|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 281 to 300 of 377 Records
-
1955 (3) TMI 50
Issues:
Interpretation of section 4(1)(a) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 regarding the receipt of profits in British India by a non-resident company.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Factual Background:
The case involved the non-resident company, Bhopal Textiles Ltd., which supplied goods to the Government of India or its nominees in Agra, Allahabad, and Delhi. The company dispatched the goods via railway and handed over the railway receipts to the Imperial Bank of India for collecting the payment.
2. Tribunal's Observation:
The Tribunal concluded that the profits were received on behalf of the assessee company in British India, considering the Imperial Bank of India as the company's agent. The Tribunal rejected the argument that the goods had passed to the buyers upon inspection and approval at the mill premises.
3. Legal Interpretation - Goods Passing to Buyers:
The judgment highlighted the legal principle that under the Indian Sale of Goods Act, once goods are inspected and approved at the mill premises, they pass to the buyers, leading to unconditional appropriation. The delivery of goods to the railway for transmission to the buyers signifies unconditional appropriation, even if the price had not been paid at that time.
4. Agent Relationship:
It was argued that the Imperial Bank of India branches at Agra, Allahabad, and Delhi acted as agents of the buyers when collecting payment and transmitting it to the Bhopal branch. Therefore, the profits could not be deemed as received in British India until credited to the company's account in Bhopal.
5. Comparison with Precedents:
The judgment distinguished previous cases where non-resident companies received payments in British India through agents or managing agents. The court emphasized that in the current case, the appropriation of goods and receipt of money occurred outside British India, aligning with the decision in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Anamallais Timber Trust Ltd.
6. Final Decision:
The court answered the question of law in the negative, ruling that the profits were not received or deemed to be received in British India. The department was directed to bear the costs, and a hearing fee was specified.
In conclusion, the judgment delved into the intricacies of the Indian Income-tax Act, the Sale of Goods Act, and relevant precedents to determine the tax liability of a non-resident company regarding profits derived from the sale of goods to the Government of India or its nominees.
-
1955 (3) TMI 49
Issues Involved:
1. Nature of compensation received by the assessee.
2. Whether the compensation received constituted agricultural income exempt from tax.
3. Proper disposal of specific grounds of appeal by the Tribunal.
4. Applicability of rules 23 and 24 of the Income Tax Rules.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Nature of Compensation Received by the Assessee:
The primary issue was whether the sums of Rs. 2,12,080 and Rs. 2,31,563 received by the assessee in 1945 and 1946 respectively (excluding sums for building repairs) were revenue receipts comprising any element of income. The court noted that the compensation received was for the use of requisitioned property, which included factory buildings and other structures but not the tea garden itself. The compensation was calculated based on the potential income from tea manufacturing had there been no requisition, minus the expenses saved due to the suspension of operations. The court concluded that the compensation received was indeed revenue in nature and constituted income as it was derived from the use of the property, even if the business operations were suspended. The court referenced the principle that income is not necessarily a recurrent return from a definite source but can consist of a series of separate receipts.
2. Whether the Compensation Received Constituted Agricultural Income Exempt from Tax:
The second issue was whether the compensation, after deducting expenses for tending the tea bushes, constituted agricultural income exempt from tax. The court emphasized that for income to be classified as agricultural, it must be derived from land used for agricultural purposes. In this case, the requisitioned property was used for non-agricultural purposes by the military, and no agricultural operations were carried out during the period of occupation. The court referred to previous decisions which established that the actual use of land for agricultural purposes is essential for income to be considered agricultural. Consequently, the court held that the compensation received did not constitute agricultural income and was therefore taxable.
3. Proper Disposal of Specific Grounds of Appeal by the Tribunal:
The assessee contended that the Tribunal did not address specific grounds of appeal related to deductible expenses and the estimate of profits from the hessian bags account. The court examined affidavits and found that the affidavit from the assessee's employee was based on hearsay and not from personal knowledge. The court presumed that if points raised in the grounds of appeal were not addressed in the judgment, they were not pressed during the hearing. The court held that the omission to address these points implied their rejection and did not warrant a writ of mandamus for reopening the case.
4. Applicability of Rules 23 and 24 of the Income Tax Rules:
The court noted that the third member of the Tribunal expressed doubts about the applicability of rules 23 and 24 of the Income Tax Rules. These rules pertain to the computation of income from tea grown and manufactured by the seller. However, the court found that the compensation received did not fall under these rules as the land was not used for agricultural purposes during the military occupation. The court emphasized that the compensation was for the use of the property and not for any agricultural operations.
Conclusion:
The court answered the first question affirmatively, holding that the compensation received was revenue in nature and taxable. The second question was answered in the negative, concluding that the compensation did not constitute agricultural income. The court dismissed the petitions under section 66(2) of the Income Tax Act and article 226 of the Constitution, finding no grounds for interference with the Tribunal's decision. The court also highlighted the importance of the Tribunal addressing all points raised in the grounds of appeal to avoid omissions and ensure comprehensive judgments.
-
1955 (3) TMI 48
Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of State Transport Authority to entertain an appeal.
2. Alleged absence of a member during the hearing at the Appellate Tribunal.
3. Refusal by Regional Transport Authority to grant a permit.
4. Compliance with the provisions of Section 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Analysis:
1. Jurisdiction of State Transport Authority: The petitioner appealed to the State Transport Authority (S.T.A.) against the Regional Transport Authority's (R.T.A.) decision to grant a permanent permit to another applicant. The S.T.A. allowed the appeal, citing a better claim by the petitioner under Section 47(1)(e) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Appellate Tribunal, however, contended that the S.T.A. had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal as the application was not technically refused by the R.T.A. The High Court held that the R.T.A.'s decision to grant the permit to one applicant implied the refusal of other applications, making the appeal to the S.T.A. valid. The Court found an error in the Appellate Tribunal's order on this ground.
2. Alleged absence of a member at the Appellate Tribunal: The petitioner alleged that one of the members, Dr. A. D. Mukherjee, was absent during the appeal hearing at the Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal's minutes indicated Dr. Mukherjee's presence, but the petitioner contested this, claiming the minutes were inaccurate. The High Court found the absence of Dr. Mukherjee to be a crucial point, questioning the validity of the Tribunal's findings based on this discrepancy. This issue significantly impacted the judgment in favor of the petitioner.
3. Refusal by Regional Transport Authority: The High Court emphasized that when multiple applicants seek a permit, the R.T.A. must either accept or refuse each application promptly. In this case, the R.T.A.'s decision to grant the permit to one applicant was deemed as a refusal to others. The Court asserted that every citizen has the right to conduct their chosen business, and the R.T.A. must strictly adhere to the Motor Vehicles Act's provisions. Failure to do so could result in a violation of fundamental rights, as seen in this instance.
4. Compliance with Section 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act: The Court reiterated the mandatory nature of complying with Section 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It emphasized that the R.T.A. must consider the provisions of Section 47 when processing permit applications. Even if the issue under Section 47(1)(e) is not raised explicitly, the R.T.A. is obligated to address it if relevant. The High Court highlighted the importance of adherence to statutory requirements for fair and lawful decision-making.
In conclusion, the High Court allowed the petitioner's appeal, quashing the Appellate Tribunal's order and directing a rehearing. The judgment underscored the significance of jurisdiction, procedural accuracy, and statutory compliance in administrative decisions involving permit grants under the Motor Vehicles Act.
-
1955 (3) TMI 47
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the auction sale under Order XXI, Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
2. Applicability of Sections 4 and 43 of the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands) Act, 1950.
3. Competency of the second appeal under Section 104(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure.
4. Jurisdiction of the executing court to set aside the sale.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of the Auction Sale under Order XXI, Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure:
The judgment-debtor filed an application under Rule 90 of Order XXI, alleging improper publication and announcement of the sale, and claimed substantial injury due to the auction purchaser being a benamidar for the decree-holder. The executing court dismissed these allegations, confirming the sale. However, the lower appellate court found a material irregularity in the sale proclamation process, as no sale statement was filed before issuing the sale warrant. This irregularity was deemed sufficient to set aside the sale. The court emphasized that the sale could not be set aside without proving substantial injury to the judgment-debtor due to the irregularity.
2. Applicability of Sections 4 and 43 of the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands) Act, 1950:
The judgment-debtor argued that the sale was void under Sections 4 and 43 of the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights Act, 1950. The lower appellate court agreed, holding that the village share and sir land were not liable for sale under these provisions. However, the High Court clarified that Section 4(e) exempts the proprietor's interest from attachment or sale, but this does not apply to the appurtenant sir and khudkasht, which became the judgment-debtor's malik-makbuza. Section 43 exempts sir from attachment or sale in execution of a debt recovery decree, but not khudkasht. The court concluded that the decree in question was for damages, not a debt, and thus, the sale was not barred by these sections.
3. Competency of the Second Appeal under Section 104(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure:
The respondent's counsel raised a preliminary objection, arguing that no second appeal lies from an order under Rule 90 of Order XXI, as per Section 104(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The court noted that while an appeal is allowed under Order XLIII, Rule 1(j), Section 104(2) bars a second appeal. The court referenced previous judgments, including AIR 1936 All 763 and AIR 1942 Pat 146, to support this interpretation. Consequently, the court held that no second appeal lies in this case, but the matter could be treated as a revision.
4. Jurisdiction of the Executing Court to Set Aside the Sale:
The High Court examined whether the executing court had jurisdiction to set aside the sale under Order XXI, Rule 90, or under Sections 4(e) and 43 of the Act. The decision hinged on whether there was an illegality or irregularity in the sale process and whether the decree was for debt recovery. The court found no irregularity, as the sale proclamation was issued correctly, and the sale statement was timely filed. The court also clarified that the decree was for damages, not debt, and thus, the sale was not barred by the Act. The lower appellate court's assumption of irregularity and debt recovery was deemed unwarranted, and the executing court's order was restored.
Conclusion:
The application for review was dismissed, but the miscellaneous second appeal was allowed as a revision. The High Court set aside the lower appellate court's order and restored the executing court's confirmation of the sale. Costs of the review application were to be borne as incurred, while costs of the second appeal and first appeal were to be borne by the judgment-debtor.
-
1955 (3) TMI 46
The High Court of Madras held that a lease of properties related to a touring cinema, which is collapsible and capable of being removed, is not chargeable to stamp duty under Article 30(a)(1) of the Stamp Act. The court determined that the equipment of the touring cinema does not fall within the category of immovable property, as it is not permanently fastened to the earth when in use. The lease deed did not indicate any immovable property, and therefore, stamp duty was not applicable.
-
1955 (3) TMI 45
Issues:
1. Whether the appellants were preferential creditors for the winding up of the Exchange Bank of India & Africa Limited.
2. Whether the bank held the amount in trust for the appellants or Podar Trading Company.
3. Whether the principle of equity applies to grant preferential status to the appellants.
Analysis:
Issue 1:
The appellants claimed preferential creditor status as a customer of the bank and as the endorsee of a pay order. The court established the principle that the relationship between a banker and customer is that of debtor and creditor. However, if the bank acts as an agent based on specific customer directions, a fiduciary relationship arises. In this case, the court found that the agency terminated once the bank delivered the pay order to the customer, and the amount did not remain earmarked or held in trust by the bank.
Issue 2:
The court analyzed the instructions given by the customer to the bank and determined that the bank did not hold the amount in trust for either the customer or Podar Trading Company. Despite the appellants' arguments based on the bank's bookkeeping entries, the court concluded that the bank's actions did not indicate a specific appropriation of the amount for a particular purpose, and it remained part of the bank's general funds.
Issue 3:
Regarding the principle of equity, the court clarified that equity does not determine preferential creditor status; legal principles govern such decisions. The court emphasized that trust is a key aspect in justifying preferential creditor treatment. While citing precedents, the court highlighted that the equitable principle relied upon by the appellants did not apply in this case of compulsory winding up by the court.
In conclusion, the court dismissed the appeal, stating that the appellants' claim as preferential creditors was not justified based on legal principles. The judgment emphasized the absence of a trust relationship between the bank and the appellants, leading to the rejection of their preferential status claim.
-
1955 (3) TMI 44
Issues:
1. Whether the sum received by the assessee is liable to be assessed as income under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.
Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, arising from the Tribunal's order in an Income-tax Appeal. The main issue revolves around determining the tax liability of a sum of &8377; 10,000 received by the assessee. The assessee, a governing director of a company, received this amount from the Provincial Transport Co. Ltd. as part of a modification in remuneration terms. The question is whether this sum constitutes income for the assessee.
The assessee, along with two other individuals, collectively received a monthly remuneration from the managing agents. Following a resolution by the board of directors, the Provincial Transport Co. Ltd. paid a lump sum of &8377; 40,000 to the managing agents, which was then distributed among the three individuals based on their remuneration ratio. The assessee received &8377; 10,000 out of this amount, which has been treated as his income by the taxing authorities. The crux of the matter lies in determining whether this sum can be considered compensation for loss of employment under the Income-tax Act.
The judgment draws comparisons with precedent cases to establish a legal standpoint. It references cases like Godrej and Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Henley v. Murray, Tilley v. Wales, and P.D. Khosla, In re, to differentiate scenarios where payments were considered compensation for loss of employment versus cases where payments were treated as advance remuneration. The court emphasizes that in the current case, the assessee's service was not terminated, and the amount received was a commuted sum reflecting a reduction in remuneration, thus constituting a revenue receipt and taxable income.
In conclusion, the court answers the question in the affirmative, affirming that the sum received by the assessee is liable to be assessed as income under the Income-tax Act. The reference is rejected with costs, and a hearing fee is imposed. The judgment provides a detailed analysis based on legal precedents and the specific circumstances of the case, ultimately clarifying the tax treatment of the amount received by the assessee.
-
1955 (3) TMI 43
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act.
2. Classification of the employee as a casual laborer or temporary employee.
3. Entitlement to wages under the monthly-rated scheme versus daily-rated scheme.
4. Scope of the Authority's power to determine terms of employment and wages.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Jurisdiction of the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act
The main controversy revolved around whether the Authority under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act (the Act) had the jurisdiction to pass the orders it did. The Supreme Court emphasized that the Authority is a tribunal of limited jurisdiction, and its power must be found within the provisions of the Act. The Act aims at regulating the payment of wages to certain classes of persons employed in industry, specifically addressing issues of deductions from wages and delays in payment. The Court found that the respondent's claim did not fall within the categories of deductions specified in Section 7 of the Act, as there was no allegation of delay or unauthorized deductions from wages. Instead, the respondent's grievance was about not being placed on a higher wage scheme, which the Court determined was outside the Authority's jurisdiction.
2. Classification of the Employee as a Casual Laborer or Temporary Employee
The Authority had decided that the respondent was not a casual laborer but a "temporary employee" entitled to a scale of Rs. 55-150 plus allowances, based on the nature of work being similar to that of permanent staff. The Authority also referenced Article 39(d) of the Constitution, advocating for equal pay for equal work. However, the Supreme Court found that the Authority did not have the jurisdiction to decide on the classification of employees, as it was not within the ambit of the Act to make such determinations.
3. Entitlement to Wages under the Monthly-Rated Scheme versus Daily-Rated Scheme
The respondent claimed that he should have been placed on a permanent cadre and paid monthly wages instead of daily wages. The Supreme Court noted that the respondent's complaint was essentially about not being upgraded to a higher wage scheme rather than any actual deduction or delay in payment of wages. The Court held that the Authority under the Act could not direct the employer to upgrade an employee from a daily wage-earner to a monthly wage-earner, as this involved a determination by higher departmental authorities, which was beyond the Authority's jurisdiction.
4. Scope of the Authority's Power to Determine Terms of Employment and Wages
The Supreme Court clarified that while the Authority could determine the actual terms of the contract of employment to ascertain the wages, it could not decide on potential wages that an employee might be entitled to if placed on a different wage scheme. The Court emphasized that the Authority's power was limited to addressing claims of deductions and delays in payment of wages as defined under the Act. The respondent's claim to be placed on a higher wage scheme was deemed a matter for departmental appeal or revision, not for the Authority under the Act.
Separate Judgments:
Majority Judgment:
The appeal was allowed, and the orders of the Authority and the High Court were quashed. The Supreme Court held that the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the respondent's claim for higher wages based on a different classification.
Dissenting Judgment:
One judge dissented, arguing that the Tribunal had the jurisdiction to determine what the wages payable were, including the authority to decide whether the respondent should be classified as a temporary employee entitled to higher wages. The dissent emphasized that the Tribunal's decision should be respected unless it was shown that the higher classification depended on a determination by a superior authority.
Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed, and the orders of the Authority and the High Court were quashed, with no order as to costs. The Supreme Court concluded that the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act did not have the jurisdiction to decide on the respondent's classification and entitlement to higher wages.
-
1955 (3) TMI 42
Issues Involved:
1. Claim for the price of katcha bricks destroyed by rain.
2. Claim for additional wages paid to coolies due to non-supply of ration and cloth.
3. Claim for interest on the amount of money involved in the claim.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Claim for the Price of Katcha Bricks Destroyed by Rain:
The contractor claimed Rs. 75,900 for 88 lakhs of katcha bricks destroyed by rain, arguing that the delay in removing baked bricks by the C.P.W.D. caused the accumulation of katcha bricks, which were then destroyed by rain. The Union Government contended that the katcha bricks were not part of the contract and relied on additional clause 6, which stated, "The department will not entertain any claim for idle labour or for damage to unburnt bricks due to any cause whatsoever."
The arbitrator awarded Rs. 64,075 under this head, reasoning that clause 6 was not meant to absolve the department from carrying out their part of the contract. However, the Court found that the arbitrator erred in law, as clause 6 expressly relieved the Union Government of liability for such damage, and the contractor had a duty under section 73 of the Contract Act to minimize the loss. The Court held that the arbitrator's decision on this point was not final, as it was not a specific question of law referred to arbitration. The Court emphasized that the arbitrator's error was apparent on the face of the award, and thus, the award under this head was set aside.
2. Claim for Additional Wages Paid to Coolies Due to Non-Supply of Ration and Cloth:
The contractor claimed Rs. 51,495 for additional wages paid to coolies due to the non-supply of ration and cloth, arguing that there was a mutual understanding and promise by the department to supply ration. The arbitrator awarded Rs. 40,000 under this head, concluding that there was an implied contractual obligation for the C.P.W.D. to provide rations.
The Court found that the arbitrator's conclusion was based on mere contentions by the contractor and not on evidence or admissions. The Court held that the contract did not contain any clause about rations, and the contractor signed the contract without waiting for a reply to his request for rations. The Court emphasized that governments can only be bound by contracts entered into in a particular way and signed by the proper authority. The Court concluded that there was no contractual obligation for the C.P.W.D. to supply rations, and thus, the award under this head was set aside.
3. Claim for Interest on the Amount of Money Involved in the Claim:
The contractor claimed Rs. 27,665 as interest on the amount of money involved in the claim, arguing that the department should have settled the claims by January 1948. The arbitrator awarded interest at 6% for 16 months, amounting to Rs. 17,363.
The Court found that the arbitrator erred in awarding interest, as the conditions under the Interest Act, 1839, were not fulfilled. The Court held that there was no debt or sum certain payable at a certain time by virtue of a written contract, and there was no demand in writing stating that interest would be demanded from the date of the demand. The Court also noted that an arbitrator is not a "court" within the meaning of section 34 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, and thus, could not award interest. Therefore, the award of interest was set aside.
Civil Appeal No. 12 of 1954:
In this connected appeal, the issues were similar, involving claims for cloth and rations and interest. The arbitrator awarded Rs. 30,000 for the claim related to cloth and rations, based on a "moral and implied obligation," and Rs. 9,954 as interest.
The Court found the same errors of law as in Civil Appeal No. 260 of 1953. The award for cloth and rations was based on an incorrect inference of a contractual obligation, and the award of interest was not supported by the conditions required under the Interest Act, 1839. Thus, the awards under these heads were also set aside.
Conclusion:
The appeals were dismissed, and the awards under the contested heads were set aside due to errors of law apparent on the face of the awards. The High Court's dismissal of the claims was upheld.
-
1955 (3) TMI 41
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Government of Madras, as a branch of the Crown, qualifies as a "person" under rule 11(2) of the Rules of Cases I and II of Schedule D of the Income Tax Act, 1918.
2. The applicability of balancing charges under section 17 of the Income Tax Act, 1945, for the year of assessment 1947-48.
3. The interpretation of the term "person" in the context of the Income Tax Acts and its implications on the Crown's immunity from taxation.
Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Whether the Government of Madras, as a branch of the Crown, qualifies as a "person" under rule 11(2) of the Rules of Cases I and II of Schedule D of the Income Tax Act, 1918:
The core issue is whether the Government of Madras, being a branch of the Crown, qualifies as a "person" within the meaning of rule 11(2). The appellant company argued that neither the Crown nor any person exercising the functions of the Crown is a "person" under rule 11(2). Conversely, the respondent contended that the Crown is included within the term "person" for the purposes of this rule.
Lord Oaksey concluded that it must necessarily be implied that the Crown is included within the term "person" in rule 11(2). He reasoned that excluding the Crown would result in the taxpayer being deprived of balancing allowances and remaining liable to balancing charges, which could not have been the intended outcome of the legislation.
Lord Macdermott emphasized that the word "person" in rule 11(2) should be construed to include the Crown, as excluding the Crown would lead to an unreasonable result and disrupt the basis of assessment. He noted that rule 11(2) is not a charging provision but rather a rule for terminal computations when a trade changes hands.
Lord Reid concurred, stating that the word "person" in rule 11(2) does not necessarily have to mean the same as in the charging provisions of Schedule D. He argued that the rule is intended to provide for the computation of tax payable by taxable persons in the event of a trade succession, regardless of the successor's tax liability.
Lord Tucker and Lord Keith of Avonholm also agreed that the word "person" in rule 11(2) should include the Crown. They emphasized that rule 11(2) is not a charging provision and should be construed in its ordinary and natural meaning, which includes the Crown.
2. The applicability of balancing charges under section 17 of the Income Tax Act, 1945, for the year of assessment 1947-48:
The appellant company was assessed to income tax for the year 1947-48 in respect of balancing charges claimed due upon the sale of its plant and machinery to the Government of Madras. The company argued that if the Crown is not a "person" under rule 11(2), the balancing charges could not be assessed for the year 1947-48.
Lord Oaksey noted that if rule 11(2) applies, the "basis period" for the year of assessment 1947-48 would be the period from April 6, 1947, to August 29, 1947, in which the sale took place, making the assessment competent. If rule 11(2) does not apply, the balancing charges would escape assessment.
Lord Macdermott highlighted that rule 11(2) is decisive for determining the "basis period" for the year of assessment 1947-48. He stated that if the Crown is included as a "person" under rule 11(2), the assessment for balancing charges is competent.
Lord Reid, Lord Tucker, and Lord Keith of Avonholm all agreed that the assessment for balancing charges for the year 1947-48 is competent if the Crown is included as a "person" under rule 11(2).
3. The interpretation of the term "person" in the context of the Income Tax Acts and its implications on the Crown's immunity from taxation:
The respondent argued that the Crown is included in the term "person" in the Income Tax Acts and that the Crown's immunity from taxation arises from the prerogative right to claim such immunity. The appellant company contended that the Crown is not included in the term "person" in the charging provisions of the Income Tax Acts.
Lord Oaksey found it unnecessary to decide whether the Crown's immunity from taxation depends on the construction of the statute or arises from the prerogative. He concluded that the term "person" in rule 11(2) must be construed to include the Crown to avoid depriving the taxpayer of balancing allowances.
Lord Macdermott stated that the meaning of "person" in the charging provisions of Schedule D does not include the Crown, as there is no express provision or necessary implication to make it include the Crown. However, he argued that the word "person" in rule 11(2) should include the Crown to provide for terminal computations in the case of a trade changing hands.
Lord Reid argued that the rule of construction that an Act does not bind the Crown unless expressly stated or by necessary implication applies to the charging provisions of Schedule D. He concluded that the word "person" in rule 11(2) should include the Crown, as it is not a charging provision and does not prejudice the Crown.
Lord Tucker and Lord Keith of Avonholm agreed that the word "person" in rule 11(2) should be construed in its ordinary and natural meaning, which includes the Crown. They emphasized that rule 11(2) is not a charging provision and should be interpreted to provide for the computation of tax payable by taxable persons in the event of a trade succession.
Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed, with the House of Lords concluding that the term "person" in rule 11(2) of the Rules of Cases I and II of Schedule D of the Income Tax Act, 1918, includes the Crown. Consequently, the balancing charges under section 17 of the Income Tax Act, 1945, for the year of assessment 1947-48 were correctly assessed. The interpretation of the term "person" in the context of the Income Tax Acts does not exclude the Crown, and the Crown's immunity from taxation does not affect the applicability of rule 11(2) in this case.
-
1955 (3) TMI 40
Issues:
Interpretation of income from Jugasalai Electric Supply Co. held by Hindu undivided family members; Allocation of shares to family funds; Onus of proof regarding capital contribution by individual members; Legal basis for determining source of funds; Incorrect placement of burden of proof by Appellate Tribunal.
Analysis:
The case involves a Hindu undivided family comprising M.L. Rungta and his sons, including M.G. Rungta, B.N. Rungta, and S.R. Rungta, holding shares in Jugasalai Electric Supply Co. The Income-tax Officer initially deemed the shares held by the sons to be in the family's name, considering the funds as belonging to the family. Appeals to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal followed. The Tribunal held that S.R. Rungta held shares individually but dismissed the appeals for M.G. Rungta and B.N. Rungta, leading to a reference to the High Court.
The High Court considered whether the capital contributed by M.G. Rungta and B.N. Rungta truly belonged to the family. The Tribunal's reasoning was based on the family's expenses covering the capital and the inability of the sons to prove personal funds as the source. However, the Court emphasized that the burden of proof lay with the department to show the funds' origin. Referring to legal precedents, the Court highlighted that the onus was on the department to demonstrate that the contributions were from family funds, not on the individual members to prove otherwise.
The Court criticized the Tribunal for misplacing the burden of proof on the assessee, emphasizing the legal principle that the apparent state of affairs should be accepted unless proven otherwise. Citing relevant case law, the Court reiterated that the burden of proof rested with the department to establish the source of funds. As the department failed to provide evidence supporting their claim, the Court concluded that there was no basis for the Tribunal's decision regarding the capital contributed by M.G. Rungta and B.N. Rungta.
In conclusion, the High Court ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that the Tribunal lacked sufficient evidence to attribute the capital contributions to the family. The Court directed the answers to the questions in favor of the assessee, holding the Income-tax department responsible for costs and a hearing fee. Both judges, Ramaswami and Sahai, concurred with the decision, resolving the reference accordingly.
-
1955 (3) TMI 39
Issues Involved:
1. Ownership and inheritance of the properties in dispute.
2. Validity of the family arrangement and its binding effect.
3. Estoppel and the plaintiff's conduct.
4. Legal effect of the alienations and the reversioner's rights.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Ownership and Inheritance of the Properties in Dispute:
The plaintiff, Mukand Ram, claimed that the properties belonged to Nanak Chand and were inherited by his widow Mst. Pato and subsequently by their three daughters. Upon the death of the last daughter, Har Devi, in 1919, the plaintiff's rights as reversioner accrued. The defendants contended that the properties belonged to Mst. Pato as part of her personal estate and were distributed by her through a family arrangement.
2. Validity of the Family Arrangement and Its Binding Effect:
The defendants argued that Mst. Pato executed a family arrangement in 1875, distributing the properties among her daughters and grandsons, making them absolute owners. The trial court dismissed the plaintiff's claims, finding that the properties did not form part of Nanak Chand's estate and that the family arrangement was valid. The High Court reversed this, holding that the properties were part of Nanak Chand's estate and that the family arrangement was voluntary and not binding on the plaintiff.
The Supreme Court found that the family arrangement was indeed proved through consistent conduct and admissions by the family members. The court held that whether the properties belonged to Nanak Chand or Mst. Pato, the family arrangement was valid and binding on the daughters, who were parties to it and received consideration.
3. Estoppel and the Plaintiff's Conduct:
The plaintiff's conduct, including admissions and a long series of transactions asserting absolute ownership, indicated assent to the family arrangement. The court found that the plaintiff, Mukand Ram, had consistently asserted such a title and had benefited from the arrangement. His admissions to Shyam Lal and the conduct of the family members over a long period established the family arrangement and precluded the plaintiff from challenging it.
4. Legal Effect of the Alienations and the Reversioner's Rights:
The court held that the alienations made by the daughters and grandsons were valid under the family arrangement. The plaintiff's assent to the arrangement, either explicitly or through conduct, bound him and prevented him from avoiding the alienations. The principle that an alienation by a widow is voidable and not void was applied, and the reversioner's assent to the alienation was found to be binding.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's decrees, and restored the trial court's judgments dismissing the plaintiff's claims. The plaintiff was ordered to pay costs, divided between the two sets of appellants. The family arrangement was upheld, and the plaintiff's challenge to the alienations was dismissed based on his conduct and the established family arrangement.
-
1955 (3) TMI 38
Issues Involved:
1. Transfer of decree by assignment in writing.
2. Transfer of decree by operation of law.
3. Application of equitable principles.
4. Applicability of Section 146 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
5. Procedural compliance of execution application under Order XXI, Rule 11.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Transfer of Decree by Assignment in Writing:
The main question was whether the respondent company could claim to be the transferees of the decree within the meaning of Order XXI, Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The rule specifies that a decree must be transferred by assignment in writing or by operation of law. The Court found that the document in question, executed on February 7, 1949, could not transfer the decree as it was passed later on December 15, 1949. The Court emphasized that a literal construction of Order XXI, Rule 16 leads to no absurdity and must be followed. The decree was not transferred by any assignment in writing executed after the decree was passed.
2. Transfer of Decree by Operation of Law:
The Court explored whether the respondent company could be considered transferees of the decree by operation of law. The term "by operation of law" was discussed extensively, referencing various cases. The Court concluded that while equity might transfer the beneficial interest in the decree, this does not constitute a transfer by assignment in writing within the meaning of Order XXI, Rule 16. The equitable principle does not make the prior agreement an assignment in writing of the decree.
3. Application of Equitable Principles:
The Court examined the equitable principle that a contract to assign future property becomes a complete assignment when the property comes into existence. However, it was held that this principle does not convert the agreement into an assignment in writing as required by Order XXI, Rule 16. The Court found that equity alone, and not the prior agreement, transfers the beneficial interest in the after-acquired property.
4. Applicability of Section 146 of the Code of Civil Procedure:
The Court considered whether the respondent company could execute the decree under Section 146 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which allows proceedings by or against representatives. It was argued that Order XXI, Rule 16 does not preclude a person who claims to be entitled to the benefit of a decree from making an application under Section 146. The Court found that the respondent company, having obtained the transfer of the debt, were the real owners of the decree and could claim under the decree-holder.
5. Procedural Compliance of Execution Application under Order XXI, Rule 11:
An objection was raised regarding the procedural compliance of the execution application, specifically that it did not specify the mode in which the assistance of the Court was required. The Court acknowledged this defect but noted that no objection was raised at the initial stages. Furthermore, a subsequent application specifying the mode of execution was filed, curing the defect.
Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed, with the Court holding that the respondent company could not claim to be transferees of the decree by assignment in writing or by operation of law within the meaning of Order XXI, Rule 16. However, they were entitled to execute the decree under Section 146 of the Code of Civil Procedure as persons claiming under the decree-holder. The procedural defect in the execution application was also deemed to have been cured by a subsequent application.
-
1955 (3) TMI 37
Issues Involved:
1. Wrongful dismissal of the appellant.
2. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertain the dispute.
3. Employment relationship between the appellant and the Bank vs. Treasurers.
4. Interpretation of the agreement between the Bank and the Treasurers.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Wrongful Dismissal of the Appellant:
The appellant, who was employed as the head cashier at the Una Branch of the Bank, was dismissed following the closure of the branch. The Tribunal initially found the dismissal wrongful, stating, "I am of the opinion that the dismissal of Shri Sharma was wrongful and liable to be set aside." The Tribunal ordered reinstatement with back salary, stating, "He will also be paid his back salary an allowance from the date of dismissal to the date of reinstatement."
2. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to Entertain the Dispute:
The Appellate Tribunal questioned the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, noting that it had not determined whether the appellant was an employee of the Bank or the Treasurers. The Appellate Tribunal stated, "The Tribunal had recorded no finding on that basic question and had assumed that the respondent before it was an employee of the Bank." The Supreme Court, however, held that the Tribunal had jurisdiction, stating, "That being so, the Tribunal had the jurisdiction to make the directions it did in respect of the appellant."
3. Employment Relationship Between the Appellant and the Bank vs. Treasurers:
The core issue was whether the appellant was an employee of the Bank or the Treasurers. The Tribunal initially assumed the appellant was an employee of the Bank. The Appellate Tribunal, however, concluded that the appellant was an employee of the Treasurers based on the agreement. The Supreme Court, after examining the agreement, concluded, "It must therefore be held that the Treasurers are the servants of the Bank and that their nominees must equally be so." The Supreme Court thus determined that the appellant was an employee of the Bank, not the Treasurers.
4. Interpretation of the Agreement Between the Bank and the Treasurers:
The agreement dated 1st May 1944 between the Bank and the Treasurers was central to determining the employment relationship. The Appellate Tribunal interpreted the agreement to mean that the Treasurers were independent contractors and the appellant was their employee. However, the Supreme Court, after a detailed examination of the agreement, found that the Treasurers were under the control and direction of the Bank, and thus, the appellant was an employee of the Bank. The Court stated, "The Treasurers are under the complete control and direction of the Bank through its manager or other functionaries."
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the appellant was an employee of the Bank and that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain the dispute. The orders of the Tribunal reinstating the appellant with back salary were upheld. The appeal was allowed with costs throughout.
-
1955 (3) TMI 36
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the summary dismissal of an appeal precludes the appellant from taking advantage of section 439(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. The interpretation and scope of section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, particularly subsections (1), (2), (5), and (6).
3. The principle of finality of judgments in criminal cases and its applicability.
4. The procedural aspects and timing of issuing a notice for enhancement of sentence under section 439.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Summary Dismissal and Section 439(6)
The primary issue was whether the summary dismissal of an appeal precluded the appellant from taking advantage of section 439(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure when called upon to show cause why the sentence should not be enhanced. The Court held that the summary dismissal of an appeal does not prevent the appellant from showing cause against his conviction under section 439(6) when a notice for enhancement of sentence is subsequently issued. The rationale was that section 439(6) confers a new and valuable right on the accused to challenge the conviction when faced with an enhancement of sentence, irrespective of the prior summary dismissal of the appeal.
2. Interpretation and Scope of Section 439
Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure grants the High Court revisional powers, including the ability to enhance sentences. Subsection (6) specifically allows a convicted person to show cause against his conviction when showing cause against an enhancement of sentence. The Court emphasized that this right is not conditioned or controlled by any prior proceedings, including the summary dismissal of an appeal. The historical background and legislative intent behind section 439 were examined, revealing that the provision was designed to provide a safeguard against frivolous applications for enhancement of sentences by the State or other interested parties.
3. Principle of Finality of Judgments
The principle of finality of judgments, as embodied in sections 369 and 430 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was a significant point of discussion. The Court held that while the finality of judgments is crucial, it does not apply to prevent the exercise of the right under section 439(6). The finality principle applies to judgments pronounced after a full hearing in the presence of both parties. However, summary dismissals without such a hearing do not constitute a final judgment that replaces the lower court's judgment. Therefore, the High Court retains the authority to issue a notice for enhancement of sentence, and the accused retains the right to show cause against his conviction under section 439(6).
4. Procedural Aspects and Timing of Notice for Enhancement
The Court addressed the procedural aspects and timing of issuing a notice for enhancement of sentence. It held that the High Court should ideally issue such a notice before the appeal is finally disposed of and judgment pronounced. Once the High Court pronounces a judgment after a full hearing, it replaces the lower court's judgment, and the High Court cannot subsequently issue a notice for enhancement of sentence. This ensures that the accused can exercise the right to challenge the conviction while showing cause against the enhancement of sentence.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order, and directed the High Court to allow the appellant to show cause against his conviction and dispose of the matter according to law. The judgment clarified that the summary dismissal of an appeal does not preclude the appellant from exercising the right under section 439(6) when a notice for enhancement of sentence is issued. The Court emphasized the importance of this statutory right and provided guidance on the procedural aspects of issuing notices for enhancement of sentences.
-
1955 (3) TMI 35
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the delegation of power to the Chief Controller of Imports.
2. Authority of the Chief Controller of Imports to issue licenses under the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947.
3. Authority of Mr. M. L. Gupta to sign the license and the condition on the license.
4. Competence of the Central Government to impose conditions on the use of imported goods.
5. Whether the contravention of a condition imposed by a license constitutes an offense under Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of the Delegation of Power to the Chief Controller of Imports:
The learned Magistrate held that the delegation of power to the Chief Controller of Imports was ultra vires of the Act. This was based on the premise that the Chief Controller of Imports was acting under Clause (a)(v) of Government Notification No. 2-ITC/48, which allowed the imposition of conditions considered expedient from an administrative point of view. However, the Court found this reasoning flawed, stating that the power to issue licenses is always conferred on a prescribed officer under a statutory provision or an order made under statutory provision, thus having the force of law. Therefore, the delegation to the Chief Controller of Imports was valid.
2. Authority of the Chief Controller of Imports to Issue Licenses:
The Court clarified that Clauses (IX) and (XIII) of Notification No. 23-ITC/43 dated 1-7-1943 were indeed orders under Section 3 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947. These clauses authorized the Chief Controller of Imports to issue licenses for specified goods. The Court held that the Central Government could authorize the Chief Controller of Imports to issue licenses under Section 3(1) of the Act, and this did not involve any unlawful delegation of power.
3. Authority of Mr. M. L. Gupta to Sign the License and the Condition on the License:
The learned Magistrate questioned the authority of Mr. M. L. Gupta to sign the license and the condition stamped on it. The Court, however, found that Mr. M. L. Gupta was duly authorized as a licensing officer by relevant Government Notifications. The Notifications were authenticated by competent authorities and were valid despite not being expressed in the name of the Governor-General, as required by Section 17 of the Government of India Act, 1935. The Court referenced the Supreme Court ruling that such provisions are directory, not mandatory. Therefore, Mr. M. L. Gupta had the authority to issue the license and sign the condition.
4. Competence of the Central Government to Impose Conditions on the Use of Imported Goods:
The learned Magistrate held that the Central Government could not impose conditions on the use of imported goods after their importation, as this would fall under the jurisdiction of Provincial Governments. The Court disagreed, stating that the condition restricting the use of imported goods to the licensee's factory was within the competence of the Central Government. The Court emphasized that controlling the purpose for which goods are imported is an essential aspect of import regulation. Therefore, the condition imposed was valid and within the Central Government's powers.
5. Whether the Contravention of a Condition Imposed by a License Constitutes an Offense Under Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947:
The Court examined whether violating a condition imposed by a license amounts to an offense under Section 5 of the Act. Section 5 penalizes the contravention of any order made or deemed to have been made under the Act. The Court held that while the conditions in the license were imposed under statutory orders, the contravention of such conditions did not amount to contravention of the orders themselves. Therefore, the breach of a license condition did not constitute an offense under Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947. The Court noted that similar issues were addressed in Pakistan and the Bengal Excise Act, where the penal sections explicitly included contravention of license conditions as offenses.
Conclusion:
The Court found that the learned Magistrate was wrong on the points regarding the delegation of power, the authority of the Chief Controller of Imports, and the competence of the Central Government to impose conditions on imported goods. However, it upheld the view that the contravention of a condition imposed by a license does not constitute an offense under Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947. Consequently, the prosecution under Section 5 failed, and the application was dismissed.
-
1955 (3) TMI 34
Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the Railway Magistrate under the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947.
2. Validity of the constitution of special benches for cases involving residents from outside the State under the Act.
3. Interpretation of section 55 of the Act regarding the bar on the jurisdiction of ordinary criminal courts.
Detailed Analysis:
1. The judgment involves the jurisdiction of the Railway Magistrate under the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. The case concerned three accused, including the appellant, who were parcel porters at a railway station in Uttar Pradesh and were found committing theft. The appellant challenged the jurisdiction of the Railway Magistrate, arguing that the case should have been tried by the Panchayati Adalat under the Act. The Sessions Judge accepted this contention, leading to a reference to the High Court. The High Court judge, while not deciding on jurisdiction, declined the reference but granted a certificate for appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court analyzed the relevant sections of the Act and concluded that the Panchayati Adalat of Manikpur had jurisdiction to try the case, barring the regular Magistrate's jurisdiction unless there was an order under section 85 of the Act. However, a difficulty arose due to one accused residing outside Uttar Pradesh, affecting the constitution of a bench under section 49 of the Act.
2. The validity of the constitution of special benches for cases involving residents from outside the State under the Act was a crucial issue. Rule 84 of the Act allowed for the formation of special benches for cases where parties resided in different areas. However, the Supreme Court held that this rule, insofar as it related to cases with residents outside the State, was ultra vires. The Court reasoned that the Act did not authorize such provisions for non-residents, and the rule exceeded the Act's scope. This ruling impacted the constitution of benches for cases with accused from different states, as seen in the present case with one accused from Madhya Pradesh.
3. The interpretation of section 55 of the Act regarding the bar on the jurisdiction of ordinary criminal courts was another significant aspect of the judgment. Section 55 prohibited regular courts from taking cognizance of cases within the Panchayati Adalat's jurisdiction. The Supreme Court clarified that this bar applied to the entire case and could only be effective if a valid trial machinery existed. In this case, due to the difficulty in constituting a bench under the Act for all accused, including one from outside the local jurisdiction, the jurisdiction of the regular criminal court was not excluded. The Court emphasized that the comprehensive jurisdiction of criminal courts under the Code of Criminal Procedure could not be overridden in the absence of a valid trial mechanism under the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the Railway Magistrate's jurisdiction to try the case under the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, despite the challenges posed by the constitution of benches for cases involving residents from outside the State and the interpretation of the bar on ordinary criminal courts' jurisdiction under the Act.
-
1955 (3) TMI 33
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the loss of Rs. 35,000 due to robbery is deductible in computing the total income of the assessee company.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Whether the loss of Rs. 35,000 due to robbery is deductible in computing the total income of the assessee company:
The assessee, a company engaged in the manufacture of sugar and molasses, faced a loss of Rs. 35,000 due to robbery while transporting money to a purchasing center. The money was intended for payment to sugarcane cultivators as mandated by the Bihar Sugar Factories Control Act and Rules. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the deduction, treating the loss as a capital loss, not a revenue expenditure.
On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed the deduction, distinguishing between losses arising in the process of earning profits and those occurring after profits have been earned. The Commissioner reasoned that the loss was incidental to the business operations, essential for purchasing sugarcane and earning profits.
The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, however, denied the deduction, citing the precedent set by the Patna High Court in Mulchand Hiralal v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bihar and Orissa, which held that such losses were not deductible.
Upon further appeal, the High Court examined whether the loss was incidental to the business and thus deductible under section 10(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The Court noted that the purchase of sugarcane was regulated by statutory rules requiring the company to set up purchasing centers and make payments within a specified period. The Court emphasized that the loss occurred due to a statutory obligation, making it incidental to the business.
The Court referenced several judicial precedents to support its conclusion, including the principle that deductions under section 10(1) should be understood in a commercial sense. The Court distinguished the present case from Mulchand Hiralal, noting that the earlier decision did not consider section 10(1) and was based on different facts.
The Court concluded that the loss of Rs. 35,000 was closely connected to the business operations and should be deducted from the total income. The decision was supported by the principle that losses incidental to business operations are deductible, as established in Jagarnath Therani v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bihar and Orissa.
Conclusion:
The High Court held that the loss of Rs. 35,000 due to robbery was deductible in computing the total income of the assessee company. The decision emphasized the necessity of considering losses incidental to business operations as deductible, aligning with commercial principles and judicial precedents. The reference was answered in favor of the assessee, with the Income-tax department ordered to pay the costs of the reference.
-
1955 (3) TMI 32
Issues:
Determining whether the assessee is 'not ordinarily resident' in the accounting years 1945, 1946, 1947, and 1948 under section 6(a) of the Travancore Income-tax Act.
Analysis:
The reference by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal questioned the assessee's residency status in the relevant years. The key provision in question was section 6(a) of the Travancore Income-tax Act, which defines 'not ordinarily resident' based on residency criteria in the preceding years. The Tribunal sought clarification on whether the assessee met the residency requirements outlined in the Act.
The definition of 'resident' under section 5(a) of the Act was crucial in determining the assessee's status. The provision detailed various scenarios establishing residency, such as physical presence or maintaining a dwelling place in Travancore for specific periods. It was acknowledged that the assessee did not meet the criteria to be considered a 'resident' in the preceding years leading up to the accounting years in question.
A dispute arose regarding the interpretation of the term 'not ordinarily resident.' The contention put forth by the Department was that the assessee needed to prove non-residency in nine out of ten years preceding the accounting years. However, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and subsequent analysis disagreed with this interpretation, emphasizing the distinction between 'resident' and 'not resident' individuals.
The judgment highlighted the necessity of first establishing residency before delving into whether an individual is 'ordinarily resident.' The Act differentiated treatment for entities like companies and individuals, with specific criteria for determining ordinary residency. The judgment emphasized that 'not resident' and 'not ordinarily resident' were essentially negations of 'resident' and 'ordinarily resident,' making the latter category impossible to conceive.
Citing previous decisions and legal interpretations, the judgment reinforced the requirement for an individual to meet specific residency conditions to be considered 'ordinarily resident.' The court's decision concluded that the assessee was 'not ordinarily resident' in the accounting years 1945-1948 based on the provisions of the Travancore Income-tax Act. The reference was answered in favor of the assessee, who was awarded costs from the Department, including advocate's fees.
-
1955 (3) TMI 31
Whether the plaintiff was in fact misled or could have been misled if he had acted with due diligence and caution?
Held that:- Tribunal will consider this question above. It will take in-to consideration the fact that the defendant did enter an appearance and did file a written statement and that issues were framed in his presence; also that the case was fixed for the "Petitioner's" evidence only and not for that of the appellant; and that the petitioner examined all the witnesses he had present on the 17th and the 18th and did not give up any of them; that he was given an adjournment on 19-3-1953 for the examination witnesses who did not come on that date and that the examined three more on 20-3-1953 after the defendant had entered an appearance through counsel an( claimed the right to plead; also whether, when the appellant's only protest was against the bearings a Udaipur on dates fixed for the petitioner's evidence alone, it would be legitimate for a party acting with due caution and diligence to assume that the other side had abandoned his right to adduce his own evidence should the hearing for that be fixed at some other place or at some other date in the same place.
The Tribunal will also consider and determine whether it will be proper in the circumstances of this case to allow the appellant to adduce his own evidence.
....
|
9911796707
