framed under it. The judgment highlighted the importance of rule 190-A, which allows for a departure from the usual procedure with the previous sanction of the Provincial Government. The court stated, "We do not consider that this permits the Provincial Government when it so wishes to lift the sales completely out of the statutory protection afforded by the Regulation and proceed to dispose of them by executive action." The court concluded that the Deputy Commissioner had followed the rules and that the only permissible departure was sending the auction result to the State Government instead of the Commissioner.
4. Legality of the State Government's Actions and Decisions: The State Government's actions were scrutinized for legality. The court found that the Government had acted within the legal framework, stating, "Government said it was acting under rule 190-A. It said it had 'sanctioned' the settlement. Whose act was it sanctioning? Certainly not its own, for one cannot sanction one's own act. Sanction can only be accorded to the act of another and the only other person concerned in this matter was the Deputy Commissioner." The court emphasized that the Government's actions must be presumed to be regular unless proven otherwise, citing section 114, illustration (h) of the Evidence Act.
Conclusion: The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, confirming the validity of the lease granted to the first respondent and the jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain the appeal. The court emphasized the necessity of compliance with statutory rules and regulations and found that the State Government had acted within the legal framework. The appeals were dismissed with costs payable to the first respondent.
-
1953 (4) TMI 37
Issues Involved: 1. Interpretation of the expression "disputes touching the business of a registered society" under Section 51, Madras Cooperative Societies Act. 2. Jurisdiction of the Deputy Registrar to set aside the election of directors. 3. Preliminary objections regarding the petitioners' challenge to the jurisdiction. 4. Meaning and scope of "business of a registered society" under Section 51 of the Act. 5. Validity of the election of directors and the subsequent actions by the Registrar.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Interpretation of the expression "disputes touching the business of a registered society" under Section 51, Madras Cooperative Societies Act: The court examined the scope and ambit of the expression "disputes touching the business of a registered society" under Section 51 of the Madras Cooperative Societies Act. It was noted that the word "touching" was intended to enlarge the scope of the word "business," indicating that disputes need not directly arise out of the business but should have reference or relation to it. The court concluded that the expression should be given its full import, encompassing not only the direct activities but also matters related to the corporate activities of the society.
2. Jurisdiction of the Deputy Registrar to set aside the election of directors: The main contention was whether the dispute relating to the election of the Board of Directors fell within the purview of Section 51 of the Act. The court held that the election of directors by the general body was part of the business of the society as per the bye-laws and the Act. Thus, the Deputy Registrar had the jurisdiction to deal with the matter and set aside the election.
3. Preliminary objections regarding the petitioners' challenge to the jurisdiction: The court addressed two preliminary objections. The first was that the petitioners did not initially object to the Deputy Registrar's jurisdiction, which was overruled based on the principle that initial want of jurisdiction cannot be cured by consent or acquiescence. The second objection was that the petitioners' conduct in filing a revision petition precluded them from challenging the jurisdiction. This was also overruled as the petitioners had already objected to the jurisdiction before filing the revision petition.
4. Meaning and scope of "business of a registered society" under Section 51 of the Act: The court elaborated on the meaning of "business" in the context of the Act. It was held that the business includes all activities within the scope of the objects of the society, as defined by the Act, the rules, and the bye-laws. The court rejected the narrow interpretation that confined "business" to the objects of the society alone. Instead, it included all activities necessary and incidental to carry out the objects of the society.
5. Validity of the election of directors and the subsequent actions by the Registrar: The court examined the validity of the election of directors and the subsequent actions taken by the Registrar, including the supersession of the Board and the appointment of a special officer. It was concluded that the election dispute was within the jurisdiction of the Deputy Registrar as it related to the business of the society. Consequently, the Deputy Registrar's order setting aside the election was upheld, and the writ petitions challenging the Registrar's actions were dismissed.
Conclusion: The court dismissed W.P. No. 632 of 1951 with costs and W.P. No. 79 of 1952 without costs, upholding the jurisdiction of the Deputy Registrar to set aside the election of the directors and affirming that the dispute fell within the scope of Section 51 of the Madras Cooperative Societies Act.
-
1953 (4) TMI 36
Issues Involved:
1. Liability of capital gains tax on the transfer of movable properties. 2. Validity of the contract of sale dated 16-3-1946. 3. Determination of the date of transfer for capital gains tax purposes. 4. Classification of properties as movable or immovable.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Liability of Capital Gains Tax on the Transfer of Movable Properties:
The central issue was whether the transfer of movable properties took place on or before 31-3-1946, thus exempting the assessee from capital gains tax under Section 12B, Income Tax Act. The Income Tax Officer initially held that the sale of both movable and immovable properties occurred after 1-4-1946, making the capital gains taxable. The Appellate Tribunal, however, found that the transfer of movables occurred on 30-3-1946, thus exempting them from tax. The High Court upheld this finding, noting that the Tribunal's decision was based on substantial evidence, including the resolution by the Board of Directors and a letter from the managing agents confirming possession transfer on 30-3-1946.
2. Validity of the Contract of Sale Dated 16-3-1946:
The Standing Counsel argued that the contract dated 16-3-1946 was invalid because the limited company was incorporated only on 18-3-1946, and the promoters had no authority to enter into the contract on its behalf. The High Court rejected this argument, referencing Sections 23 and 27 of the Contract Act. These sections allow specific performance of a contract made by promoters before incorporation if the contract is warranted by the terms of incorporation and subsequently ratified by the company. The Court emphasized that the company had ratified and adopted the contract on 29-3-1946 and had taken possession of the assets based on it, thus binding the company to the contract.
3. Determination of the Date of Transfer for Capital Gains Tax Purposes:
The High Court addressed whether the transfer of movables was effective before 1-4-1946. The Appellate Tribunal had concluded that the transfer occurred on 30-3-1946 based on documentary evidence. The High Court affirmed this finding, noting that the Tribunal's decision was supported by the Board of Directors' resolution and a letter from the managing agents. The Court also dismissed the argument that the sale deed dated 17-5-1946 included movables, clarifying that the deed only pertained to immovable properties.
4. Classification of Properties as Movable or Immovable:
The Standing Counsel contended that items in Schedule 2 were immovable properties and required a registered sale deed for valid transfer. The High Court dismissed this argument, stating that the issue was not raised before the departmental authorities or the Appellate Tribunal. The classification of items as movable or immovable depends on specific facts and circumstances, which were not investigated or established in this case. The Court emphasized that its jurisdiction in income tax references is advisory, and it cannot investigate new facts or arguments not previously considered by the Tribunal.
Conclusion:
The High Court concluded that the transfer of movables occurred on 30-3-1946, exempting the assessee from capital gains tax on these assets. The contract of sale dated 16-3-1946 was valid and binding on the limited company. The Court rejected the arguments regarding the classification of properties as immovable, as this issue was not properly raised or investigated. The question referred by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was answered in favor of the assessee, with the Income Tax Department ordered to pay the costs of the reference.
-
1953 (4) TMI 35
Issues: 1. Liability of the 1st and 2nd defendants regarding a negotiable instrument. 2. Liability of the 2nd defendant for conversion of the hundi. 3. Determination of the true owner of the hundi at the date of the suit.
Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: The judgment addressed the liability of the 1st and 2nd defendants concerning a negotiable instrument. It was established that if a party primarily liable on a negotiable instrument pays the amount to a wrong person under a forged endorsement, they remain liable to the true owner. An exception exists only when the payee's endorsement on a cheque payable to order is forged. The court cited relevant sections of the Negotiable Instruments Act and case law to support the finding that the 1st defendant is liable to the true owner for the amount of the hundi.
Issue 2: The judgment also discussed the liability of the 2nd defendant for the conversion of the hundi. It was highlighted that if a person wrongfully converts a bill and receives the amount, the owner of the bill may sue in tort or recover the money as received to his use. The 2nd defendant, who acquired the hundi through forged endorsements, was found to have committed a conversion of the hundi, making him liable to pay the amount to the true owner.
Issue 3: The judgment delved into determining the true owner of the hundi at the date of the suit. The court analyzed the delivery of the hundi to the indorsee as per the Negotiable Instruments Act and discussed the implications of posting a letter enclosing the hundi. It was argued that the property in the hundi did not pass to the 3rd defendant as there was no delivery to him, and the negotiation of the hundi was not completed. The court concluded that the property in the hundi remained with the plaintiff at the date of the suit, leading to a judgment against the 1st and 2nd defendants for a specified amount.
In summary, the judgment extensively analyzed the liability of the defendants regarding the negotiable instrument, the conversion of the hundi by the 2nd defendant, and the determination of the true owner of the hundi at the date of the suit, ultimately resulting in a judgment against the defendants in favor of the plaintiff.
-
1953 (4) TMI 34
Issues: 1. Interpretation of Section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act. 2. Whether the order of the Tribunal constituted new information for the Income-tax Officer to justify revising the original assessment. 3. Application of Section 10(2)(xv) of the Income-tax Act.
Analysis: The judgment by the High Court involved two applications for reference before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, one related to income-tax proceedings and the other to excess profits tax proceedings. The Tribunal made a combined reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act and Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act read with Section 21 of the Excess Profits Tax Act, as the question arising in both applications was identical. The central issue revolved around whether the Income-tax Officer's revision of the original assessment, based on information from the Tribunal's order, was justified under Section 34 of the Income-tax Act.
The case involved an assessee who included a sum in their return as income received from another company. The Income-tax Officer, however, excluded this amount from the assessment, leading to a dispute. Subsequently, the other company appealed, and the Tribunal allowed the sum as an expenditure under Section 10(2)(xv) of the Income-tax Act. Following this decision, the Income-tax Officer issued a notice under Section 34, claiming that the sum should be considered the assessee's income. The Court observed that all relevant facts were known to the Income-tax Officer during the original assessment, and if an error was made, it could have been rectified through the appellate process. The Court held that the Tribunal's decision did not provide new information that the Income-tax Officer was not already aware of, and therefore, the revision under Section 34 was not justified.
In conclusion, the High Court answered the reference in the negative, indicating that the Income-tax Officer's attempt to revise the assessment based on the Tribunal's order did not meet the requirements of Section 34 of the Income-tax Act. The judgment emphasized the importance of existing facts known to the assessing authority and the proper procedures for rectifying any errors in assessments through the appellate process.
-
1953 (4) TMI 33
Issues Involved: 1. Whether village Singha Parasi and other properties were waqf properties. 2. Whether the properties came within the purview of the Muslim Waqfs Act. 3. Whether the suit was barred by limitation. 4. Whether the suit was maintainable without a notice under Section 53 of the Muslim Waqfs Act. 5. Whether the plaintiffs could claim the return of Rs. 5,177. 6. Whether the plaintiffs could seek perpetual injunction against the Sunni Central Board of Waqfs.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Whether village Singha Parasi and other properties were waqf properties: The lower courts found that village Singha Parasi was not the subject of waqf and that it was only the usufruct of the property which was sought to be endowed to the shrine, which did not constitute a valid waqf. However, the High Court disagreed, noting that the property was waqf property dedicated to the shrine. The court referenced the judgment of the Settlement Officer and the Judicial Commissioners, which concluded that the property was dedicated to God Almighty and was waqf property. The court also noted that the institution of a suit under Section 92, Civil P.C., in 1902, confirmed the public and permanent nature of the trust.
2. Whether the properties came within the purview of the Muslim Waqfs Act: The plaintiffs argued that the waqf was excluded from the purview of the Muslim Waqfs Act under Section 2 (2) (ii) (a) and (c). The court found that the properties were dedicated for the benefit of the shrine and not for any private individual, thus not falling under the exclusions. The court also held that the term "private" in Section 2 (2) (ii) (c) qualified both "tombs" and "graveyards," and since the tomb was not private, the properties were not excluded from the Act.
3. Whether the suit was barred by limitation: The court found that the suit was barred by limitation. The suit was filed in October 1946, more than a year after the notification of the waqf in February 1944. The court rejected the plaintiffs' reliance on Sections 14 and 15 of the Limitation Act, as the previous suit was not based on the same cause of action, and the plaintiffs were not prevented from filing the suit by any injunction or order.
4. Whether the suit was maintainable without a notice under Section 53 of the Muslim Waqfs Act: The court held that a notice under Section 53 of the Muslim Waqfs Act was necessary before instituting the suit. Since the property was found to be waqf property, the plaintiffs were required to serve the statutory notice to the Sunni Central Board of Waqfs, which they failed to do. Therefore, the suit was barred in the absence of the prescribed notice.
5. Whether the plaintiffs could claim the return of Rs. 5,177: The court did not specifically address this issue in detail, but the dismissal of the suit implies that the claim for Rs. 5,177 was also dismissed.
6. Whether the plaintiffs could seek perpetual injunction against the Sunni Central Board of Waqfs: The court did not find it necessary to express an opinion on this point, as the primary issue of whether the property was waqf property was resolved against the plaintiffs. The dismissal of the suit also meant that the claim for a perpetual injunction was not granted.
Conclusion: The appeal was allowed, and the decree of the lower court was set aside. The suit was dismissed with costs in both courts.
-
1953 (4) TMI 32
Issues: 1. Interpretation of the term "final decree" in the context of execution proceedings under the U. P. Tenancy Act. 2. Conflict between orders passed by the District Judge regarding the timing of execution application. 3. Applicability of Limitation Act in suits and proceedings under the U. P. Tenancy Act. 4. Effect of pending appeals on the right to execute a decree. 5. Application of Code of Civil Procedure provisions to Tenancy Act proceedings.
Issue 1: Interpretation of the term "final decree" The judgment addresses the interpretation of the term "final decree" in the context of execution proceedings under the U. P. Tenancy Act. It discusses a Division Bench ruling that stated an application for execution would be premature unless the decree had become final, either due to the expiration of the appeal period or the dismissal of all appeals. The judgment further explains that the Limitation Act does not confer rights on a decree-holder, and the right to execute a decree is derived from the decree itself, not from the Limitation Act.
Issue 2: Conflict between District Judge's orders The judgment highlights a conflict between two orders passed by the District Judge regarding the timing of an execution application. One order deemed the application premature, while the other directed the execution to proceed. This conflict led to revision applications by both the decree-holder and the judgment-debtor. The judgment resolves this conflict by allowing the revision application of the decree-holder, setting aside previous orders, and dismissing the initial application.
Issue 3: Applicability of Limitation Act It discusses the applicability of the Limitation Act in suits and proceedings under the U. P. Tenancy Act. The judgment clarifies that the Limitation Act does not create rights but sets time limits for exercising remedies. It emphasizes that the right to execute a decree is based on the decree itself and not on the Limitation Act, which merely prescribes time limits for legal actions.
Issue 4: Effect of pending appeals on execution The judgment explains the impact of pending appeals on the right to execute a decree. It states that the mere existence of an appeal does not automatically stay execution, as per the Code of Civil Procedure provisions applicable to Tenancy Act proceedings. The judgment emphasizes that an application for execution is not premature solely because an appeal is pending, as long as the decree has not become final in the prescribed sense.
Issue 5: Application of Code of Civil Procedure provisions It discusses the application of Code of Civil Procedure provisions to proceedings under the U. P. Tenancy Act. The judgment cites Order 41 Rule 5 (i) of the Civil Procedure Code, which clarifies that an appeal does not stay execution unless ordered by the appellate court. It further explains that the date of the final decree, as per the Tenancy Act, indicates the time from which the limitation for execution begins, not a restriction on the decree-holder's right to execute the decree.
In conclusion, the judgment provides a detailed analysis of the issues surrounding the interpretation of the term "final decree," conflicts in District Judge's orders, the applicability of the Limitation Act, the impact of pending appeals on execution rights, and the application of Code of Civil Procedure provisions in Tenancy Act proceedings. It clarifies the rights of decree-holders, the role of the Limitation Act, and the procedural aspects governing execution proceedings under the U. P. Tenancy Act.
-
1953 (4) TMI 31
Issues Involved: 1. Competence of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to entertain objections to assessments made under Section 23(4) in proceedings other than those through Section 27 of the Income-tax Act. 2. Deduction claims related to interest not paid or agreed upon. 3. Inclusion of undisclosed income in the assessment.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Competence of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner: The primary legal question was whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was not competent to entertain objections to assessments made under Section 23(4) in proceedings other than those through Section 27 of the Income-tax Act. The facts were straightforward: the assessees did not comply with notices under Section 22(4), leading to assessments under Section 23(4). They did not apply for cancellation under Section 27 but directly appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, who then questioned the validity of the Section 23(4) assessments and made adjustments.
The Tribunal concluded that without an application under Section 27, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner could not question the Section 23(4) assessments, deeming them best judgment assessments. This view was supported by a previous decision in Chhotelal Gobardhan Das v. Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P. & V.P., where it was held that without an appeal against an order under Section 27, the Tribunal could not question the validity of a Section 23(4) assessment. The Court affirmed this view, emphasizing that an appeal is a statutory right, and without a provision for appeal, no appeal can be filed. They referenced the Privy Council decision in Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay Presidency & Aden v. Khemchand Ramdas, which supported the notion that the mere labeling of an assessment under Section 23(4) does not preclude an appeal if the circumstances do not justify it under that section.
The Court concluded that if an assessment is genuinely made under Section 23(4), the assessee must follow the statutory process under Section 27 to challenge it. The Court saw no reason to change its opinion from the Chhotelal Gobardhan Das case, thus answering the question in the affirmative.
2. Deduction Claims Related to Interest: The assessees claimed deductions for interest allegedly due to Messrs. Juggilal Kamlapat, despite admitting no interest was paid or agreed upon. They argued that since the Income-tax Officer disallowed interest in the firm's assessment, a similar adjustment should be made in their assessments to neutralize the effect. The Court dismissed this claim, stating that without actual payment or an agreement to pay interest, no deduction could be claimed. Thus, no reference was warranted for these cases.
3. Inclusion of Undisclosed Income: In one case, the Income-tax Officer included Rs. 75,000 as undisclosed income, citing excessive personal expenses, unexplained cash deposits, and other financial transactions not recorded in the assessee's books. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner initially set aside this finding, but the Appellate Tribunal restored it. The Court's role was to determine if the Income-tax Officer's order was reasonable or capricious. They found the order reasonable, given the circumstances, and declined to direct the Tribunal to make any reference.
Conclusion: The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, affirming that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner lacked the competence to entertain objections to Section 23(4) assessments without an application under Section 27. They also rejected the deduction claims for interest and validated the inclusion of undisclosed income in the assessment. The assessee was ordered to pay costs to the Department, assessed at Rs. 400 in each case.
-
1953 (4) TMI 30
Issues Involved: 1. Whether Rule 350A framed by the Municipal Corporation of Ahmedabad is 'ultra vires'. 2. Whether the tax levied under Rule 350A amounts to a capital levy. 3. The legislative competence of the Provincial Legislature to levy a tax on lands on the basis of their capital value. 4. Whether the explanation to Section 75 of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act is 'ultra vires'. 5. Whether Rule 350A is inconsistent with the explanation to Section 75 of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Whether Rule 350A framed by the Municipal Corporation of Ahmedabad is 'ultra vires': The plaintiffs contended that Rule 350A, which levies a rate on open lands based on their capital value, is 'ultra vires' and the assessment list prepared under this rule is illegal and void. The Municipal Corporation argued that the rule is 'intra vires' and the rate is merely a means to levy a reasonable tax on open lands. The court examined the nature and effect of Rule 350A in light of the Municipal Corporation's power under Section 73 of the Bombay Act XVIII of 1925, which allows the imposition of a rate on buildings or lands. The court concluded that Rule 350A is not 'ultra vires' as it adopts the capital value as a basis for valuation, which is permissible under the explanation to Section 75 of the Municipal Boroughs Act.
2. Whether the tax levied under Rule 350A amounts to a capital levy: The plaintiffs argued that the tax levied under Rule 350A is a capital levy, which can only be imposed by the Government of India under Entry 55, List I, of Schedule VII to the Government of India Act, 1935. The Municipal Corporation contended that the tax is on open land and the capital value is used merely as a means to levy a reasonable rate. The court distinguished between a tax on land based on its capital value and a tax on the capital value of land as an asset. It held that Rule 350A does not amount to a capital levy but is a tax on land, with the capital value used as a measure for determining the tax.
3. The legislative competence of the Provincial Legislature to levy a tax on lands on the basis of their capital value: The court examined the legislative history and practice in India and found that the power to adopt the basis of capital value in levying taxes on lands existed in Municipal legislation prior to the Government of India Act, 1935. It concluded that the Provincial Legislature has the competence to levy a tax on lands on the basis of their capital value under Entry 42 of List II, as the adoption of this method does not alter the character of the tax, which remains a tax on land.
4. Whether the explanation to Section 75 of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act is 'ultra vires': The court considered whether the explanation to Section 75, which allows the basis of valuation for lands to be either capital or annual letting value, is 'ultra vires'. It concluded that the explanation is not 'ultra vires' as it is introduced as a measure to determine the amount of tax on lands and does not change the nature of the tax itself.
5. Whether Rule 350A is inconsistent with the explanation to Section 75 of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act: The plaintiffs argued that Rule 350A is inconsistent with the explanation to Section 75 as it does not determine the annual value of the property but levies a rate at 1% of the capital value. The court rejected this argument, stating that Rule 350A provides a reasonable method for levying a tax on lands when the annual letting value cannot be easily determined. It held that the rule is consistent with the explanation to Section 75 and does not amount to a capital levy.
Conclusion: The appeal was allowed, the decree passed by the trial court was set aside, and the plaintiffs' suit was dismissed. The court held that Rule 350A and the explanation to Section 75 of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act are 'intra vires' and that the tax levied under Rule 350A is a tax on land, not a capital levy. The court emphasized that the method of using capital value as a basis for taxation is permissible and does not alter the nature of the tax.
-
1953 (4) TMI 29
Issues Involved: 1. Validity of the scheme of arrangement sanctioned by the Company Court. 2. Applicability and interpretation of Section 38, Banking Companies Act, in the context of winding up a banking company. 3. The discretion of the Court under Section 162, Indian Companies Act, in relation to Section 38, Banking Companies Act. 4. The role and responsibility of the Reserve Bank of India in certifying the inability of a banking company to pay its debts. 5. The appropriateness of appointing an Official Liquidator versus a private agency for winding up the company.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of the Scheme of Arrangement: The appeals arose from orders related to the Calcutta National Bank Ltd., specifically an order dismissing an application for a scheme and an order for the winding up of the company. The scheme proposed by Dwarkadas Agarwalla aimed to realize the assets of the company, pay off creditors and depositors, and distribute any surplus among shareholders. The scheme was sanctioned by the Company Court with modifications by Mr. Justice Banerjee but was not sent back for reconsideration by the creditors, depositors, and shareholders. Moreover, no certificate of the Reserve Bank was obtained for the modified scheme. The scheme envisaged winding up the company via a private agency, the Bank of Jaipur, rather than an official liquidator. Subsequently, the scheme faced objections and legal challenges, leading to its rejection by Mr. Justice S. R. Das Gupta, who deemed it a nullity and directed a winding up.
2. Applicability and Interpretation of Section 38, Banking Companies Act: Section 38(1) of the Banking Companies Act mandates the Court to order the winding up of a banking company if it is unable to pay its debts. The Court interpreted this section to mean that if a banking company is unable to pay its debts, the Court must order its winding up, overriding the general discretion under Section 162, Indian Companies Act. The Court held that the conditions precedent to the applicability of Section 38(1) were present in this case, thus requiring a winding up order.
3. Discretion of the Court under Section 162, Indian Companies Act: The Court examined the interplay between Section 162, Indian Companies Act, which provides discretion to the Court to order or not to order a winding up, and Section 38(1), Banking Companies Act, which mandates a winding up order for a banking company unable to pay its debts. The Court concluded that Section 38(1) supersedes the discretionary provision of Section 162 in the specific context of banking companies unable to pay their debts.
4. Role of the Reserve Bank of India: The Reserve Bank of India initially supported the scheme under Section 45(a), Banking Companies Act, certifying that it was not detrimental to the interests of the depositors. However, the modified scheme was not resubmitted for the Reserve Bank's certification. The Court emphasized that the Reserve Bank's certification is crucial for the validity of any scheme involving a banking company.
5. Appointment of Official Liquidator vs. Private Agency: The Court considered whether the winding up should be carried out by an Official Liquidator or a private agency, specifically the Bank of Jaipur. The Court found that the scheme proposed by Dwarkadas Agarwalla, which involved the Bank of Jaipur as the winding-up agent, was not in the best interests of the depositors and creditors. The Court preferred the appointment of an Official Liquidator, concluding that it would benefit the creditors and employees more substantially.
Conclusion: The appeals were dismissed, upholding the winding up order and rejecting the scheme proposed by Dwarkadas Agarwalla. The Court affirmed that the winding up should be carried out by an Official Liquidator rather than a private agency, ensuring better protection of the interests of the creditors and depositors. The judgment emphasized the mandatory nature of Section 38(1), Banking Companies Act, in the context of a banking company unable to pay its debts, thus overriding the discretionary provision of Section 162, Indian Companies Act.
-
1953 (4) TMI 28
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the payment of Rs. 6,111 made by the assessee under the agreement with the Director of Industries and Commerce, Madras, was a revenue expenditure or capital expenditure. 2. Applicability of the principles laid down in the Judicial Committee's decision in Mohanlal Hargovind v. Commissioner of Income-tax, C.P. & Berar [1949] 17 I.T.R. 473. 3. Distinction between capital expenditure and revenue expenditure in the context of business operations. 4. Whether the right to collect chanks from the sea constitutes an interest in immovable property.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Revenue Expenditure vs. Capital Expenditure: The primary issue was whether the payment of Rs. 6,111 made by the assessee for the exclusive right to fish for chank shells was a revenue expenditure or capital expenditure. The Income-tax Officer treated it as capital expenditure and disallowed the deduction. This decision was upheld by the Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal, which felt bound by the earlier Full Bench decision in Abdul Kayum Sahib Hussain v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1939] 7 I.T.R. 652. The Tribunal referred the question to the High Court for clarification.
2. Applicability of Judicial Committee's Decision: The assessee's counsel argued that the decision in Mohanlal Hargovind v. Commissioner of Income-tax, C.P. & Berar [1949] 17 I.T.R. 473 overruled the Full Bench decision in Abdul Kayum Sahib Hussain's case. The Judicial Committee in Mohanlal's case held that payments for acquiring tendu leaves under short-term contracts were revenue expenditures, as the contracts conferred no interest in land or trees but merely the right to pick and carry away the leaves.
3. Distinction Between Capital and Revenue Expenditure: The Court discussed various principles and tests to distinguish between capital and revenue expenditure. The key test, as formulated by Viscount Cave in Atherton's case [1926] A.C. 205, is whether the expenditure brings into existence an asset or advantage for the enduring benefit of the trade. It was emphasized that expenditure on circulating capital (stock-in-trade) is revenue expenditure, while expenditure on fixed capital (assets used in the business) is capital expenditure.
4. Interest in Immovable Property: The Court examined whether the right to collect chanks constituted an interest in immovable property, similar to a right of fishery. It concluded that the right to collect chanks did not confer an interest in immovable property and thus did not fall within the exception contemplated by the Judicial Committee in Mohanlal's case.
Conclusion: The High Court concluded that the payment of Rs. 6,111 was revenue expenditure. The Court reasoned that the right to collect chanks was akin to purchasing goods (chanks) and not acquiring a source from which the goods emanated. The expenditure was for acquiring stock-in-trade and not a capital asset. Therefore, the payment was deductible under Section 10 of the Indian Income-tax Act. The reference was answered in favor of the assessee, and the petitioner was entitled to costs of Rs. 250.
-
1953 (4) TMI 27
Issues Involved: 1. Legislative Competency of the Bihar Legislature 2. Definition and Inclusion of Companies under "Proprietor" and "Tenure-holder" 3. Applicability of the Act to Companies 4. Apportionment of Revenue and Rent for Estates in Multiple States
Detailed Analysis:
1. Legislative Competency of the Bihar Legislature: The main contention was whether the Bihar Legislature had the authority to legislate on the subject matter of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, specifically concerning companies incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. The appellants argued that the Bihar Legislature invaded the Union field, which was exclusively under Parliament's jurisdiction as per entries 43, 44, and 45 of List I. However, this contention was overruled by the Patna High Court and was not challenged further in the Supreme Court.
2. Definition and Inclusion of Companies under "Proprietor" and "Tenure-holder": The appellants argued that the terms "proprietor" and "tenure-holder" as defined in the Act did not include companies. Section 2(o) defines "proprietor" as a person holding or owning an estate, including heirs and successors-in-interest, and section 2(r) defines "tenure-holder" similarly. The appellants contended that the word "person" did not include companies in this context. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, stating that companies could own estates and thus were included within the definition. The Court emphasized that the term "proprietor" was broad enough to encompass companies, despite the absence of specific references to directors or liquidators in the definition.
3. Applicability of the Act to Companies: The appellants further argued that the Act was not intended to apply to companies, citing various sections and rules that they claimed only natural persons could comply with. They relied on the case of Pharmaceutical Society v. The London and Provincial Supply Association, Limited, where the word "person" was interpreted to exclude corporations. However, the Supreme Court found this reliance misplaced, noting that the object of the Bihar Act was not repugnant to the inclusion of companies. The Court held that companies could perform all required acts through their directors or agents and that the provisions of the Companies Act could be considered in interpreting the Bihar Act.
4. Apportionment of Revenue and Rent for Estates in Multiple States: In Appeal No. 63 of 1953, the appellant company argued that because its estates were situated in both Bihar and West Bengal, and it paid a single government revenue, the acquisition of only the Bihar portion was invalid. The Supreme Court dismissed this argument, stating that it was a matter of apportionment of revenue and rent, which did not affect the validity of the notification. The Court held that the necessity for apportionment did not invalidate the acquisition under the Act.
Conclusion: The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the Bihar Land Reforms Act and dismissed the appeals. The Court found no merit in the arguments that the Act did not apply to companies or that the inclusion of companies was repugnant to the Act's context. The Court also dismissed the contention regarding the apportionment of revenue and rent for estates situated in multiple states. The appeals were dismissed with costs.
-
1953 (4) TMI 26
Issues Involved: 1. Justification of the assessment of Rs. 86,000 as cash reintroduced into the business. 2. Disallowance of the bad debt of Rs. 14,518.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Justification of the Assessment of Rs. 86,000 as Cash Reintroduced into the Business: The case revolves around the assessment made upon a Hindu undivided family for the year 1946-47. The Income-tax Officer discovered cash credits in the personal account of Rai Bahadur Balmiki Prasad Singh, the father of the assessee, who is the karta of the undivided family. The assessee explained that the cash credits were reintroduced into the business from previous withdrawals. However, the Income-tax Officer rejected this explanation, suspecting that the withdrawn amounts were converted into gold during the war and later sold at higher prices. Consequently, the Officer added Rs. 86,000 to the assessee's income.
The Appellate Tribunal, while accepting that the assessee did not trade in gold and silver, doubted the credibility of the home chest account, leading to the disallowance of the explanation regarding the source of the cash credit. The Tribunal stated: "It is clear from the assessee's own statement of figures filed that he has introduced Rs. 1,95,250 as against Rs. 1,90,000 only withdrawn during the period so that it is evident that these withdrawals are not always kept intact for subsequent introductions."
However, upon review, it was found that the Tribunal made an arithmetical error. The actual figures showed that from the year 1997 to 2000, cash withdrawn was Rs. 1,93,500 while the cash credit was Rs. 1,07,350. Adding Rs. 86,000 to the cash credit would total Rs. 1,93,350, which aligns with the cash withdrawn. The Tribunal's miscalculation led to the incorrect disallowance of the assessee's explanation. Therefore, the High Court held that there was no material to justify the assessment of Rs. 86,000 and answered this question in favor of the assessee.
2. Disallowance of the Bad Debt of Rs. 14,518: The assessee claimed Rs. 14,518 as a bad debt under Section 10(2)(xi) of the Income-tax Act, arguing that the debt became time-barred within the accounting year 1945-46. The debt originated from a decree passed on 16-9-1932, and the last execution petition was dismissed on 8-12-1945. The Income-tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner found that the debt became irrecoverable when the debtor's properties were sold in execution of a mortgage decree, four years before the accounting year.
The Tribunal rejected the claim, stating: "It has not been shown to us that the debt was good and recoverable at the commencement of the period which is necessary to show." However, the High Court found this reasoning flawed, emphasizing that the debt's status at the commencement of the accounting year was not the correct criterion. The debt became time-barred within the accounting year, and the last execution petition was dismissed during this period, indicating that the debt became bad and irrecoverable then.
The High Court noted that the assessee had a reasonable expectation of recovering the debt until the final dismissal of the execution petition. The Tribunal's requirement for the debt to be shown as good at the commencement of the year was a misdirection in law. Therefore, the High Court held that the assessee was entitled to the allowance of Rs. 14,518 as a bad debt within the meaning of Section 10(2)(xi) of the Income-tax Act and answered this question in favor of the assessee.
Conclusion: Both questions were answered in favor of the assessee. The High Court found no material to justify the assessment of Rs. 86,000 and held that the bad debt of Rs. 14,518 should be allowed as a deduction. The Income-tax Department was directed to pay the costs of the reference, with a hearing fee of Rs. 250.
-
1953 (4) TMI 25
Issues: 1. Relevance of findings in assessment proceedings in penalty proceedings. 2. Whether findings in assessment proceedings operate as res judicata in penalty proceedings.
Analysis: 1. The first issue pertains to the relevance of findings in assessment proceedings in penalty proceedings. The court held that the findings in the assessment proceedings are indeed relevant for deciding penalty proceedings. The Income-tax Officer is permitted to consider all materials available during assessment proceedings when dealing with penalty proceedings under Section 28. The court emphasized that there is no legal provision rendering such material inadmissible in penalty proceedings, affirming the relevance of assessment findings in penalty determination.
2. The second issue revolves around whether findings in assessment proceedings operate as res judicata in penalty proceedings. The court clarified that the principle of res judicata does not apply to proceedings before the Income-tax Officer, as it is only applicable to disputes adjudicated by a court involving two parties. The court referenced a previous case to support this stance and highlighted that the considerations for assessment and penalty imposition are distinct. In assessment proceedings, the focus is on determining the total income, whereas penalty proceedings require establishing deliberate concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. As the facts necessary for each determination differ significantly, findings in assessment proceedings cannot serve as res judicata in penalty proceedings.
In conclusion, the court ruled in favor of the assessee on the relevance of assessment findings in penalty proceedings but sided with the Department regarding the application of res judicata. Consequently, the court made no order as to costs and answered the reference accordingly.
-
1953 (4) TMI 24
Issues: 1. Validity of detention under Preventive Detention Act. 2. Sufficiency of grounds communicated for detention under article 22(5).
Analysis: 1. The petitioner, a medical practitioner in Delhi, was detained under the Preventive Detention Act, with the District Magistrate citing involvement in unlawful activities by political organizations. The petitioner's counsel argued that the District Magistrate did not properly consider the necessity for detention, pointing out a chronological error in the grounds provided. However, the District Magistrate's affidavit stated careful consideration based on reports by Intelligence Officers, leading the Court to reject the argument of lack of application of mind in issuing the detention order.
2. The second contention raised was regarding the sufficiency of the grounds communicated for detention, particularly focusing on the vagueness of one ground related to the petitioner's alleged involvement in organizing a movement. The Court considered the interpretation of the vague ground and the impact of vague grounds on the overall validity of detention. It was argued that the petitioner should have been provided with clearer particulars to enable effective representation against the detention order, as mandated by article 22(5). The Court emphasized the importance of constitutional safeguards in preventive detention cases, highlighting the need for detainees to have adequate information to challenge their detention effectively.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the petition, directing the immediate release of the petitioner due to the failure to provide sufficient particulars for one of the grounds of detention, thereby ruling the detention not in accordance with the procedure established by law. The judgment underscores the significance of upholding constitutional safeguards in preventive detention cases to protect individual liberties.
-
1953 (4) TMI 23
Issues: Interpretation of the term "brought into" in the Income-tax Act, 1922 for assessing income Determining the tax liability of an assessee for money remitted from a branch outside British India
Analysis: The case involved an interpretation of the term "brought into" in the Income-tax Act, 1922 regarding the tax liability of an assessee for money remitted from a branch outside British India. The question was whether the amount remitted by the Sanawad shop to Upleta via Bombay could be included in the total income of the assessee for the assessment year 1944-45. The firm had its main place of business at Khandwa, with a branch at Sanawad and partners residing in Upleta, both outside British India at the time. The money was sent to Upleta via Bombay, and the Tribunal noted discrepancies in whether the money actually reached Upleta.
The relevant provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1922 were analyzed, focusing on Sections 4(1)(b)(iii) and 14(2)(c). The contention revolved around whether the money was "brought into" British India, as it was not a case of income "received" in British India. The term "brought into" had not been subject to judicial interpretation previously. The assessee argued for a restricted interpretation based on past cases where the term "received" was narrowly construed. However, the court emphasized that the purpose for which money was brought into British India was irrelevant for taxation purposes if the income initially accrued as profits.
In analyzing past cases like Rai Bahadur Sundar Das v. Collector of Gujrat and Pondicherry Railway Company v. Commissioner of Income-tax, the court differentiated between "received" and "brought into" for tax assessment purposes. The court held that once money representing income, profits, or gains was brought into any part of British India, it could be assessed for income tax, irrespective of the intention for retention or investment. The court cited the principle that if a person falls within the letter of the law, they must be taxed, emphasizing adherence to the words of the statute in fiscal enactments.
Ultimately, the court held that the amount remitted from the Sanawad shop to Upleta could be included in the total income of the assessee for the assessment year 1944-45. The decision was based on the interpretation of the term "brought into" in the Income-tax Act, 1922, and the assessment of income, profits, or gains brought into British India. The assessee was directed to bear the costs of the case, including counsel's fee.
-
1953 (4) TMI 22
Issues Involved: 1. Disclosure of the basis and manner of computation by the Income-tax Officer under the proviso to Section 13. 2. Material on record to warrant the estimate of the profits at the several rates adopted.
Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: Disclosure of Basis and Manner of Computation The first issue addresses whether the Income-tax Officer is bound to disclose the basis and manner of computation of income, gains, or profits under the proviso to Section 13 of the Income-tax Act. The judgment unequivocally answers this in the affirmative. The court emphasizes that the proviso to Section 13 does not permit the Income-tax Officer to make a "leap in the dark" but mandates him to compute the income "upon such basis and in such manner as the Income-tax Officer may determine." This necessitates the officer to find out and disclose the basis and manner of computation. The assessment is conducted under Section 23(3), which involves hearing evidence produced by the assessee and any other evidence required by the Income-tax Officer. The court stresses the principles of natural justice, requiring the officer to give the assessee an opportunity to contest any material used against him, even if the source of information need not be disclosed. The judgment refers to previous rulings, including Sarupchand Hukamchand In re and Commissioner of Income-tax v. Khemchand Ramdas, to underscore the necessity of a "speaking order" to ensure the assessee's right of appeal is not rendered illusory. The court also notes that the Income-tax Officer cannot simply add a lump sum to the income or disallow business expenses without proper basis, as this would be contrary to law.
Issue 2: Material on Record for Profit Estimates The second issue pertains to whether there is material on record to justify the profit estimates at the various rates adopted by the Income-tax Officer. The court finds the statement of the case by the Appellate Tribunal unsatisfactory but opts to examine the Income-tax Officer's orders directly to avoid delays. The court notes that the assessee's method of returning profits by estimate was unwarranted and that the Income-tax Officer rightly rejected the method of deducing gross profits due to the absence of opening and closing stock details. However, the books themselves were not rejected as unreliable. For the Bada Bazar shop, the Income-tax Officer estimated trading profits at 15% for both years, a rate maintained in appeal and deemed reasonable given the circumstances, including the rise in handloom cloth prices. For the Katra Bazar shop, where sales included both mill-made and handloom cloth, the officer estimated profits at 12.5%, considering the disparity between purchase and sales figures and the lack of detailed classification of sales. This rate was also upheld by the Appellate Tribunal. For standard cloth sales, the officer determined a profit rate of 1.5%, accounting for expenses and sub-dealer margins, which the assessee failed to contest with proper details. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner scrutinized and accepted the trading profits for the yarn business. The court concludes that there is sufficient material on record to support the profit estimates at the rates adopted.
Conclusion: The court answers the first question affirmatively, requiring the Income-tax Officer to disclose the basis and manner of computation. For the second question, the court finds adequate material on record to warrant the profit estimates at the adopted rates. No order as to costs is made, and a copy of the judgment is directed to be sent to the Appellate Tribunal under Section 66(5) of the Act.
-
1953 (4) TMI 21
Issues Involved: 1. Jurisdiction of the Magistrate to take cognizance of the complaint under sections 297 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Applicability of Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 3. Distinctness of offences under sections 182, 297, and 500 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. Validity of the Full Bench decision and its implications.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Jurisdiction of the Magistrate to take cognizance of the complaint under sections 297 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code: The appellants were tried and convicted under sections 297 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code by the Magistrate. The charges framed were for trespassing on the cremation ground with the intention of wounding religious feelings (section 297) and defamation (section 500). The appellants contended that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of these offences as the facts disclosed an offence under section 182, which requires a complaint by a public servant. However, the Supreme Court held that the Magistrate had jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offences under sections 297 and 500 as they were distinct offences not covered by section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
2. Applicability of Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code: Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code stipulates that no court shall take cognizance of offences under sections 172 to 188 of the Indian Penal Code except on the complaint of the concerned public servant. The appellants argued that the facts constituted an offence under section 182, and thus, the Magistrate was debarred from taking cognizance of the other offences. The Supreme Court clarified that section 195 does not bar the cognizance of distinct offences disclosed by the same facts. The court emphasized that the allegations may have a double aspect and can constitute separate offences, one against the public servant and another against a private individual.
3. Distinctness of offences under sections 182, 297, and 500 of the Indian Penal Code: The Supreme Court observed that the charge under section 297 related to an act of trespass committed after the false report, and the charge under section 500 related to defamatory allegations in the report itself. The court held that the offence under section 297 was distinct and arose from different facts, namely, the trespass and removal of the corpse from the funeral pyre. The court also held that the offence under section 500 could be prosecuted independently of the offence under section 182, as they were fundamentally distinct in nature. The court cited precedents, including Satish Chandra Chakravarti v. Ram Dayal De and a Full Bench decision of the Madras High Court, to support this view.
4. Validity of the Full Bench decision and its implications: The Full Bench of the High Court had answered in the negative the question of whether the Magistrate was debarred from taking cognizance of other offences disclosed by the facts alleged, which were not affected by section 195. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, stating that the provisions of section 195 cannot be evaded by misdescribing the offence or by changing its label. The court also referred to the Federal Court decision in Hori Ram Singh v. The Crown, which supported the view that distinct offences could be tried separately even if one required special sanction.
Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the Magistrate had jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offences under sections 297 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code. The court affirmed that section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code does not bar the prosecution of distinct offences arising from the same facts, provided the prescribed procedure for each offence is followed. The court also upheld the findings of the lower courts that the ingredients of the offences under sections 297 and 500 were fully established.
-
1953 (4) TMI 20
Whether the appellant had the authority of the umpire to file the awards on his behalf into court in terms of section 14 (2) of the Arbitration Act?
Whether in view of subsection (3) of section 31 of the Act it can be said that the awards were filed in the Calcutta High Court earlier than in the Gauhati court?
Whether the scope of section 31, sub-section (4) of the Act is limited to applications under the Act during the pendency of the arbitration proceedings only?
Held that:- Section 31 (4) would vest exclusive jurisdiction in the court in which an application for the, filing of an award has been first made under section 14 of the Act.
It is undisputed that the application by the respondent Union of India was made before the Gauhati court on the 10th August, 1949, and the earliest move by the appellant before the Calcutta court was on the 17th August, 1949. All these facts and on the view of the interpretation of section.31, sub-section (4), which we are inclined to take, it is clear that the Gauhati court only has the jurisdiction and not the Calcutta High Court as regards the present dispute. In the result, the two appeals must be dismissed
|