|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 71 Records
-
1964 (10) TMI 115
Issues:
1. Quashing of orders passed by various tribunals regarding suspension of state carriage permit due to alleged overloading of a business.
2. Consideration of the legality of tribunals' decisions post-acquittal by the Criminal Court.
3. Comparison of decisions by different High Courts and the Supreme Court on the issue of re-evaluating charges post-acquittal.
Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought to quash the order suspending the state carriage permit of their business due to alleged overloading, initially by the Regional Transport Authority (R.T.A.) and subsequently confirmed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal and the Revenue Appellate Tribunal. The petitioner appealed the decision, leading to the filing of a writ petition challenging the legality of the orders passed by the tribunals (R.T.A., State Transport Appellate Tribunal, and Revenue Appellate Tribunal).
2. The crucial issue revolved around the legality of tribunals re-evaluating charges of overloading post-acquittal by the Criminal Court. The City Magistrate had acquitted the accused in a criminal case related to overloading, questioning the tribunals' authority to reach a contrary conclusion after the criminal court's decision. The High Court deliberated on whether it was fair for tribunals to challenge the findings of criminal courts and emphasized the importance of respecting the conclusions of criminal proceedings in quasi-judicial tribunals.
3. The High Court referenced judgments from different High Courts and the Supreme Court to support its decision. Notably, the Madras High Court's ruling in Jerome D'silva v. Regional Transport Authority highlighted the significance of treating criminal court findings as conclusive in proceedings before quasi-judicial tribunals. The Court also cited its own previous decisions, such as Ekambaram v. General Manager and Competent Authority, emphasizing the impropriety of re-evaluating charges post-acquittal by a criminal court. Additionally, the Court discussed the relevance of the Supreme Court's decisions in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Sree Ramarao and Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd. v. Kushal Bhan, clarifying that these judgments did not directly address the specific issue at hand.
In conclusion, the High Court allowed the petition, quashing the orders of the tribunals regarding the suspension of the state carriage permit. The Court emphasized the importance of respecting the findings of criminal courts and reiterated the principle that post-acquittal, re-evaluating charges by other tribunals should not be permissible unless on technical grounds.
-
1964 (10) TMI 114
Issues:
1. Delay in presenting a civil miscellaneous appeal.
2. Jurisdiction of the High Court in entertaining the appeal.
3. Excusing the delay in filing the appeal.
4. Application of the principle of "sufficient cause" in excusing the delay.
Analysis:
The civil revision petition involves the delay of 259 days in presenting a civil miscellaneous appeal against an order passed by the Sub-Court, Palghat, in E.P. 154 of 1959. The petitioner, a decree holder, initially filed the appeal in the High Court, Madras, under the impression that it was the proper court due to the amount involved. However, the office objected, stating that the appeal should have been filed in the District Court. Despite this, the High Court observed that there was a bona fide doubt in the petitioner's mind regarding the proper court for the appeal.
The learned District Judge dismissed the application to excuse the delay, alleging that the appeal to the High Court was mala fide and a ruse to circumvent the limitation period. The petitioner argued that the delay should have been excused, citing precedents where delays were excused due to mistaken advice or confusion regarding the proper forum for appeal. The petitioner relied on legal principles emphasizing reasonable diligence in prosecuting the appeal.
The petitioner also highlighted previous cases where appeals filed in the wrong court were returned for proper filing, and delays were excused based on the circumstances and equities involved. The petitioner contended that the delay should have been excused by the District Judge, especially considering the observation made by the High Court judge regarding the petitioner's bona fide doubt.
The High Court, in allowing the civil revision petition, emphasized the liberal construction of the term "sufficient cause" in excusing delays to advance substantial justice, particularly when there is no negligence or lack of bona fides on the appellant's part. The court considered the equities involved and the circumstances akin to those under Section 14, which constituted sufficient grounds for excusing the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Ultimately, the civil revision petition was allowed, with no costs imposed, highlighting the importance of considering the circumstances and equities involved in excusing delays in filing appeals to ensure substantial justice is served.
-
1964 (10) TMI 113
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Amending Act under Section 299 of the Government of India Act, 1935.
2. Infringement of Article 14 of the Constitution.
3. Applicability of Article 31-A of the Constitution.
4. Applicability of Article 31(5)(a) of the Constitution.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of the Amending Act under Section 299 of the Government of India Act, 1935:
The primary issue was whether the Amending Act complied with Section 299 of the Government of India Act, 1935. Section 299(2) stipulated that no law authorizing compulsory acquisition of land could be made unless it provided for the payment of compensation and specified the principles for determining such compensation. The Court noted that the Amending Act fixed the compensation based on the market value of the land as of January 1, 1948, irrespective of the actual date of acquisition. This was deemed arbitrary and not a "just equivalent" of what the owner was deprived of, as per the precedent set in *The State of West Bengal v. Mrs. Bela Banerjee*. The Court held that the Amending Act was void from its inception as it did not comply with the provisions of Section 299, rendering it a still-born law.
2. Infringement of Article 14 of the Constitution:
The High Court had initially held that the Act was hit by Article 14 but was saved by Article 31-A. The Supreme Court, however, did not find it necessary to express an opinion on this issue since the Amending Act was already deemed void under Section 299 of the Government of India Act, 1935.
3. Applicability of Article 31-A of the Constitution:
The Court examined whether Article 31-A, which protects certain laws from being challenged on the grounds of violating fundamental rights, could save the Amending Act. The Court concluded that Article 31-A could not revive a law that was void at its inception. The analogy between a fundamental right under Article 31(2) and the conditions laid down in Section 299 of the Government of India Act, 1935, was found irrelevant in the context of a pre-Constitution void law. Therefore, Article 31-A did not apply.
4. Applicability of Article 31(5)(a) of the Constitution:
The Court also considered whether Article 31(5)(a), which protects existing laws from being challenged under Article 31(2), could save the Amending Act. The Court held that for a law to be an "existing law," it must have been validly made by a competent legislature. Since the Amending Act was void from the beginning, it did not qualify as an "existing law" under Article 31(5)(a). Additionally, the Court noted that Article 31(6) provided specific conditions under which non-compliance with Section 299 could be excused, but the Amending Act did not meet these conditions.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court held that the Amending Act was void from its inception due to non-compliance with Section 299 of the Government of India Act, 1935. Consequently, the lands acquired should be valued in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The decree of the High Court was set aside, and the appeals were remanded to the District Court for disposal in accordance with the law. The respondents were ordered to pay the costs of the appellants in both the Supreme Court and the High Court.
-
1964 (10) TMI 112
Issues:
Challenge to dismissal order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India based on violation of departmental enquiry procedure under Rule 16.38 of Punjab Police Rules.
Analysis:
The petitioner, a former Head Constable, sought to quash his dismissal order through Article 226 jurisdiction, alleging procedural irregularities in the departmental enquiry process. The petitioner joined service in 1933 and was dismissed in 1960 for allegedly accepting a bribe during an arrest. The Superintendent of Police initiated proceedings against the petitioner based on a report, seeking the District Magistrate's sanction for a departmental enquiry under Rule 16.38 of Punjab Police Rules.
The petitioner argued that the Superintendent of Police's actions contravened Rule 16.38(1) by suggesting a departmental enquiry without the District Magistrate's decision. The rule mandates immediate reporting to the District Magistrate for determining the investigation's course by either a Police officer or a Magistrate. The petitioner contended that the Superintendent of Police overstepped by recommending a departmental enquiry, a decision reserved for the District Magistrate.
The court referenced previous judgments to support the petitioner's claim. In Nand Singh v. Superintendent of Police, it was held that the District Magistrate must provide reasons for initiating a departmental enquiry under Rule 16.38(2), emphasizing the District Magistrate's exclusive authority in such matters. Similarly, in Gobind Singh v. D.I.G. of Police, it was ruled that the Superintendent of Police's suggestion for departmental proceedings, followed by the District Magistrate's sanction without reasons, violated Rule 16.38(2) of Punjab Police Rules.
The court found that the departmental enquiry against the petitioner was initiated improperly, breaching Rule 16.38 in two significant aspects: the Superintendent of Police's unauthorized suggestion and the District Magistrate's acceptance without proper justification. Consequently, the court allowed the petition, setting aside the dismissal order and awarding costs to the petitioner due to procedural violations.
In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the importance of adhering to procedural rules in departmental enquiries, emphasizing the District Magistrate's pivotal role in deciding the course of action. The court's decision underscored the need for proper authorization and justification in initiating disciplinary proceedings against police officers to ensure procedural fairness and adherence to statutory rules.
-
1964 (10) TMI 111
Issues Involved:
1. Dismissal of earlier writ applications
2. Licensing restrictions for medicinal preparations
3. Authority and powers of the Board of Revenue
4. Compliance with the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act, 1955 and Rules
5. Validity of restrictions under Article 19 of the Constitution of India
6. Examination of statutory provisions and rules
7. Prevention of misuse of medicinal preparations
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Dismissal of Earlier Writ Applications:
The court noted that the current writ applications are the aftermath of the judgment in O.P. Nos. 891 and 1064 of 1963, which were dismissed as infructuous. The petitioners were permitted to move the court afresh regarding licenses for the year 1964-65. The petitioners have challenged these licenses in the present petitions.
2. Licensing Restrictions for Medicinal Preparations:
The petitioners, engaged in the production of medicinal preparations since 1959, alleged that their license applications for 1963-64 were partially granted and totally denied for certain items. The Board of Revenue issued licenses only to a limited extent based on orders Exts. P4 and P5. The court noted that the Board of Revenue has the powers of the Excise Commissioner.
3. Authority and Powers of the Board of Revenue:
The Board of Revenue imposed restrictions on the manufacture of spirituous medicinal preparations, citing allegations of misuse as substitutes for alcohol. The Board decided that only specific items recommended by the Director of Health Services would be allowed for manufacture or import. Ext. P4 initially allowed 15 items, later modified by Ext. P5 to allow 48 items classified into two groups, A and B. The court examined whether these restrictions were justified.
4. Compliance with the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act, 1955 and Rules:
The court examined Section 6 of the Act and Rule 84 of the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Rules, 1956. Section 6 provides that no person shall engage in the production of dutiable goods without a license, which shall be subject to restrictions and conditions. Rule 84 allows the licensing authority to grant licenses upon satisfaction of compliance with conditions. The court found no provision in the Act or Rules suggesting control over the articles to be produced or the quantum to be manufactured.
5. Validity of Restrictions under Article 19 of the Constitution of India:
The petitioners contended that any power to impose such restrictions would be violative of Article 19 of the Constitution. The court, however, focused on whether the Act and Rules provided such power, without addressing the constitutional validity of the provisions.
6. Examination of Statutory Provisions and Rules:
The court referred to the form of license (Form A L-1) and noted that it specifies the list of preparations authorized to be manufactured. The court found that the statute provides for regulation to ensure the collection of duty but does not confer power to control the quantum or number of articles manufactured. The court also referred to Section 19(2)(ii) and (iv) of the Act, which relate to the place of manufacture and regulation for duty collection, supporting the view that the Act does not provide for the restrictions imposed by the Board of Revenue.
7. Prevention of Misuse of Medicinal Preparations:
The court acknowledged that the restrictions were imposed to prevent misuse of medicinal preparations, which could undermine prohibition efforts. However, the court emphasized that misuse should be prevented by enforcing the Act and Rules, not by restricting the number and quantity of preparations manufactured. The court cited a Bombay High Court decision, approved by the Supreme Court, which held that legitimate use of medicinal and toilet preparations should not be prevented.
Conclusion:
The court declared that the limitations introduced by Exts. P4 and P5 were without the authority of law. The applications for licenses must be dealt with in accordance with the statute, unhampered by the restrictions in Exts. P4 and P5. The petitioners were allowed to renew their applications, and the writ applications were allowed without any order as to costs.
-
1964 (10) TMI 110
Issues:
Validity of a gift in favor of a Hindu deity under the Transfer of Property Act.
Detailed Analysis:
The judgment delivered by the Allahabad High Court pertains to a reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The case involves an assessee, a registered firm with six partners, one of whom, Nanhi Devi, made gifts to various persons, including a deity, Sri Parmanand Behariji Maharaj. The firm claimed a deduction of interest paid on the sums credited to the donees, which was disallowed by the Income-tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Tribunal allowed the claim for interest credited to the donees but rejected it for the deity. The Tribunal held that acceptance of the gift on behalf of the deity was necessary, which was not evidenced, thus concluding that Nanhi Devi had not relinquished ownership of the funds credited to the deity's account. The Tribunal also considered the applicability of section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act to Hindu religious endowments.
The main issue in question was whether there was a valid gift in favor of the deity by Nanhi Devi. The court analyzed the definition of "gift" under the Transfer of Property Act, emphasizing the requirement of a transfer of property from a living person to one or more living persons. The court deliberated on the concept of a deity as a "living person" within the legal framework, concluding that a deity does not fall under this definition, making the application of section 122 to gifts to deities untenable. The court further discussed the necessity of acceptance by the donee for a valid gift, highlighting that dedication to a Hindu deity does not require acceptance in the same manner as conventional gifts.
The court also addressed the misconception by the Tribunal regarding the applicability of section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act to Hindu religious endowments. It clarified that the element of acceptance is relevant only for transactions akin to gifts under section 122, not for religious endowments. The court emphasized that the creation of an endowment for a deity does not require a formal trust or specific ceremonies, but rather the clear designation of property, purpose of dedication, and divestment of beneficial interest by the founder.
In conclusion, the court held that while there was no valid "gift" as defined in section 122 to the deity, there was an endowment by Nanhi Devi in favor of the idol. The court directed the judgment copy to be sent to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and awarded costs to the assessee. The judgment provides a comprehensive analysis of the legal principles surrounding gifts and endowments to Hindu deities under the Transfer of Property Act, clarifying the requirements and implications of such transactions.
-
1964 (10) TMI 109
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the interest amounts of Rs. 17,281/- and Rs. 12,685/- are allowable deductions under clauses (iii) or (xv) of Section 10(2) of the Income Tax Act.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: Deductibility of Interest Amounts under Clause (xv) of Section 10(2)
The first question addressed was whether the interest amounts payable under the deed of lease and the consent decree, due to the assessee company's failure to pay the purchase price on time, could be considered as expenditure laid out wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business. The assessee company argued that the interest payments were necessary for the business of printing and publishing, and therefore should be deductible under clause (xv).
The court, however, referred to the precedent set in Metro Theatre Bombay Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, where it was held that interest payable on unpaid instalments for the purchase of a capital asset is not an expenditure wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business. The court emphasized that the business of the assessee was printing and publishing, not owning property. The interest payments were seen as part of the purchase price for the land, thus constituting capital expenditure rather than revenue expenditure.
The court also distinguished this case from State of Madras v. G.J. Coelho, where interest on borrowings for purchasing a plantation was considered revenue expenditure because it was closely connected to the business of running the plantation. In the present case, the court noted that the land was not essential for the business of printing and publishing, as evidenced by the fact that the assessee had already built a press on the leased land and had sub-leased a portion of it.
Issue 2: Deductibility of Interest Amounts under Clause (iii) of Section 10(2)
The court also examined whether the interest amounts could be deductible under clause (iii), which pertains to interest on capital borrowed for the purposes of the business. The assessee contended that the consent decree created a debtor-creditor relationship, making the interest payments deductible as interest on borrowed capital.
The court rejected this argument, stating that the relationship of judgment-creditor and judgment-debtor arose from the decree for specific performance, not from a loan transaction. The decree mandated the assessee to pay the purchase price as a result of the breach of the lease agreement, not as a result of borrowing money. Therefore, the interest payments were part of the purchase price and not interest on borrowed capital.
Conclusion:
The court concluded that neither of the two sums, Rs. 17,281/- and Rs. 12,685/-, could be claimed as deductions under clause (iii) or clause (xv) of Section 10(2). The answers to the questions referred to the court were both in the negative, and the assessee was ordered to pay the costs of the reference to the Commissioner.
Reference Answered:
1. Question No. 1 - in the negative.
2. Question No. 2 - in the negative.
-
1964 (10) TMI 108
Issues Involved:
1. Adjustment of the value of depreciable assets in the balance-sheet.
2. Deduction of accrued liability for gratuity in computing net wealth.
Analysis:
Issue 1: Adjustment of the Value of Depreciable Assets in the Balance-sheet
The primary question was whether, in ascertaining the net value of the depreciable assets of the assessee-company, adjustments could be made in accordance with section 7(2) of the Wealth-tax Act by substituting the written down value computed under the Indian Income-tax Act for the value of the block assets as shown in the balance-sheet.
The court referenced the decision in Commissioner of Wealth-tax v. Raipur Manufacturing Co. Ltd. [1964] 52 ITR 482, which held that the Wealth-tax Officer has the power to make adjustments in the valuation given in the balance-sheet if the circumstances of the case require it. However, in the present case, there was no evidence to show that the value of the fixed assets as shown in the balance-sheet was not the true value or that circumstances existed which required any adjustment. Therefore, the value of the depreciable assets as shown in the balance-sheet was not liable to be adjusted with reference to the written down value as per the income-tax records.
The court noted that the contention raised by Mr. Kaji regarding a note in the balance-sheet about depreciation to the extent of Rs. 1,91,805 was not permissible as it was not covered by the question referred to the court and was not raised before the revenue authorities or the Tribunal. The court concluded that the value of the fixed assets as shown in the balance-sheet should be taken as Rs. 23,21,726 without any adjustment.
Conclusion: The court answered the first question in the negative, stating that the value of the depreciable assets as shown in the balance-sheet was not liable to be adjusted with reference to the written down value as per the income-tax records.
Issue 2: Deduction of Accrued Liability for Gratuity in Computing Net Wealth
The second question concerned whether the sum of Rs. 77,820, being the accrued liability to gratuity estimated by the assessee in terms of two agreements, is a proper deduction in ascertaining the net wealth for the assessment year 1957-58.
The court observed that the amount claimed by the assessee by way of deduction in respect of gratuity payable to the clerks and technicians under these two agreements could not be said to be a debt owing by the assessee on the valuation date since the gratuity was not payable on the valuation date but was contingent upon certain conditions. However, the court referenced its judgment in Commissioner of Wealth-tax v. Ajit Mills Ltd. [1965] 55 ITR 556, which held that even a contingent liability can be taken into account while computing the net wealth of the assessee under section 7(2)(a). The estimated value of the contingent liability would be a permissible deduction.
The Tribunal had incorrectly assumed that an accrued liability existed on the valuation date under the two agreements and directed the assessment to be modified accordingly. The court clarified that the correct principle was to deduct the estimated value of the contingent liability under the two agreements as on the valuation date. The court reframed the question to reflect this principle accurately.
Conclusion: The court reframed the second question as: "Whether the liability in respect of gratuity under the two agreements dated 22nd June, 1949, and the 2nd July, 1952, is an allowable deduction in computing the net wealth of the assessee under section 7(2)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act?" The court answered this in accordance with its judgment, allowing the estimated value of the contingent liability as a deduction.
Final Judgment:
The court concluded that the value of the depreciable assets as shown in the balance-sheet should not be adjusted with reference to the written down value as per the income-tax records. Additionally, the estimated value of the contingent liability for gratuity under the two agreements is an allowable deduction in computing the net wealth of the assessee. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs of the reference.
-
1964 (10) TMI 107
Issues Involved:
1. Inclusion of personal expenditure incurred by the karta from his separate property in the taxable expenditure of the Hindu undivided family (HUF).
2. Inclusion of expenditure incurred by the dependents from trust income and their personal property in the taxable expenditure of the HUF.
3. Applicability of section 4 of the Expenditure-tax Act, 1957, as amended by the Finance Act, 1958.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Inclusion of Personal Expenditure Incurred by the Karta from His Separate Property:
The primary issue was whether the personal expenditure of Rs. 28,683 and Rs. 19,285 incurred by the karta, Surendra, from his separate and self-acquired property for the assessment years 1958-59 and 1959-60 respectively, could be included in the taxable expenditure of the HUF. The court noted that under Hindu law, a member of an HUF can hold self-acquired and separate properties. The Expenditure-tax Act recognizes two assessable entities: an individual and an HUF. The court emphasized that the karta is not considered a "dependant" under section 2(g)(ii) of the Act. The definition of "dependant" explicitly excludes the karta. Therefore, the personal expenditure incurred by the karta from his separate property cannot be included in the taxable expenditure of the HUF.
2. Inclusion of Expenditure Incurred by the Dependents from Trust Income and Their Personal Property:
The second issue was whether the expenditure of Rs. 10,321 and Rs. 7,951 incurred by the dependents (children) from the income of trust properties and their personal property for the assessment years 1958-59 and 1959-60 respectively, could be included in the taxable expenditure of the HUF. The court held that clause (i) of section 4 deals with expenditure incurred by a person other than the assessee for the benefit of the assessee or any of his dependants. Since the expenditure was incurred by the dependents for their personal requirements, it does not fall under clause (i). Clause (ii) of section 4 requires that the expenditure must be out of any gift, donation, or settlement on trust made by the assessee. The court found that the trust properties were not transferred directly or indirectly to the dependents by the HUF. Therefore, the expenditure incurred by the dependents from the trust income and their personal property cannot be included in the taxable expenditure of the HUF.
3. Applicability of Section 4 of the Expenditure-tax Act, 1957, as Amended by the Finance Act, 1958:
The court examined the applicability of the amended section 4 for the assessment year 1959-60. The amendment dropped the words "which, but for the expenditure having been incurred by that other person, would have been incurred by the assessee." The court reiterated that the expenditure incurred by the karta from his separate property and by the dependents from trust income does not fulfill the conditions of section 4, either in its original or amended form. The expenditure must be for the benefit of the assessee or any of his dependants, and the karta is not a dependant. Therefore, the amended section 4 does not change the conclusion that such expenditures cannot be included in the taxable expenditure of the HUF.
Conclusion:
The court concluded that none of the four items of expenditure could be included in the taxable expenditure of the HUF for either of the two assessment years. The answers to the questions posed were in the negative, and the Commissioner was directed to pay the costs of the reference to the assessee.
-
1964 (10) TMI 106
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the transaction dated 19-9-1956 amounts to a sale within the purview of the second proviso to section 10(2)(vii) of the Indian Income Tax Act.
2. Whether the consideration for the sale is not the market value of the shares as on the date of the transaction but the face value of the shares.
Issue 1: Whether the transaction dated 19-9-1956 amounts to a sale within the purview of the second proviso to section 10(2)(vii) of the Indian Income Tax Act.
The assessment in question pertains to the year 1956-57, relating to the accounting period of 1955-56. The assessee, a private limited company operating a cinema house, resolved to sell its entire concern, including all equipment, machinery, fittings, spares, accessories, buildings, cash deposits, and goodwill, to the Zamindar and Zamindarini of Chikkavaram for a consideration of Rs. 1,20,000/-. This amount was to be received in the form of 5% tax-free cumulative preference shares of M/s. Sri Rama Sugars and Industries Ltd., Bobbili, held by the Zamindarini. This transaction was executed through a deed of exchange dated 21-2-1956.
The Income Tax Officer assessed the total value of the transferred assets at Rs. 76,432/- and computed the profits under section 10(2)(vii) of the Act at Rs. 43,568/-, adding this to the income of the assessee. The assessee contended that the transaction was not a sale but an exchange, and hence, fell outside the purview of section 10(2)(vii). The Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal rejected this contention, treating the transaction as a sale.
The court emphasized that the nature of an instrument should be determined by its contents and not by its description. The facts disclosed that the cinema and other properties were not sold for a money price but were exchanged for shares. The court referred to section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, which defines "sale" as a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised, with "price" interpreted to mean money. The court also referred to section 118 of the Transfer of Property Act, which defines "exchange" as the mutual transfer of ownership of one thing for another, excluding money.
The court concluded that the transaction was not a sale but an exchange, as the consideration for the transfer was not money but shares. Consequently, the transaction did not fall within the purview of section 10(2)(vii) of the Income Tax Act.
Issue 2: Whether the consideration for the sale is not the market value of the shares as on the date of the transaction but the face value of the shares.
Although the court's conclusion on the first issue rendered the second issue moot, it addressed the arguments presented. The assessee argued that the Income Tax Officer should have considered the market value of the shares rather than their face value when computing the profits. The court noted that the market value is the appropriate criterion for determining the assessable value of shares, not the face value. The court cited various cases where the market value of shares was used for tax assessment purposes.
The court concluded that the Income Tax Officer should have taken the market value of the shares into consideration in computing the profits.
Conclusion:
The court answered the first question in the negative, concluding that the transaction was not a sale but an exchange. The second question was answered in the affirmative, stating that the market value of the shares should be considered for tax computation. The reference was answered accordingly, with costs awarded and an advocate's fee of Rs. 200/-.
-
1964 (10) TMI 105
Issues Involved:
1. Corrupt practices under Section 123(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
2. Validity of the second respondent's nomination paper based on age.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Corrupt Practices under Section 123(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951:
The primary issue was whether the appellant's use of the "Dhruva star" symbol in election pamphlets constituted a corrupt practice under Section 123(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. This section prohibits appeals to vote or refrain from voting based on religion, race, caste, community, or language, and the use of religious symbols for electoral gains.
The Tribunal initially rejected the allegations of corrupt practices, including the distribution of leaflets with the "Dhruva star," and found no evidence of bribery or undue influence. However, the High Court reversed this decision, concluding that the appellant's use of the "Dhruva star" symbol, described with religious qualities, amounted to an appeal to religious sentiments, thus constituting a corrupt practice.
The Supreme Court examined whether the "Dhruva star" could be considered a religious symbol. It noted that the star was an election symbol allotted by the Election Commission to the Swatantra Party and that its description in pamphlets included attributes like "eternal," "firm," "guide," "determined," and "one devoted to religion." The Court found that these qualities, while noble, did not have religious significance unique to Hinduism and were not likely to arouse religious sentiments among voters.
The Court emphasized that the mythological figure Dhruva, associated with the star, was not considered a deity in Hindu religion and that his qualities were not exclusive to Hinduism. It concluded that the High Court erred in interpreting the use of the "Dhruva star" as an appeal to religious sentiments.
2. Validity of the Second Respondent's Nomination Paper Based on Age:
The second issue concerned whether the second respondent's nomination paper was improperly accepted due to his age. The Tribunal initially held that the second respondent had not attained the age of 25 at the date of scrutiny, affecting the election result. However, the High Court reversed this finding, concluding that the second respondent had completed 25 years of age before the date of scrutiny and was duly qualified to contest the election.
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's finding on the second respondent's age, noting that the evidence, including school certificates, supported the conclusion that he was of eligible age. The Court found no grounds to challenge this finding.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the decisions of the High Court and the Election Tribunal, and dismissed the election petition. The Court concluded that the use of the "Dhruva star" did not constitute a corrupt practice under Section 123(3) of the Act and upheld the validity of the second respondent's nomination paper based on age. The appellant's election was thus upheld.
-
1964 (10) TMI 104
Issues involved:
1. Statutory force of the Rules.
2. Authority of the Director to interfere with the Governing Body's decisions.
3. Right of the respondent to challenge the Rules.
4. Jurisdiction of the High Court to issue writs against the State and the Governing Body of the College.
Issue-wise detailed analysis:
1. Statutory force of the Rules:
The High Court initially considered whether the Rules regarding the Conduct and Discipline of Employees of Aided Educational Institutions had statutory force. It concluded that the Rules could not be said to be issued under the proviso to s. 21(g) of the Gauhati University Act and therefore did not have statutory force. The Supreme Court affirmed this finding, noting that the Rules were mere executive instructions and not statutory rules. The Rules were framed in consultation with the University and the Assam College Teachers' Association and were accepted by the Governing Body of the College. However, they were not issued under any statutory provision and thus lacked statutory force.
2. Authority of the Director to interfere with the Governing Body's decisions:
The respondent argued that the Director had no authority to interfere with the Governing Body's resolution allowing him to rejoin his duties. The High Court found that the Director's letter of March 20, 1962, which disapproved the Governing Body's resolution, was based on Rules that had no statutory force. Therefore, the Director had no authority to enforce these Rules. The Supreme Court agreed, stating that the Director's instructions were mere administrative guidelines and did not have the force of law to bind the Governing Body's decisions.
3. Right of the respondent to challenge the Rules:
The respondent contended that the Rules did not affect the powers of the Governing Body and that he was entitled to leave under the Rules framed by the Gauhati University. The Supreme Court held that since the Rules were mere executive instructions, they conferred no rights on the teachers of private colleges. The teachers, including the respondent, could not challenge the Rules or seek their enforcement or non-enforcement through a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court emphasized that such administrative instructions were matters between the private colleges and the government concerning grant-in-aid and did not create enforceable rights for the teachers.
4. Jurisdiction of the High Court to issue writs against the State and the Governing Body of the College:
The High Court issued a writ of mandamus to the State through the Director, directing it not to give effect to the letter of March 20, 1962. The Supreme Court found this to be erroneous, as the Rules were mere executive instructions without statutory force. The Court stated that the High Court should not have interfered with the administrative instructions issued by the Director. Regarding the writ against the Governing Body of the College, the Supreme Court noted that there was no appeal by the College against the High Court's order. Therefore, it did not interfere with the High Court's order in this respect but clarified that it did not approve of such orders in similar circumstances.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order granting a writ against the State through the Director. The Court emphasized that the Rules in question were mere administrative instructions and did not have statutory force, thereby conferring no enforceable rights on the teachers. The appeal was allowed, and no order as to costs was passed.
-
1964 (10) TMI 103
Issues Involved: Competence of revision petition, legality of possession under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, authority of the Board of Directors under the Companies Act, and interpretation of 'consent' within the meaning of Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Competence of Revision Petition:
The non-applicants raised a preliminary objection regarding the competence of the revision petition, arguing that the applicant had an alternative remedy of a suit. The court noted that interference in revision under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act is justified only in exceptional circumstances, such as misapprehension of the scope of Section 9 or where the balance of convenience is not in favor of driving the plaintiff to a regular suit. The court found no exceptional circumstances in this case and upheld the preliminary objection, stating that no interference in revision was possible. However, the court decided to examine the merits of the case as well.
2. Legality of Possession under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act:
The applicant argued that the possession of the property by the defendants was without its consent and not in due course of law. The trial court found that the possession was given by the General Manager, Shri A. V. Pandit, under the directions and powers given by the Board of Directors, and thus could be deemed to have been with the consent of the applicant. The trial court dismissed the suit, concluding that the mere illegality of the transaction or defective title did not entitle the applicant to relief under Section 9.
3. Authority of the Board of Directors under the Companies Act:
The applicant contended that as a public limited company, it could act only as prescribed by the Companies Act, 1956, and that the Board of Directors' powers were restricted under Sections 291, 292, and 293. The applicant argued that valid consent for transferring possession could only be given by the general body of shareholders through a special resolution under Section 189. The court examined whether the possession taken by the defendants was with the consent of the company for the purposes of Section 9 when the transaction was invalid due to the lack of consent from the general meeting as required by Section 293.
4. Interpretation of 'Consent' within the Meaning of Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act:
The court emphasized that Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act is concerned with whether the plaintiff was dispossessed without consent, not the legality of the transaction. The court referred to the general principles of corporate consent, noting that a company's consent can be represented by the 'directing mind and will' of the company, such as the Board of Directors or General Manager. The court found that the Board of Directors and the General Manager, who were entrusted with the company's affairs, represented the company's consent. Thus, possession taken with their consent, even under an invalid transaction, was deemed to be with the company's consent for the purposes of Section 9.
Conclusion:
The court concluded that the applicant was not dispossessed without its consent for the purposes of Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, as the possession was taken with the consent of the company's directing mind and will. The revision petition was dismissed with costs, and the court did not express a concluded opinion on the interpretation of 'otherwise dispose of' under Section 293 of the Companies Act.
-
1964 (10) TMI 102
Issues:
1. Whether the process of making fermented toddy by a licensed abkari contractor involves a manufacturing process.
2. Whether the application before the Payment of Wages Authority was time-barred.
3. Whether an agreement binding on the petitioner existed.
4. Whether the Payment of Wages Authority had jurisdiction to decide the existence of the contract.
Analysis:
1. The judgment addresses the contention that the making of fermented toddy by a licensed abkari contractor constitutes a manufacturing process. The judge interprets the term "manufacture" broadly to include any changes or adaptations in an article. It is established that the conversion of sweet toddy into fermented toddy for sale involves adaptation, thus constituting a manufacturing process. The judge cites a precedent where a similar process was considered manufacturing even without the use of machinery. The definition of "toddy" under the Abkari Regulation is also discussed to support the argument.
2. The judgment examines whether the application before the Payment of Wages Authority was time-barred. The claim was based on an agreement specifying payment deadlines. It is determined that the amounts became due on a specific date mentioned in the agreement, and the application was filed within the stipulated time frame, thus not barred by limitation. Reference is made to the proviso under Section 15(2) regarding the timeline for presenting such applications.
3. The issue of the existence of a binding agreement on the petitioner is addressed in the judgment. It is acknowledged that an agreement (Ext. P. 1) exists, signed by representatives of Abkari contractors and workers' unions. The petitioner's membership in the association is contested, but the Payment of Wages Authority found that the petitioner had agreed to the payments outlined in the agreement. The judge upholds this finding as a question of fact, indicating that the petitioner was bound by the terms of the agreement.
4. The judgment delves into whether the Payment of Wages Authority had jurisdiction to decide the contract's existence, which formed the basis of the claim. A comparison of rulings from different courts is presented, highlighting the authority's ability to determine all incidental questions related to the main issue. The judge declines to entertain a detailed discussion on this point as it was not raised before the relevant authorities, ultimately dismissing the contention and upholding the decisions made by the Payment of Wages Authority.
-
1964 (10) TMI 101
Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility of Respondent No. 1 to be a candidate for election from a constituency reserved for Scheduled Castes.
2. Allegations of corrupt practices by Respondent No. 1.
3. Evidence of conversion to Buddhism by Respondent No. 1.
4. Legal interpretation of "professing a religion" under the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Eligibility of Respondent No. 1 to be a candidate for election from a constituency reserved for Scheduled Castes:
The primary issue was whether Respondent No. 1, having embraced Buddhism, was still eligible to contest from a constituency reserved for Scheduled Castes. The Tribunal concluded that Respondent No. 1 had embraced Buddhism and thus was ineligible, setting aside his election. However, the High Court reversed this finding, holding that the conversion was not established by evidence. The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the evidence and circumstances, disagreed with the High Court and reinstated the Tribunal's decision, confirming that Respondent No. 1 had indeed ceased to be a Hindu and was therefore ineligible.
2. Allegations of corrupt practices by Respondent No. 1:
The appellant alleged that Respondent No. 1 was guilty of several corrupt practices. The Tribunal found that these allegations were not substantiated, and this finding was not contested further in the High Court or Supreme Court. Therefore, the issue of corrupt practices did not influence the final judgment.
3. Evidence of conversion to Buddhism by Respondent No. 1:
The appellant provided evidence from multiple witnesses (P.W. 9 Ramrattan Janorkar, P.W. 2 Akant Mate, P.W. 5 Devaji Bhagat, and P.W. 10 Wasudeo Dongre) who testified about the mass conversion event and Respondent No. 1's participation. The Tribunal found this evidence credible, while the High Court dismissed it, citing potential bias due to political affiliations. The Supreme Court, however, found the evidence consistent and credible, noting Respondent No. 1's involvement in subsequent Buddhist activities, such as signing a declaration of conversion, issuing wedding invitations with Buddhist symbols, and converting a Shiva temple into a Buddha temple. These actions corroborated the witnesses' testimonies, leading the Supreme Court to conclude that Respondent No. 1 had indeed embraced Buddhism.
4. Legal interpretation of "professing a religion" under the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950:
The Supreme Court analyzed the term "profess" as used in the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950, and concluded that it implies an open declaration or practice of a religion. The Court held that a public declaration of conversion to another religion, such as Buddhism, would suffice to show that an individual no longer professes the Hindu religion. The Court rejected the argument that the term "Hindu" in the Order should include Buddhists, noting that the specific mention of Sikhs in the Order implies a narrower interpretation of "Hindu" as referring to orthodox Hinduism.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that Respondent No. 1 had ceased to be a Hindu by embracing Buddhism and was therefore ineligible to contest from a constituency reserved for Scheduled Castes. The appeal was allowed, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the Tribunal's decision was restored. Respondent No. 1 was ordered to bear the costs throughout.
-
1964 (10) TMI 100
Issues Involved:
1. Plaintiff's title to the boarding house business.
2. Legality of the arrangement to circumvent service rules.
3. Alleged evasion of income tax.
4. Impact of alleged illegality on the plaintiff's claim.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Plaintiff's Title to the Boarding House Business:
The plaintiff instituted an action for a declaration that he "is the sole proprietor of and absolutely entitled to a boarding house business carried on in the name and style of International Home at 42, Harrison Road, Calcutta." The Trial Judge held that the plaintiff had started the business with his own funds and that the defendant, Gupta, was held out as an ostensible owner of the business. The appellate Court agreed with the view of the Trial Court. The Trial Judge relied on several circumstances, including the plaintiff's prior ownership of another boarding house business, the financial incapacity of Gupta, and the plaintiff's management of the business until 1948. The High Court confirmed these findings, establishing the plaintiff's title to the business.
2. Legality of the Arrangement to Circumvent Service Rules:
The plaintiff admitted that he was not permitted to start or carry on any trade or business of his own due to service rules governing his employment with the Court of Wards. To circumvent these rules, the business was held in Gupta's name. The High Court noted that the service rules were not shown to be statutory and thus, the arrangement was not necessarily tainted with immorality or illegality. The appellate Court agreed that the plaintiff was not seeking to enforce an illegal arrangement, as the service rules were not tendered in evidence and did not prohibit an employee from carrying on a business as a manager or agent of another.
3. Alleged Evasion of Income Tax:
The appellant argued that the arrangement was also intended to evade income tax. The plaintiff admitted in his evidence that he had submitted returns of income earned in the business in Gupta's name to evade tax liability. The High Court found that the primary object of the arrangement was to circumvent the service rules, not to evade income tax. The High Court also noted that there was no pleading or issue raised about tax evasion in the Trial Court. The Supreme Court agreed, stating that the plaintiff might have incurred penalties for failing to disclose the true state of affairs, but the initial object of the arrangement was not to evade tax.
4. Impact of Alleged Illegality on the Plaintiff's Claim:
The appellant contended that the plaintiff's suit must fail due to the unlawful agreement with Gupta to circumvent service rules and evade income tax. However, the Supreme Court held that the plaintiff was seeking to enforce his title to the property, not to effectuate an unlawful transaction. The Court noted that the plaintiff's cause of action was based on his title to the business and the entrustment of the business to Gupta, who wrongfully refused to return it. The Court distinguished between cases where the plaintiff relies on an illegal transaction to support his claim and cases where the plaintiff seeks to enforce his title to property, even if initially rooted in an illegal transaction. The Court concluded that the plaintiff was entitled to the assistance of the Court to enforce his title, as the arrangement was not shown to be in fraud of public administration.
Separate Judgment:
N. Rajagopala Ayyangar, J., agreed with the order to dismiss the appeal but provided additional reasoning. He noted that the main point in controversy was whether the plaintiff had established his title to the boarding house. He agreed that the purpose of the benami transaction was to circumvent the service rules, but since these rules were not statutory, the transaction was not unlawful. He also addressed the issue of income tax evasion, stating that the object of the benami transaction was to evade tax, which was unlawful. However, he concluded that the plaintiff's claim to possession was based on his title and the subsequent entrustment of the business to Gupta, which was independent of the illegal transaction. Therefore, the plaintiff was entitled to recover possession based on his title and the entrustment, not on the illegal transaction.
Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed, and the plaintiff was entitled to recover possession of the boarding house business. The Court made no order as to costs.
-
1964 (10) TMI 99
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the initial publication of proposed schemes under Section 68C of the Motor Vehicles Act.
2. Empowerment of the Chief Executive Officer to carry out schemes piecemeal.
3. Allegation of personal bias of the Minister in charge of Transport.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of the Initial Publication of Proposed Schemes under Section 68C:
The respondents challenged the validity of the initial publication of the proposed schemes under Section 68C of the Motor Vehicles Act, arguing that the publication failed to specify the dates on which the respective schemes would be put into force. They contended that this failure deprived them of an adequate opportunity to file their objections. The High Court rejected this contention, and the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, noting that the serial numbers assigned in the proposed schemes published under Section 68C are intended for convenience and do not mandate the order in which the schemes should be implemented.
2. Empowerment of the Chief Executive Officer to Carry Out Schemes Piecemeal:
The respondents contended that the impugned order empowered the Chief Executive Officer to carry out the schemes piecemeal, rendering the order invalid. This contention was also rejected by the High Court, and the Supreme Court did not find any reason to differ from this conclusion. The Court held that the relevant provisions of the Act, starting with Section 68C and ending with Section 68F, do not require the schemes to be implemented in the serial order in which they were published.
3. Allegation of Personal Bias of the Minister in Charge of Transport:
In one of the writ petitions, a further contention was raised regarding the validity of the impugned order, alleging that the Minister in charge of Transport had a personal bias against one of the petitioners, Ramakotaiah. The High Court found that the Minister was actuated by bias when he approved the schemes, which disqualified him from hearing the objections against the proposed schemes. The Supreme Court examined this plea and the affidavits filed in support and against it.
The Court noted that the law requires that a person acting in a quasi-judicial capacity must act objectively, fairly, and impartially. The Court held that if the Minister had indeed asked Ramakotaiah to help him in his election and, upon failing to receive such help, threatened him with consequences, this would introduce a serious infirmity in the impugned order. The Court found that the High Court had rightly concluded that the Minister's affidavits were evasive and unsatisfactory, while the affidavits supporting Ramakotaiah's version were credible.
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's finding that the Minister's bias had been established, rendering the impugned order invalid. The Court emphasized the importance of the principles of natural justice, stating that the presence of bias disqualified the Minister from dealing with the objections against the proposed schemes.
Conclusion:
The appeals were dismissed with costs, affirming the High Court's decision that the Minister's bias invalidated the impugned order approving the nationalization schemes. The Court emphasized the necessity for fairness and impartiality in quasi-judicial proceedings.
-
1964 (10) TMI 98
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer, Surendranagar.
2. Assessability of profit embedded in sale proceeds received from British Indian buyers.
3. Validity of proceedings under section 34(1)(a).
Detailed Analysis:
1. Jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer, Surendranagar:
The first issue concerns whether the objection raised by the assessee to the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer, Surendranagar, was valid. The court held that the objection was essentially about the place of assessment, which falls under sub-section (3) of section 64. Since the objection was raised beyond the prescribed time-limit, it could not be entertained. The court stated, "The objection raised in the present case, though styled as an objection to the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer, Surendranagar, was, therefore, in reality and substance an objection as to the place of assessment and being covered by sub-section (3) of section 64, it could not be raised beyond the time-limit prescribed by that sub-section." Therefore, the Tribunal was correct in not entertaining the objection.
2. Assessability of Profit Embedded in Sale Proceeds:
The second issue pertains to the assessability of profit embedded in the sale proceeds of Rs. 33,94,900 received from British Indian buyers. The court analyzed two categories of sales separately:
Category 1: Sales with Instructions for Payment by Demand Draft on Rajkot (Rs. 5,30,460):
The court found that these sales fell within the ratio of the Supreme Court decision in Shri Jagdish Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax. The instructions to pay by demand draft on Rajkot implied that the post office acted as the agent of the assessee, and hence, the sale proceeds were received in British India. "We are, therefore, of the opinion that so far as the sale proceeds to the extent of Rs. 5,30,460 are concerned, they were received by the assessee in British India where the demand drafts were posted by British Indian buyers."
Category 2: Sales with No Specific Instructions (Remaining Rs. 28,64,440):
For these sales, the court found no express or implied request from the assessee to send the sale proceeds by cheques through post. The court stated, "The mere posting of cheques by British Indian buyers from British India is in our opinion not sufficient to justify an inference that there was an implied request by the assessee to British Indian buyers to send the sale proceeds by means of cheques through post." Therefore, the profit embedded in these sale proceeds could not be regarded as received in British India.
3. Validity of Proceedings under Section 34(1)(a):
The court did not address this issue as the assessee's counsel stated that they were not pressing questions Nos. 8 and 9. Thus, it was not necessary for the court to go into those questions.
Conclusion:
The court concluded that the objection to the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer, Surendranagar, was not valid as it was essentially an objection to the place of assessment and was raised beyond the prescribed time-limit. Regarding the assessability of profit, the court held that the sale proceeds of Rs. 5,30,460 were received in British India and hence taxable, but the remaining sale proceeds were not received in British India and thus not taxable. The court did not address the validity of proceedings under section 34(1)(a) as it was not pressed by the assessee.
-
1964 (10) TMI 97
Issues Involved:
1. Appointment of a receiver.
2. Plaintiff's interest in the partnership and leasehold property.
3. Allegations of waste, negligence, and mismanagement.
4. Validity of the deed of release.
5. Applicability of Section 14 of the Indian Partnership Act.
6. Interpretation of Rule 37 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960.
7. Effect of Section 19 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Appointment of a Receiver:
The primary issue is whether the plaintiff has made out a strong prima facie case for the appointment of a receiver. The court noted that a receiver is generally appointed when a partnership is dissolved under court orders or when a party seeks relief as an ex-partner. The plaintiff must demonstrate a special equity in his favor and a fair chance of success in the suit. The court emphasized that the appointment of a receiver is an equitable relief, granted on equitable grounds.
2. Plaintiff's Interest in the Partnership and Leasehold Property:
The court examined whether the plaintiff's interest in the partnership assets and the leasehold property continued after the execution of the deed of release. Both parties agreed that if the plaintiff's interest in the partnership assets continued, a receiver should be appointed. The court found that the trial court's refusal to appoint a receiver was based on a misconception about the nature of the suit property, assuming it was partnership property without evidence. The court clarified that the leasehold was acquired by the plaintiff and defendant as co-lessees and not for the partnership, thus the plaintiff retained his interest in the leasehold.
3. Allegations of Waste, Negligence, and Mismanagement:
Both parties agreed that the allegations of waste, negligence, and mismanagement need not be decided at this stage. The focus was solely on whether the plaintiff had a subsisting interest in the leasehold property.
4. Validity of the Deed of Release:
The plaintiff contended that the deed of release, executed under fraudulent representation, did not affect his interest in the partnership or leasehold property. The court noted that both parties agreed the deed of release did not transfer the plaintiff's leasehold interest. The court held that the plaintiff's interest in the leasehold property remained intact, making a strong prima facie case for appointing a receiver.
5. Applicability of Section 14 of the Indian Partnership Act:
Section 14 describes what constitutes partnership property. The court found that the leasehold was not brought into the partnership stock, as there was no evidence of such contribution. The leasehold remained the personal property of the plaintiff and defendant after the termination of the 1951 partnership.
6. Interpretation of Rule 37 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960:
Rule 37 prohibits the transfer of a mining lease or any interest therein without the previous consent of the State Government. The court held that any transfer of the leasehold to the partnership or the defendant without such consent would be void under Section 19 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957.
7. Effect of Section 19 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957:
Section 19 states that any mining lease granted, renewed, or acquired in contravention of the Act or rules is void and of no effect. The court interpreted this provision strictly, holding that any transfer of the leasehold without the required consent would be null and void. The court rejected the argument that the term "void" should be interpreted as "voidable."
Conclusion:
The court allowed the appeal, set aside the trial court's order, and appointed the defendant as the receiver of the suit property, subject to certain conditions. The defendant was required to furnish security and submit accounts to the trial court. The plaintiff was allowed to keep an authorized person on the suit property to monitor the defendant's activities. Both parties were to bear their own costs.
-
1964 (10) TMI 96
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the assessments upon the applicants as an association of persons are correct in law.
2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the income from the temple on non-festival as well as festival days accrued to the applicants as an association of persons.
3. Whether the Tribunal erred in law in declining to consider the contention that the income of the Ambaji Temple was the income of a public religious trust and not assessable in the hands of the applicants.
Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: Assessment as an Association of Persons
The primary issue was whether the assessees constituted an "association of persons" (AOP) under Section 3 of the Income-tax Act, 1922. The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Indira Balkrishna, which defined an AOP as "one in which two or more persons join in a common purpose or common action, and as the words occur in a section which imposes a tax on income, the association must be one the object of which is to produce income, profits or gains."
The court found that the assessees inherited the temple and managed it jointly. They performed various functions, including the adornment of the deity and the performance of pooja, with the objective of attracting devotees who would make offerings. These offerings constituted income for the assessees. The court concluded that the assessees were engaged in a joint enterprise with the object of earning income, thus forming an AOP.
Issue 2: Income Accrued as an Association of Persons on Non-Festival and Festival Days
The assessees argued that on non-festival days, each of them performed the temple functions in turns and collected offerings individually, which should not be considered as income of an AOP. However, the court noted that the management and performance of temple functions were concerted activities aimed at earning income. The arrangement to perform these functions in turns was merely a method to share the income proportionately.
On festival days, when offerings were larger, the assessees performed the functions jointly and shared the offerings in their entitled proportions. The court held that the essential character of the joint enterprise remained unchanged, whether on festival or non-festival days. Therefore, the income from both festival and non-festival days was assessable as income of an AOP.
Issue 3: Tribunal's Refusal to Consider the Public Religious Trust Contention
The third issue was whether the Tribunal erred in law by declining to consider the assessees' contention that the offerings constituted the income of a public religious trust. The Tribunal had refused to entertain this contention because the assessees had not appealed against the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's refusal to consider it.
The court found this reasoning flawed. It noted that the assessees, having succeeded before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on other grounds, could not have filed an appeal against the refusal to entertain the public religious trust contention. The court held that the Tribunal should have considered this contention on its merits.
The court clarified that its decision was limited to the Tribunal's error in refusing to consider the contention. The Tribunal must now decide whether to entertain the contention and, if so, whether the temple was indeed a public religious trust.
Conclusion:
The court answered the first two questions in the affirmative, confirming that the assessees constituted an AOP and that the income from the temple accrued to them as such. The third question was also answered in the affirmative, indicating that the Tribunal erred in refusing to consider the public religious trust contention. The matter was remanded to the Tribunal for further consideration. The assessees were ordered to pay the costs of the reference to the Commissioner, while the Commissioner was to pay the costs of the application under Section 66(2).
|
9911796707
