|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 20 Records
-
1953 (11) TMI 31
Issues:
Petition against Election Tribunal's decision on election petition, Allegation of corrupt practices during election, Determination of agency relationship, Consideration of major corrupt practices under Representation of the People Act, Failure of the Tribunal to exercise jurisdiction under Section 99, Allegation of illegal practices, Examination of ballot paper attestation, Direction for reconsideration by the Election Tribunal.
Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a petition challenging the Election Tribunal's dismissal of an election petition against the first respondent's election to the Bombay Legislative Council. The petitioner alleged that the Tribunal failed to determine corrupt and illegal practices during the election, specifically focusing on the involvement of a Government servant, Dahyalal Mehta, in assisting the first respondent's election campaign.
The key contention revolved around whether Dahyalal Mehta, as the President of the District Congress Election Propaganda Board, could be considered an agent of the first respondent under the Representation of the People Act. The Act defines an agent broadly, encompassing various roles related to election activities. The petitioner argued that Mehta's actions, including sending letters to voters on behalf of Congress candidates, constituted a major corrupt practice under Section 123(8) of the Act.
Moreover, the petitioner highlighted the potential ratification by the first respondent of Mehta's acts, suggesting a deeper agency relationship. The judgment emphasized the need for the Tribunal to thoroughly assess these aspects to determine if major corrupt practices were committed, which could lead to severe consequences for both the candidate and the agent under Sections 140 and 141 of the Act.
Additionally, the petitioner raised concerns regarding illegal practices, specifically Mehta's unauthorized expenditure on election-related activities. The judgment underscored the Tribunal's obligation under Section 99 to investigate and make findings on any corrupt or illegal practices established during the election process.
Furthermore, the issue of ballot paper attestation was addressed, with the Tribunal's findings indicating that objections raised by the petitioner were adequately considered and resolved. The judgment clarified that only individuals involved in election work were prohibited from attesting ballot papers, and the Tribunal's factual determination supported the acceptance of the contested ballot papers.
In conclusion, the judgment directed the matter back to the Election Tribunal for a comprehensive reconsideration of the alleged corrupt and illegal practices, emphasizing the Tribunal's duty to exercise its jurisdiction effectively under Section 99 of the Act. The decision underscored the importance of ensuring a thorough examination of all relevant aspects to uphold the integrity of the electoral process.
-
1953 (11) TMI 30
Issues:
1. Challenge against the High Court's judgment under article 226 of the Constitution.
2. Validity of the notification inviting applications for permits for small motor taxi cabs.
3. Disparity in tariff rates between small and large taxis.
4. Alleged violation of fundamental rights under articles 19(1)(g) and 14 of the Constitution.
5. Interpretation of rule 179 of the Bengal Motor Vehicles Rules.
6. Impact of the introduction of small taxis on existing large taxi owners' business.
7. Exercise of discretion by the Regional Transport Authority in issuing permits.
Analysis:
1. The appeal challenged the High Court's judgment dismissing an application under article 226 of the Constitution. The case arose from a notification inviting applications for permits for small motor taxi cabs, leading to objections from various associations. The Regional Transport Authority ultimately issued permits for small taxis, prompting a legal challenge citing violations of fundamental rights under articles 19(1)(g) and 14 of the Constitution.
2. The notification introduced a lower tariff rate for small taxis compared to large taxis, sparking concerns among large taxi owners about potential economic impacts. The High Court upheld the notification, emphasizing the rational classification of tariffs based on the size and expenses of running different classes of vehicles. The Court found no violation of fundamental rights in the introduction of small taxis with cheaper fares.
3. The interpretation of rule 179 of the Bengal Motor Vehicles Rules was crucial in determining the legality of the tariff disparity. The rule prescribed minimum charges for taxi services, with subsequent amendments affecting the rates for different categories of taxis. The Court examined the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the permit conditions to assess the permissibility of charging rates below the prescribed minimum.
4. The impact of introducing small taxis on the existing business of large taxi owners was a central argument. The Court clarified that the right to carry on an occupation does not entail a monopoly, and competition in the market, if introduced in good faith by authorities, does not automatically violate fundamental rights. The Regional Transport Authority's discretion in issuing permits at varying tariff rates was deemed legitimate if aimed at benefiting the public.
5. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the arguments presented. It upheld the rational classification of tariffs for different classes of taxis, emphasizing the legislative intent to introduce small taxis for the public's benefit. The judgment highlighted the importance of balancing economic interests with regulatory measures in the transport sector to promote fair competition and public welfare.
-
1953 (11) TMI 29
Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of Articles 8 and 9 of the Indian Independence (Rights, Property and Liabilities) Order, 1947.
2. Liability for payment of rent and taxes for a period prior to 15th August, 1947.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Interpretation of Articles 8 and 9 of the Indian Independence (Rights, Property and Liabilities) Order, 1947:
The primary issue in this appeal is the interpretation of Articles 8 and 9 of the Indian Independence (Rights, Property and Liabilities) Order, 1947. Article 8(2) states that any contracts made on behalf of the Province of Bengal before the appointed day (15th August, 1947) shall be deemed to have been made on behalf of the Province of West Bengal if the contract is for purposes exclusively of West Bengal. Conversely, if the contract is for other purposes, it shall be deemed to have been made on behalf of East Bengal. Article 8(6) stipulates that the provisions of Article 8 are subject to Article 9, which deals with liabilities in respect of loans, guarantees, and other financial obligations.
The learned Advocate-General of West Bengal contended that the liability to pay rent under the lease falls within the expression "other financial obligations" in Article 9. However, the court rejected this argument, stating that "other financial obligations" should be construed ejusdem generis, implying obligations similar to loans and guarantees. The court emphasized that accepting the Advocate-General's argument would undermine the purpose of Article 8, which was not the intention of the framers.
The court referred to previous judgments, including Province of West Bengal v. Midnapur Zemindary Company, Ltd., Sree Sree Iswar Madan Gopal Jiu v. Province of West Bengal, and The State of Punjab v. L. Mohan Lal Bhayana, which supported the ejusdem generis interpretation. The court concluded that "financial obligations" in Article 9 refers to obligations arising from arrangements or agreements relating to State finance, not all pecuniary obligations under contracts.
2. Liability for Payment of Rent and Taxes for a Period Prior to 15th August, 1947:
The respondent had leased premises to the Governor of the undivided Province of Bengal for a term of three years starting from 1st February, 1947. The lease included a monthly rent of Rs. 1,800 and a quarterly payment of Rs. 150 towards municipal taxes. After the partition of India on 15th August, 1947, the Province of Bengal was divided into West Bengal and East Bengal. The respondent claimed arrears of rent and taxes for the period from February 1947 to January 1948, totaling Rs. 22,723-9-3.
The appellant, State of West Bengal, paid the arrears from 15th August, 1947, but denied liability for the period before that date. Sinha J. of the Calcutta High Court held that the lease was for purposes exclusively of West Bengal and that under Article 8(2)(a), the appellant was liable for the rents accrued before the appointed day. The Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court affirmed this judgment.
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, stating that the liability to pay rent under the lease does not come within the expression "financial obligations" in Article 9. The court affirmed that the State of West Bengal is liable for the rent and taxes for the period prior to 15th August, 1947, as per Article 8(2)(a).
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Calcutta High Court, holding that the State of West Bengal is liable for the payment of rent and taxes for the period prior to 15th August, 1947, under Article 8(2)(a) of the Indian Independence (Rights, Property and Liabilities) Order, 1947. The appeal was dismissed with costs.
-
1953 (11) TMI 28
Issues Involved:
1. Conclusiveness of the agreement dated 7th February 1942.
2. Allegations of fraud and misrepresentation.
3. Authority to contract.
4. Proper form of decree for specific performance.
5. Payment of the purchase money and the role of the Custodian, U.P.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Conclusiveness of the Agreement Dated 7th February 1942:
The primary issue was whether the agreement of 7th February 1942 was a concluded one. The plaintiff argued that the Nawab agreed to sell the property for Rs. 62,000 and accepted Rs. 10,000 as earnest money, which was evidenced by a receipt. The appellants contended that the agreement was not concluded as the parties never reached finality. The trial court held there was no concluded contract, but the High Court's Full Bench found that there was a concluded contract. The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court, stating, "We hold that there was a completed contract on 7th February, 1942, which the plaintiff is entitled to have specifically performed."
2. Allegations of Fraud and Misrepresentation:
The Nawab's main defense was fraud and misrepresentation, claiming that the plaintiff's broker falsely informed him that the appellants had backed out, leading him to accept the plaintiff's offer. The Supreme Court noted that the Nawab's plea implicitly admitted the contract's validity until set aside due to fraud. The appellants' pleadings followed the same pattern, with no clear-cut plea that there was never a concluded agreement. The Supreme Court found these defenses insufficient to negate the concluded contract.
3. Authority to Contract:
The appellants argued that the parties competent to contract never met, questioning the authority of Chattar Sen to contract on behalf of the plaintiff. The Supreme Court dismissed this argument, stating, "Chattar Sen's authority to contract was not questioned. We cannot allow it to be questioned here." This established that there was an effective and concluded contract on 7th February 1942.
4. Proper Form of Decree for Specific Performance:
The Court discussed the proper form of decree in cases of specific performance where there is a subsequent purchaser. It considered three approaches: directing the vendor alone to convey, requiring both vendor and vendee to join in the conveyance, and limiting execution to the subsequent purchaser. The Supreme Court favored the second approach, directing that the subsequent transferee join in the conveyance to pass the title to the plaintiff. "In our opinion, the proper form of decree is to direct specific performance of the contract between the vendor and the plaintiff and direct the subsequent transferee to join in the conveyance so as to pass on the title which resides in him to the plaintiff."
5. Payment of the Purchase Money and the Role of the Custodian, U.P.:
The Court addressed the issue of the Rs. 62,000 due to the Nawab, noting that the appellants had paid Rs. 58,000 for the subsequent purchase. The Custodian, U.P., claimed the entire amount, but the Supreme Court found it equitable to direct Rs. 58,000 to be paid to the appellants and Rs. 4,000 to the Custodian. "We consider it right that Rs. 58,000 should be paid to them and Rs. 4,000 to the Custodian, U.P." This decision aimed to avoid unjust enrichment of the Nawab's estate and further litigation.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court modified the High Court's decree, directing the Nawab to execute a sale deed in favor of the plaintiff, the appellants to join in the conveyance, and the payment of Rs. 58,000 to the appellants and Rs. 4,000 to the Custodian, U.P. The rest of the appeal was dismissed, and the appellants were ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs. "The High Court's decree will now be modified as follows... Except for these modifications, the decree stands and the rest of the appeal is dismissed."
-
1953 (11) TMI 27
Issues Involved:
1. Wrongful admission of additional evidence in appeal.
2. Improper dismissal of the suit against non-appealing defendants under Order 41, Rule 33.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Wrongful Admission of Additional Evidence in Appeal:
The appellant contended that the Subordinate Judge improperly admitted additional evidence during the appeal without recording reasons as required under Order 41, Rule 27(2) of the Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C.). The court acknowledged that no order was passed recording reasons for admitting Ex. D. 9 series, constituting a contravention of Order 41, Rule 27(2). The court emphasized that admitting fresh evidence at the appellate stage is a serious matter, potentially prolonging litigation and resulting in failure of justice. Order 41, Rule 27(1) confines the power to admit additional evidence within narrow limits, distinguishing between evidence wrongly rejected in the trial court (Rule 27(1)(a)), evidence that could not have been produced earlier despite due diligence (Rule 27(1)(b)), and evidence required by the appellate court to pronounce judgment (Rule 27(1)(c)).
The court referred to precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in 'Arjan Singh v. Karthar Singh', which held that additional evidence admitted contrary to Order 41, Rule 27 must be ignored. The court concluded that while the Subordinate Judge's failure to record reasons was a serious oversight, it did not automatically render the evidence inadmissible. Instead, the burden shifted to the party relying on the additional evidence to justify its admission under Order 41, Rule 27(1). The court inferred that the lower court admitted Ex. D. 9 series as necessary for delivering a correct judgment, thus justifying its admission under Order 41, Rule 27(1)(c).
2. Improper Dismissal of the Suit Against Non-Appealing Defendants Under Order 41, Rule 33:
The appellant argued that the dismissal of the suit by the lower appellate court against defendants who had not filed appeals was improper and illegal. The court examined whether this could be justified under Order 41, Rule 33, C.P.C., which allows the appellate court to pass a decree in favor of a party even if they have not filed an appeal or cross-appeal. The court noted that while the rule confers wide jurisdiction, its exercise must be judicial and not automatic.
The Subordinate Judge had dismissed the entire suit based on his findings that the plaintiff was not the reversioner and the suit properties did not belong to Rami Reddi. However, the court emphasized that the exercise of jurisdiction under Order 41, Rule 33 should be based on a careful consideration of the circumstances, not as a matter of course. The court referred to several precedents, including 'Subramania Chettiar v. Sinnammal' and 'Venkatakrishnayya v. Chinna Veerareddi', which highlighted that the rule should be used with care and caution, and relief should not be granted to a party who has not appealed unless there are exceptional circumstances.
The court concluded that the present case did not fall within the recognized categories for exercising powers under Order 41, Rule 33. The plaintiff's suit involved separate properties held by different defendants under different alienations, with no community of interest between them. Therefore, dismissing the entire suit was not necessary to grant relief to the appealing defendants. The court found no exceptional circumstances justifying the exercise of powers under Order 41, Rule 33 and held that the Subordinate Judge's dismissal of the entire suit was improper.
Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed with proportionate costs as against defendants 4, 8 to 12, 15, 20 to 22, and in so far as it related to 62 cents in item No. 1, items 2, 3, two-thirds share in item No. 4, and item No. 8. The appeal was allowed against the other defendants and in respect of items other than those mentioned above, restoring the decree of the District Munsif to that extent with proportionate costs throughout.
-
1953 (11) TMI 26
Issues:
1. Withdrawal of a case under Article 228 of the Constitution due to substantial questions of law.
2. Interpretation of the Constitution regarding contravention of notified orders.
3. Validity of Section 3 of the Travancore-Cochin Public Safety Measures Act, 1950.
4. Application of Articles 301 and 304 of the Constitution to the case.
5. Determination of separability of different portions of Section 3.
Analysis:
1. The case involved a petition under Article 228 of the Constitution for withdrawing a case to the High Court due to substantial questions of law regarding the interpretation of the Constitution. The accused challenged the validity of notifications related to contravention of orders under Act V of 1950. The accused argued that the notifications violated fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(g) and Article 14 of the Constitution. The High Court allowed the withdrawal of the case to consider these substantial questions of law.
2. The notifications in question prohibited the transportation of paddy and rice without permits and the engagement in rice milling business. The accused contended that these notifications infringed upon their constitutional rights. The High Court examined the conflict between the notifications and the Constitution, particularly Articles 19(1)(g) and 14. The Court determined that the questions raised were indeed substantial for the interpretation of the Constitution.
3. The accused further argued that Section 3 of the Travancore-Cochin Public Safety Measures Act, 1950, lacked the necessary Presidential sanction as per the proviso to Article 304(b) of the Constitution. The High Court accepted this contention, rendering the further examination of violations of Articles 14 and 19 unnecessary. The Court found Section 3 to be void for lack of Presidential sanction, leading to the discharge of the accused under Section 253(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.
4. The Court delved into the application of Articles 301 and 304 of the Constitution to the case. It clarified that the freedom of trade, commerce, and intercourse under Article 301 applied throughout the territory of India, not limited to inter-State dealings. The Court relied on previous orders to support its interpretation, emphasizing that Article 304 encompassed trade within a State as well. The arguments put forth by the State regarding the scope of Article 304 were considered and rejected by the Court.
5. Regarding the separability of different portions of Section 3, the Court applied principles of statutory interpretation. It determined that the entire Section 3 had to be declared illegal and void, as no portion of it could be sustained. Citing precedents, the Court concluded that the legislature did not intend for partial invalidity and that the statute had to be effective in its entirety. Consequently, the Court discharged the accused under Section 253(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.
-
1953 (11) TMI 25
Issues:
1. Whether money deposited in Court by a tenant under the provisions of the Rent Control Act is liable to attachment in the execution of a decree.
Analysis:
The judgment addresses the issue of whether a sum of money deposited in Court by a tenant under the Delhi and Ajmer-Merwara Rent Control Act is subject to attachment in the execution of a decree. The tenant, in this case, deposited money in Court to avoid ejectment by the landlord. The landlord, holding a previous decree against the tenant, sought to attach this amount in execution of the decree. The lower courts allowed the attachment, stating that the tenant had disposing power over the money. The High Court examined the legal principles governing the attachment of property in 'custodia legis' and concluded that property in such custody cannot be attached unless the specific purpose for which it is held has been fulfilled. The Court cited various cases to support this principle, emphasizing that money deposited in Court under statute is not attachable unless the purpose for which it was deposited has been achieved.
The judgment further discussed cases where money deposited in Court for various purposes, such as security for costs or pre-emption decrees, was held to be in 'custodia legis' and thus not liable to attachment. The Court highlighted that the legislature, in the Punjab Pre-emption Act, explicitly stated that sums deposited in Court by a pre-emptor are not subject to attachment while in the custody of the Court. The Court also analyzed precedents where money deposited as security for costs of an appeal could be attached but subject to the outcome of the appeal, reinforcing the principle that property in 'custodia legis' is protected from attachment until the specific purpose for which it was deposited is fulfilled.
In conclusion, the High Court accepted the petition, set aside the lower court's orders, and directed that the money withdrawn by the landlord, which was in 'custodia legis,' should be restored to the Court. The judgment reiterated that property in such custody cannot be withdrawn until the specific purpose for which it was deposited has been fulfilled, thereby protecting it from attachment in the execution of a decree.
-
1953 (11) TMI 24
Issues:
Petition under S. 247(6), Companies Act to restore the name of a company to the register of Companies.
Analysis:
The petitioner filed a petition under S. 247(6) of the Companies Act seeking the restoration of the name of Shalini Mills Ltd. Alote to the register of Companies. The petitioner, acting as an agent for the company, claimed an outstanding amount for the purchase of machinery. A suit for recovery of this sum was filed in the Bombay High Court in 1948 and was still pending. The Registrar of Companies published a notice in 1951 stating that the name of the company would be struck off the register unless cause was shown to the contrary. As no response was received, the name was struck off the register. The petitioner learned about this removal when informed by an opponent. The petitioner sought restoration based on these facts.
In response, the opponent contended that he was unaware of the publication of the notification and therefore did not show cause for not removing the name from the register. However, he admitted informing the petitioner's attorneys about the removal. No other opponent contested the petition. The court noted that at the time of the Registrar's notice, the suit filed by the petitioner in the Bombay High Court was pending and being contested on behalf of the Mills. The court referred to a previous judgment and held that when a suit is pending against a company and being contested at the time of name removal, restoration is proper, especially when the Directors were aware of the litigation. In this case, the Directors were not ignorant of the removal as one of them informed the petitioner's attorneys about it. Consequently, the court directed the restoration of the company's name to the register.
The court ordered the restoration of the company's name and awarded costs to the petitioner from the opponents. The pleader's fee was set at &8377;10.
-
1953 (11) TMI 23
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the State is entitled to preferential payment of advance income-tax demanded under Section 18A of the Indian Income-tax Act in the winding up of a company under Section 230 of the Indian Companies Act.
2. Whether advance income-tax qualifies as a tax under Section 230(1)(a) of the Indian Companies Act.
3. Whether the final assessment of income-tax supersedes the advance income-tax assessment after the winding-up order.
Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: Preferential Payment of Advance Income-Tax
The core issue in this appeal is whether the State is entitled to preferential payment of the amount demanded as advance income-tax under Section 18A of the Indian Income-tax Act during the winding up of a company, specifically under Section 230 of the Indian Companies Act. The company in question, Peerdan Juhurmal Bank Ltd., was ordered to be wound up on 12th September 1949. A demand under Section 18A was made on 5th October 1948, which falls within the twelve months preceding the winding-up order. The learned Judge, Krishnaswami Nayudu, J., had ruled in favor of the State's claim for priority.
Issue 2: Qualification of Advance Income-Tax as a Tax
The appellants contended that advance income-tax does not fall within the category of taxes specified in Section 230(1)(a) because it is not a tax and was not due as income-tax at the date of the winding-up order. However, the court rejected this argument, stating that "a tax in the general understanding of the term signifies an exaction for the support of the Government." The court referred to various definitions and precedents to establish that the amount imposed and demanded as advance income-tax is indeed a tax within the accepted meaning of that term. The court also clarified that the liability to pay income-tax arises under the Income-tax Act, which is a permanent enactment, and not merely due to the Finance Act.
Issue 3: Final Assessment vs. Advance Income-Tax
The appellants argued that the final assessment of income-tax, conducted after the winding-up order, supersedes the advance income-tax assessment, and therefore, the advance tax ceases to be due and payable. The court, however, disagreed, stating that under Section 230, the material date is the date of the winding-up order. If a notice of demand for payment of tax under Section 18A exists on the date of the winding-up order, any subsequent assessment does not nullify the State's preferential right under Section 230(1)(a). The court cited the Privy Council's observation that tax becomes due when demand is made under Section 29 and Section 45 of the Income-tax Act. Therefore, the advance tax demanded within the prescribed period falls within the category mentioned in Section 230(1)(a).
Supporting Case Law:
The court referred to the decision of a Special Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Recols (India) Ltd., which supported the view that taxes become due and payable only when they are ascertained, quantified, and notified to the assessee with a demand for payment. This principle was applied to both the Sales Tax Act and the Income-tax Act, reinforcing the court's decision that advance income-tax demanded under Section 18A is a tax due and payable within the meaning of Section 230(1)(a).
Conclusion:
The court upheld the judgment of Krishnaswami Nayudu, J., and dismissed the appeal, affirming that advance income-tax demanded under Section 18A within twelve months before the date of the winding-up order is a tax falling within Section 230(1)(a) of the Indian Companies Act. Consequently, the State is entitled to priority over other debts. The appeal was dismissed with costs, and the liquidators were allowed to recover their costs from the assets of the company.
Judgment:
The appeal is dismissed with costs. The liquidators can have their costs from the assets of the company. Appeal dismissed.
-
1953 (11) TMI 22
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the refusal of the directors to register the transfer of shares was arbitrary and lacking in good faith.
2. Whether the discretion of the directors to refuse registration of a transfer of shares extends to shares purchased at a court auction.
3. Whether the application of the Respondent for registration was premature.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Arbitrary Refusal and Good Faith:
The primary issue was whether the directors' refusal to register the transfer of shares to Shri Deshpande was arbitrary and lacking in good faith. The Company argued that under Article 9 of its Articles of Association, the directors had "absolute and uncontrolled discretion" to refuse registration if it was not in the interest of the Company. The Company claimed that the refusal was based on valid concerns about the interests of the Company, particularly noting that Shri Deshpande was the lawyer of R.S. Sapate, a person with a history of obstructive behavior towards the Company.
The Court emphasized that the discretion must be exercised "reasonably and bona fide" for the Company's benefit, not arbitrarily. It was noted that the onus to prove mala fides was on the shareholder, not the directors. The trial court's decision was found to be flawed because it placed the burden of proof incorrectly on the directors. The Court concluded that the directors' decision was made in good faith, considering the obstructive history of Sapate and his association with the Respondent.
2. Discretion to Refuse Registration of Court Auction Purchases:
The second issue was whether the directors' discretion to refuse registration applied to shares purchased at a court auction. The Respondent argued that a court auction purchase should be treated as a transmission rather than a transfer, and thus not subject to the directors' discretion. However, the Court found that the Articles of Association, specifically Articles 18, 19, and 20, applied equally to both transfers and transmissions of shares.
The Court held that a purchaser at a court auction does not automatically become a member of the company. The purchaser must comply with the requirements of Articles 18 and 19, which include executing an instrument of transfer. The Court supported the view that the directors retained their discretion to refuse registration even in the case of court auction purchases, as the share purchased remains subject to the same restrictions as before the sale.
3. Prematurity of the Application:
The Company also contended that the application for registration was premature. However, this ground was not strongly urged by the Company's counsel and did not significantly impact the Court's decision. The Court focused more on the substantive issues of good faith and the scope of the directors' discretion.
Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed, reversing the order of the District Judge. The Court held that the directors acted within their rights and in good faith when they refused to register the transfer of the share to Shri Deshpande. The application for registration was dismissed, and the Respondent was ordered to pay the costs of the Appellant throughout.
-
1953 (11) TMI 21
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the partition between Mathurbhai and Kashibhai.
2. Validity of the adoption of Sivabhai by Bai Kashi.
3. Validity of the deed of surrender executed by Bai Kashi.
4. Rights of reversioners to recover possession of properties from persons who acquired title by adverse possession against the widow.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of the Partition between Mathurbhai and Kashibhai
The High Court upheld the trial court's finding that there was a partition between Mathurbhai and Kashibhai in 1913, precluding the defendants from challenging this fact. This was based on the decision in Rukmini's Title Suit No. 350 of 1930, which declared the disruption of the joint family status.
2. Validity of the Adoption of Sivabhai by Bai Kashi
The High Court affirmed the trial court's decision that the adoption of Sivabhai by Bai Kashi was invalid. This was also precluded by the earlier decision in Rukmini's Title Suit No. 350 of 1930, which the defendants were parties to and could not contest.
3. Validity of the Deed of Surrender Executed by Bai Kashi
The trial court found, and the High Court confirmed, that the deed of surrender executed by Bai Kashi was duly proved and valid. The deed was executed on January 30, 1941, relinquishing her widow's estate in favor of the plaintiffs, the nearest reversioners.
4. Rights of Reversioners to Recover Possession of Properties from Persons Who Acquired Title by Adverse Possession Against the Widow
The primary legal contention revolved around whether the reversioners could claim possession of the properties during the widow's lifetime against those who had acquired title by adverse possession. The High Court held that the defendants, who had acquired title by adverse possession against the widow, could not invalidate the deed of surrender. The court reasoned that the widow's estate, once extinguished by surrender, allowed the reversioners to claim possession immediately, without waiting for the widow's natural death. This principle was based on the legal fiction that surrender by a Hindu widow operates as her civil death, accelerating the inheritance rights of the reversioners.
The court rejected the argument that adverse possession against the widow extinguished her estate in such a way that it could not be further extinguished by surrender. The court emphasized that the reversioners' rights were derived from the last male holder, not the widow, and thus were unaffected by the widow's alienation or adverse possession against her.
Legal Reasoning and Precedents:
The court extensively discussed the concept of "surrender" by a Hindu widow, clarifying that it is not akin to an English law merger but a unique Hindu law doctrine where the widow's voluntary act of self-effacement accelerates the reversionary succession. The court cited several precedents, including:
- Gounden v. Gounden: Establishing that a Hindu widow can renounce her estate in favor of the nearest reversioner.
- Vytla Sitanna v. Mariwada: Emphasizing that the reversioner derives title from the last male holder, not the widow.
- Sureswar Misra v. Maheshrani: Affirming that reservation of maintenance rights by the widow does not invalidate the surrender.
The court also addressed divergent judicial opinions from various High Courts, ultimately aligning with the view that reversioners could challenge prior alienations by the widow immediately upon surrender, similar to the scenario of her natural death.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, confirming that the plaintiffs, as reversioners, had the right to recover possession of the properties based on the valid deed of surrender executed by Bai Kashi. The appeal by the defendants was dismissed, affirming the plaintiffs' entitlement to the disputed properties.
-
1953 (11) TMI 20
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction to transfer contempt proceedings.
2. Applicability of Section 527 of the Criminal Procedure Code to contempt cases.
3. Inherent jurisdiction of courts of record to punish for contempt.
4. Historical and statutory basis of contempt jurisdiction in Indian High Courts.
5. Procedural fairness in contempt proceedings.
6. Transfer of cases involving personal attacks on judges.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Jurisdiction to Transfer Contempt Proceedings:
The application sought the transfer of contempt proceedings from the Pepsu High Court to another High Court or, alternatively, to prevent two named judges from hearing the matter. This raised the question of the Supreme Court's jurisdiction to order such a transfer.
2. Applicability of Section 527 of the Criminal Procedure Code to Contempt Cases:
The applicant's counsel argued that Section 527, which authorizes the transfer of any "case" for the ends of justice, should apply to contempt proceedings. They contended that since contempt is punishable under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952, it constitutes an "offence" under Section 4(o) of the Criminal Procedure Code, making it triable under the Code. However, the Court disagreed, stating that the power of a High Court to institute and punish for contempt is a special jurisdiction inherent in all courts of record, excluded from the Criminal Procedure Code by Section 1(2).
3. Inherent Jurisdiction of Courts of Record to Punish for Contempt:
The judgment emphasized that contempt jurisdiction is inherent in every court of record. This has been a long-standing view in India, supported by historical precedents and statutory provisions. For instance, the Charter of 1774 and subsequent legislations like the High Courts Act of 1861 and the Government of India Act, 1915, recognized and continued these powers.
4. Historical and Statutory Basis of Contempt Jurisdiction in Indian High Courts:
The judgment traced the historical basis of contempt jurisdiction from the common law of England, as applied to the Chartered High Courts of Calcutta, Bombay, and Madras. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1926, and its successor, the Act of 1952, recognized the existing jurisdiction of High Courts to punish for contempt, merely limiting the amount of punishment and resolving doubts about the power to punish for contempt of subordinate courts.
5. Procedural Fairness in Contempt Proceedings:
The Court noted that contempt proceedings are outside the purview of the Criminal Procedure Code. High Courts can deal with contempt summarily, provided the procedure is fair, and the contemner is made aware of the charge and given a fair opportunity to defend. This principle was affirmed by the Privy Council in In re Pollard and followed in subsequent Indian and Burmese cases.
6. Transfer of Cases Involving Personal Attacks on Judges:
While the Supreme Court held that it lacked the power to transfer contempt proceedings from one High Court to another or from one judge to another, it emphasized the importance of judicial impartiality. It suggested that judges personally attacked should ideally not hear contempt matters involving them, to maintain the appearance of justice being done. However, this should be left to the judges' discretion, considering practical constraints.
Conclusion:
The petition was dismissed as the Supreme Court found it incompetent to order the transfer of contempt proceedings or to prevent specific judges from hearing the case. The Court highlighted the inherent jurisdiction of High Courts to punish for contempt, the exclusion of such jurisdiction from the Criminal Procedure Code, and the necessity of maintaining procedural fairness in contempt proceedings. The judgment underscored the importance of judicial impartiality, particularly in cases involving personal attacks on judges.
-
1953 (11) TMI 19
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of the doctrine of frustration under Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act.
2. Whether the doctrine of frustration applies to contracts for the sale of land in India.
3. Whether the requisition orders issued by the Government frustrated the contract of sale.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Applicability of the Doctrine of Frustration under Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act:
The learned Attorney-General argued that the doctrine of frustration, as recognized in English law, does not apply to India due to the statutory provision in Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act. Section 56 states, "A contract to do an act which after the contract is made, becomes impossible, or, by reason of some event which the promiser could not prevent, unlawful, becomes void when the act becomes impossible or unlawful." The court clarified that the term "impossible" in Section 56 does not mean physical or literal impossibility but includes impracticability and uselessness from the point of view of the object and purpose of the contract. The court emphasized that Section 56 embodies the doctrine of frustration, making it a rule of positive law in India. The court held that the Indian Contract Act is exhaustive on this subject and it is not permissible to import principles of English law beyond these statutory provisions.
2. Whether the Doctrine of Frustration Applies to Contracts for the Sale of Land in India:
The Attorney-General contended that the doctrine of frustration does not apply to contracts for the sale of land. The court noted that under English law, a concluded contract for the sale of land creates an equitable interest in the purchaser, which cannot be destroyed by frustration. However, under Indian law, as per Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, a contract for the sale of land does not create any interest in the property. Therefore, the obligations of the parties to a contract for the sale of land in India are the same as in other ordinary contracts. Consequently, the court held that the doctrine of frustration is applicable to contracts for the sale of land in India.
3. Whether the Requisition Orders Issued by the Government Frustrated the Contract of Sale:
The court examined whether the requisition orders issued by the Government, which requisitioned the lands covered by the development scheme, frustrated the contract of sale. The court emphasized that frustration occurs automatically and does not depend on the choice or election of either party. The court noted that the contract in question was part of a development scheme and not an ordinary contract for the sale of land. The parties did not specify a time limit for the completion of roads and drains, and the war conditions prevailing at the time of the contract were likely contemplated by the parties. The court found that the requisition orders, being temporary in nature, did not fundamentally affect the basis of the contract or make its performance impossible. The court concluded that the requisition orders did not frustrate the contract.
Alternative Argument on Illegality:
The respondent's counsel argued that the requisition orders made the performance of the contract illegal, rendering it void under Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act. The court dismissed this argument, stating that the requisition orders imposed a prohibition on the use of the land but did not make the performance of the contract impossible. The court also noted that this argument was not raised in the lower courts and should not be considered for the first time at this stage.
Conclusion:
The court held that the doctrine of frustration is applicable under Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act, including to contracts for the sale of land. The requisition orders did not frustrate the contract of sale, and the contract remained enforceable. The appeal was allowed, and the judgment and decree of the High Court were set aside, restoring the judgments of the lower courts in favor of the plaintiff. The plaintiff was entitled to costs in all courts.
-
1953 (11) TMI 18
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of judgment delivery after the death of one of the judges.
2. Interpretation of the terms "pronounced" and "delivered" in the context of judgment.
3. Inherent jurisdiction of courts to rectify defects caused by accidents such as death.
4. Distinction between a draft judgment and a final judgment.
5. Public policy considerations regarding judgment delivery.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of Judgment Delivery After the Death of One of the Judges:
The primary issue is whether a judgment can be validly delivered after the death of one of the judges who heard the appeal. In this case, Bhargava J. had signed the judgment but died before it was delivered. Kidwai J. subsequently delivered the judgment as if Bhargava J. was still alive. The court concluded that the judgment delivered by Kidwai J. on 5th January, 1953, was not valid because Bhargava J. had died before it could be delivered. The appeal was allowed, and the case was sent back to the High Court for rehearing and delivery of a proper judgment.
2. Interpretation of the Terms "Pronounced" and "Delivered":
The court examined the use of the terms "pronounced" and "delivered" in the rules of the Allahabad High Court. It was argued that a judgment must be both pronounced and delivered, and that these terms signify different actions. The court, however, did not construe these rules too technically, emphasizing that they are designed to further the ends of justice and should not be viewed too narrowly. The essence of a judgment is its formal intimation to the parties and the world at large in open court.
3. Inherent Jurisdiction of Courts to Rectify Defects:
The court recognized the inherent jurisdiction of courts to rectify defects caused by accidents such as the death of a judge. This principle was supported by a Judicial Committee decision in Firm Gokal Chand v. Firm Nand Ram, where it was held that the court must have the inherent jurisdiction to supply defects caused by such accidents. However, the court distinguished this case from the present one, noting that in the former case, the judgment was delivered in open court with both judges present, whereas in the present case, the judgment was not delivered before the judge's death.
4. Distinction Between a Draft Judgment and a Final Judgment:
The court emphasized that a draft judgment, even if signed, is not the final judgment until it is formally delivered in open court. Judges may discuss and exchange drafts, but these are not judgments until they are formally declared in open court. The final operative act is the formal delivery of the judgment, which crystallizes it into a full-fledged judgment. The judge must be alive and in a position to change his mind up to the moment of delivery.
5. Public Policy Considerations:
Public policy considerations play a significant role in the delivery of judgments. It is against public policy to leave the door open for investigations into whether a draft judgment was intended to embody the judge's final opinion or was only a tentative draft. The court cited the Full Bench decision of the Calcutta High Court in Mahomed Akil v. Asadunnissa Bibee, which held that judgments must be delivered and pronounced in open court and that judges who have died or retired cannot join in the judgment.
Conclusion:
The judgment delivered by Kidwai J. on 5th January, 1953, was invalid because Bhargava J. had died before it could be delivered. The appeal was allowed, and the case was sent back to the High Court for rehearing and delivery of a proper judgment. The death sentence could not be carried out as there was no valid decision of the appeal and no valid confirmation. The second and third appellants were required to surrender to their bail, reverting to their position at the time of the appeal to the High Court.
-
1953 (11) TMI 17
Issues:
- Conviction under section 27 of the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act
- Validity of appeal before the Appellate Tribunal
- Alleged infringement of fundamental rights under articles 19(1)(a) and (c) and 14 of the Constitution
Analysis:
The judgment by the Supreme Court of India involved three appellants who were office bearers of a textile workers' union in Bombay. The High Court confirmed their convictions under section 27 of the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act but reduced their sentences. The appellants were convicted for instigating a strike while an appeal was pending before the Appellate Tribunal. The main contention was that the conviction was illegal due to the absence of a valid appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. However, the court held that the mere pendency of an appeal, regardless of its validity, was sufficient under the law. The court emphasized that the legislature intended to maintain industrial peace during appeal proceedings to prevent parties from disturbing peace based on their own assessment of appeal competency.
Regarding the alleged infringement of fundamental rights under articles 19(1)(a) and (c) and 14 of the Constitution, the appellants argued that the Act favored unions with a minimum membership percentage. The court disagreed, stating that the Act did not restrict freedom of speech or association. It required a minimum membership percentage for a union to be recognized as a "representative union" to represent the workers' interests effectively. The court found the classification based on membership percentage reasonable and open for other unions to fulfill the criteria for representation. The appellants' challenge of the Act's validity while relying on its provisions was deemed unreasonable and not in line with principles.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the convictions and sentences of the appellants, dismissing their appeal. The judgment affirmed the legality of the convictions under section 27 of the Act and rejected the arguments related to the validity of the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal and the alleged infringement of fundamental rights.
-
1953 (11) TMI 16
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Civil Court to try the suit.
2. Whether the right to exemption under Rule 18(2) is absolute or conditional upon compliance with Rule 18(3).
3. Legality and justice of the assessment order dated 20th March, 1949.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Jurisdiction of the Civil Court:
The learned counsel for the State of Madras did not press the issue regarding the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the suit. Hence, the court did not delve into this matter further.
2. Right to Exemption under Rule 18(2):
The main question argued was whether the respondents were entitled to the exemption claimed under Rule 18(2) of the Madras General Sales Tax (Turnover and Assessment) Rules, 1939, despite not complying with Rule 18(3). Rule 5(1)(k) states that deductions from the gross turnover of a dealer are subject to conditions specified in Rule 18. The respondents, being registered manufacturers of groundnut oil and cake, were entitled to deductions under Rule 18(2), provided the sale amount of the oil was included in their turnover. The respondents complied with Rule 18(1) and Rule 18(2), but failed to submit monthly statements in Form A9 as required by Rule 18(3).
The court examined Rule 18(3A), which allows the Commercial Tax Officer to condone delays or omissions in submitting the required statements. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer initially accepted the respondents' deductions and made a provisional assessment. The court inferred that the Officer's initial acceptance and subsequent actions indicated a condonation of the respondents' failure to comply with Rule 18(3).
The court emphasized that the conditions in Rule 18 are procedural and directory, not conditions precedent. The rule-making authority did not intend to deprive the assessee of their right to deductions for failing to comply with procedural requirements. The court held that the substantial right to claim deductions under Rule 18(2) should not be defeated by non-compliance with Rule 18(3), especially when the Commercial Tax Officer has the discretion to condone such failures.
3. Legality and Justice of the Assessment Order:
The assessment order dated 20th March, 1949, was challenged as illegal and unjust. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer initially accepted the respondents' deductions in the provisional assessment but later disallowed them due to non-compliance with Rule 18(3). The court found that the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer's actions were inconsistent and that his initial acceptance of the deductions indicated a condonation of the respondents' procedural failures. The court ruled that the respondents were entitled to the deductions claimed under Rule 18(2) and that the assessment order was unjust and outside the provisions of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939.
Conclusion:
The court upheld the decision of the learned Second Additional City Civil Judge, declaring the levy of sales tax to the extent of Rs. 2,313-3-11 as illegal and outside the provisions of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939. The appeal by the State of Madras was dismissed with costs.
-
1953 (11) TMI 15
Issues:
Prosecution quashing application under various constitutional provisions and criminal procedure codes; Necessity of Commissioner's sanction for prosecution under Bihar Sales Tax Act; Trial legality under Article 20(2) of the Constitution; Application of Section 26 of the General Clauses Act; Principle of autre fois acquit under Section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Detailed Analysis:
The petitioners sought to quash a pending prosecution against them, challenging the legality of the trial under various constitutional provisions and criminal procedure codes. The case stemmed from allegations by an Inspector of Commercial Taxes regarding the petitioners' conduct during an inspection related to the Bihar Sales Tax Act. The Inspector secured the Commissioner's sanction and initiated a complaint against the petitioners for offenses under the Act. The trial was transferred to a Magistrate, leading to the petitioners' application to quash the proceedings, citing legal grounds.
The legality of the trial under Article 20(2) of the Constitution was questioned, focusing on the definition of "offense" and the prohibition against multiple prosecutions for the same offense. The court analyzed the definition under the General Clauses Act and the Code of Criminal Procedure, concluding that the current trial did not violate Article 20(2) as the offenses differed from the previous trial under the Indian Penal Code.
The application of Section 26 of the General Clauses Act was crucial in determining the petitioners' liability for prosecution under the Bihar Sales Tax Act. The court examined the provision regarding multiple enactments and reiterated that the offenses in question were distinct from those previously tried, thus not attracting double punishment. The court emphasized the differences in elements between the offenses, reinforcing the inapplicability of Section 26 to the present case.
The principle of autre fois acquit under Section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was invoked to argue against the pending trial. The petitioners contended that the trial was barred due to the earlier acquittal by a Magistrate with limited powers. However, the court clarified that the Magistrate's competence to try the offenses under the Bihar Sales Tax Act was distinct, allowing for subsequent prosecution despite the prior trial's outcome. Citing relevant case law, the court distinguished previous judgments to support its conclusion that the pending trial was not barred under Section 403.
Ultimately, the court dismissed the application, affirming the legality of the pending trial against the petitioners and rejecting all arguments challenging the prosecution's validity under the applicable legal provisions.
Judges:
- SAHAI, J.
- JAMUAR, J.
-
1953 (11) TMI 14
Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the appeal.
2. Validity of the order of Niyogi J.
3. Legal ownership and rights of the transferor and transferee.
4. Demand for letters of administration by the company.
5. Compliance with the Indian Companies Act and Articles of Association.
6. Registration of transfer of shares.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Maintainability of the Appeal:
A preliminary objection was raised regarding the maintainability of the appeal on the grounds that the order of Niyogi J. was not a "judgment" within the meaning of clause 10 of the Nagpur Letters Patent. The court examined the definition of "judgment" as provided by Couch C.J. in Justices of the Peace for the Town of Calcutta v. Oriental Gas Co., which defines a judgment as "a decision which affects the merits of the question between the parties determining some right or liability." The court concluded that the order of Niyogi J. had conclusively determined the right of the heirs of Jairam to obtain a duplicate share certificate without the production of letters of administration, thus constituting a "judgment" within clause 10 of the Letters Patent. Therefore, the appeal was deemed competent.
2. Validity of the Order of Niyogi J.:
The order of Niyogi J. directed the transferee to furnish an indemnity bond and to present the instrument of transfer duly stamped. The court found that Niyogi J. proceeded on the incorrect basis that no title or right remained vested in Jairam after the transfer of shares. The court referred to Halsbury's Laws of England and the Supreme Court ruling in R. Mathalone v. Bombay Life Assurance Co., which state that until the transfer is registered, the transferor remains the legal owner of the shares. Consequently, the demand for letters of administration by the company was justified.
3. Legal Ownership and Rights of the Transferor and Transferee:
The court emphasized that until the instrument of transfer is registered, the transferor remains the legal owner and is liable for calls made on the shares. The transferee, although having accepted the transfer, does not become the legal owner until registration. Thus, Jairam continued to be the legal owner until his death, and his heirs inherited the same right.
4. Demand for Letters of Administration by the Company:
The court examined Articles 49 and 50 of the company's Articles of Association, which entitle the company to demand letters of administration from the heirs of a deceased member. The court cited Kasivishwanathan v. Indo-Burma Petroleum Co., which supports the company's right to insist on such demands unless tainted by fraud. The court concluded that the company's demand for letters of administration was valid and could not be challenged under section 38 of the Indian Companies Act.
5. Compliance with the Indian Companies Act and Articles of Association:
Section 34(3) of the Indian Companies Act requires that the instrument of transfer be duly stamped, executed by both parties, and delivered along with the share certificate for the transfer to be registered. In this case, the instrument was neither duly stamped nor accompanied by the share certificate, rendering the company legally incompetent to register the transfer. The court noted that these statutory conditions create a liability that cannot be waived.
6. Registration of Transfer of Shares:
The court addressed the contention that the company's failure to register the transfer within the specified period under section 34(4) of the Indian Companies Act should result in automatic registration. The court clarified that returning the application within one month was tantamount to a refusal to register. Moreover, a breach of section 34(4) only entails a penalty and does not mandate automatic rectification of the register.
Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed, and the application of respondent No. 1 under section 38 of the Indian Companies Act was dismissed with costs throughout. The court's decision emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory requirements and the company's Articles of Association in the registration of share transfers.
-
1953 (11) TMI 13
Issues Involved:
1. Whether advance payment of income-tax under section 18A of the Income-tax Act is considered a tax within the meaning of section 230 of the Indian Companies Act.
2. Whether the State is entitled to preferential payment of advance income-tax in the winding up of a company.
3. The nature and enforceability of advance income-tax payments.
4. The impact of subsequent final assessments on the preferential status of advance income-tax.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Whether advance payment of income-tax under section 18A of the Income-tax Act is considered a tax within the meaning of section 230 of the Indian Companies Act:
The court examined whether advance income-tax payments qualify as taxes under section 230 of the Indian Companies Act, which prioritizes the payment of "all revenue, taxes, cesses, and rates" in the event of a company's liquidation. The crux of the argument against considering advance tax as a tax was that it is in the nature of a deposit and not an actual tax liability. The court, however, emphasized that the principle of section 18A is based on "pay as you earn," meaning the liability arises as income is earned. The court concluded that advance tax payments are indeed taxes as they become due and payable upon demand, supported by the legal framework for enforcement, including penalties for non-compliance.
2. Whether the State is entitled to preferential payment of advance income-tax in the winding up of a company:
The court affirmed that the State is entitled to preferential payment of advance income-tax demanded within twelve months before the winding up order. The court highlighted that the demand made under section 18A of the Income-tax Act falls within the category of taxes specified in section 230(1)(a) of the Indian Companies Act. This conclusion was drawn from the fact that the advance tax became due and payable upon the issuance of a demand notice, thereby qualifying for priority over other debts.
3. The nature and enforceability of advance income-tax payments:
The court elaborated on the nature of advance income-tax, clarifying that it is not merely a deposit but a tax liability that becomes enforceable upon demand. The process of levy, demand, and enforcement provided under section 18A, including the issuance of a notice of demand under section 29 and the subsequent procedures for recovery under section 46, establish the enforceability of advance tax payments. The provision for interest on advance tax payments was deemed an incentive for compliance rather than a factor negating the tax's enforceability.
4. The impact of subsequent final assessments on the preferential status of advance income-tax:
The court addressed the argument that subsequent final assessments might supersede the advance tax liability, potentially affecting its preferential status. It was held that the material date for determining preferential payment is the date of the winding up order. Any subsequent assessment does not negate the preferential right of the State established at the time of the winding up order. The court referenced a case from the Calcutta High Court, clarifying that the final assessment does not invalidate the preferential status of advance tax demanded before the winding up order.
Conclusion:
The court concluded that advance income-tax payments demanded under section 18A of the Income-tax Act are taxes within the meaning of section 230 of the Indian Companies Act and are entitled to preferential payment in the event of a company's liquidation. The enforceability of these payments is supported by the legal provisions for demand and recovery, and subsequent assessments do not affect their preferential status. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the preferential right of the State to the advance tax payments.
-
1953 (11) TMI 1
The appellant and Mohamed Ibrahim were apprehended for smuggling gold from Pondicherry into India. The appellant pleaded guilty and was convicted, but the High Court acquitted him while ordering confiscation of the gold. Supreme Court held that the High Court had no jurisdiction to order confiscation after acquittal. Confiscation order was set aside.
|
9911796707
