|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 51 Records
-
1961 (11) TMI 88
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the lease or license granted by the Raja.
2. Application of the principle of estoppel against the State of Bihar.
3. Refund of the security deposit and premium paid by the plaintiff.
4. Entitlement to damages and interest.
5. Authority of the Raja to act as an agent or trustee of the State.
6. Application of Section 65 of the Indian Contract Act.
7. Application of Order 41, Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of the Lease or License Granted by the Raja:
The court found that the estate of the Raja vested in the State of Bihar on 14th November 1951. Consequently, the Raja had no title to execute a valid agreement on 12th April 1952. The court held that the lease or license granted by the Raja to the plaintiff was void from its inception.
2. Application of the Principle of Estoppel Against the State of Bihar:
The court rejected the application of estoppel against the State of Bihar, stating that there can be no estoppel against a statute. The State was entitled to take possession of the Raja's estate immediately after the notification on 14th November 1951. The court found that the actions of the local officers demanding revenue and cess did not mislead the Raja or the plaintiff.
3. Refund of the Security Deposit and Premium Paid by the Plaintiff:
The court held that the Raja was bound to refund the security deposit of Rs. 7,500, as he failed to prove that the plaintiff was authorized to collect biri leaves from the bakasht and zirat lands. The plaintiff was also entitled to a refund of Rs. 22,500 paid to the Raja for the 1952 season, as he had to pay the same amount again to the State, the legal owner of the jungles.
4. Entitlement to Damages and Interest:
The plaintiff was not entitled to any damages from the State of Bihar. The court also held that the plaintiff was not entitled to any interest from any of the defendants, as there was no contract for payment of interest, and interest by way of damages could not be allowed.
5. Authority of the Raja to Act as an Agent or Trustee of the State:
The court found no evidence to support the contention that the Raja acted as an agent or constructive trustee of the State of Bihar. The Raja never purported to act on behalf of the State, and there was no representation to the plaintiff by the local officials that could bind the Government.
6. Application of Section 65 of the Indian Contract Act:
The court held that Section 65 of the Indian Contract Act applied to the case, as the agreement was discovered to be void. The Raja had no right to enter into any agreement in respect of the biri leaves, and the lease was void from its inception. The plaintiff discovered this fact when he received the notice from the Additional Collector.
7. Application of Order 41, Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure:
The court exercised its powers under Order 41, Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure to do complete justice between the parties. The court modified the judgment and decree of the lower court, holding that the plaintiff was entitled to a decree against the Raja for Rs. 22,500 plus Rs. 7,500 with corresponding costs and interest at six percent per annum from the date of the judgment of the lower court.
Conclusion:
The appeal by the State of Bihar was allowed, and the cross-objections were dismissed. The plaintiff was not entitled to any decree against the State of Bihar but was entitled to a decree against the Raja for Rs. 22,500 plus Rs. 7,500 with corresponding costs and interest. The judgment and decree of the lower court were accordingly modified, with parties bearing their own costs of the appeal and the cross-objections.
-
1961 (11) TMI 87
Issues Involved:
1. Right of pre-emption under customary law.
2. Compliance with formalities under Mahomedan law.
3. Constitutional validity of the customary law of pre-emption under Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Right of Pre-emption Under Customary Law:
The suit was initiated by the plaintiff to enforce a right of pre-emption over a piece of land she claimed under a custom prevailing in the State of Bihar. The plaintiff argued that she had purchased a portion of the disputed land orally from the original owner, leaving the remaining land over which she claimed the right of pre-emption. The trial court recognized the plaintiff's right of pre-emption but dismissed the suit due to non-compliance with the requisite demands under Mahomedan law. The appellate court, however, found that the plaintiff had complied with these demands and decreed the suit in her favor.
2. Compliance with Formalities Under Mahomedan Law:
The plaintiff asserted her right of pre-emption immediately upon learning of the sale and performed the necessary formalities, talabi Mowasibat and talab-i-ishhad, as required by Mahomedan law. The trial court found that these demands were not made properly, leading to the dismissal of the suit. However, the appellate court reversed this finding, concluding that the plaintiff had indeed complied with the formalities, thus entitling her to enforce her right of pre-emption.
3. Constitutional Validity of the Customary Law of Pre-emption Under Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution:
The defendant challenged the customary law of pre-emption, arguing that it violated Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to acquire, hold, and dispose of property. The appellate court held that the law of pre-emption did not impose unreasonable restrictions and was protected by Clause (5) of Article 19. This matter was referred to a Full Bench due to divergent judicial opinions among different High Courts.
The Full Bench examined whether the customary law of pre-emption was void under Article 13(1) read with Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution. The court noted that the right of pre-emption is recognized by custom among Hindus in Bihar and is governed by Mahomedan law, except where modified by custom. The court further clarified that customary law falls within the definition of "law" under Article 13(1) and can be struck down if it conflicts with Part III of the Constitution.
The court discussed the nature of the right of pre-emption, noting that it is not a personal right but an incident attached to the land. This right becomes enforceable upon the sale of the property, and the purchaser takes the property subject to this right. The court held that the right of pre-emption does not violate Article 19(1)(f) as it does not impose a restriction on the right to acquire, hold, and dispose of property but is inherent in the property itself.
The court cited various judgments to support its view, including the Supreme Court's decision in Audh Behari v. Gajadhar, which affirmed that the right of pre-emption is an incident annexed to the land. The court also referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Bishan Singh v. Khazan Singh, which summarized the law of pre-emption and reinforced that it is a right of substitution rather than repurchase.
In conclusion, the court held that the customary law of pre-emption is constitutional and valid, as it does not violate Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution. The appeal was dismissed, and the plaintiff's right of pre-emption was upheld.
-
1961 (11) TMI 86
Issues Involved:
1. Lawfulness of assessment under Section 34(1) of the Income Tax Act.
2. Lawfulness of assessment on the company on specific income amounts for the years 1944-45 to 1946-47.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Lawfulness of assessment under Section 34(1) of the Income Tax Act:
The court first addressed whether the Income Tax Officer had jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under Section 34(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act. It was established that the assessee did not file any returns under the Indian Income Tax Act for the relevant years. The Income Tax Officer, upon discovering that part of the income had escaped Indian Income Tax, obtained the appropriate sanction and initiated proceedings. The court held that there was an escapement of income tax, and thus, the Income Tax Officer had undoubted jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under Section 34(1)(a) of the Act. The court rejected the contention that the payment of tax to the Mysore Government satisfied the liability to Indian tax, stating that the liability to Indian tax is fixed by statute, and the assessee would only be entitled to relief from double taxation in accordance with arrangements between the two governments. The first question was answered in the affirmative and against the assessee.
2. Lawfulness of assessment on the company on specific income amounts:
The court then considered the second question, which pertained to the lawfulness of assessing the company on specific income amounts for the years 1944-45 to 1946-47. The court categorized the transactions into four types and focused on the second and fourth categories, as the assessee did not contest the first and third categories.
A. Sales involving hundis purchased by banks in Bangalore:
The court analyzed whether the profits from sales involving hundis purchased by banks in Bangalore should be considered to have arisen in Bangalore or British India. The court concluded that the bank purchasing the hundis at a discount did not mean the price of the goods was received at Bangalore. The bank was not an agent for collection but rather a holder in due course of the hundis. The court emphasized that the property in the goods passed to the buyer only upon payment or acceptance of the hundis, which occurred in British India. Therefore, the profits accrued in British India, making them liable to tax. The court also referenced relevant legal principles and precedents to support its conclusion.
B. Direct sales to the Government of India:
The court examined the transactions involving direct sales to the Government of India, where the payment was made by cheques sent by post. The court considered whether the post office acted as the agent of the buyer or the seller. Based on the facts, the court concluded that there was an implied request by the assessee for the Government to send cheques by post, making the post office the agent of the assessee. Consequently, the payment was deemed to have been made at New Delhi, where the cheques were posted, and thus within the taxable territories. The court referenced Supreme Court decisions to support this conclusion.
In conclusion, the court answered the second question in the affirmative and against the assessee, upholding the lawfulness of the assessment on the company on the specified income amounts. The assessee was ordered to pay the costs of the department, with advocates' fees set at Rs. 250.
-
1961 (11) TMI 85
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the estate of the late Ambi Iyer was a joint family property or his separate property.
2. Whether the hotel business of Ambi Iyer had any goodwill and the basis of such assessment.
Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: Whether the estate of the late Ambi Iyer was a joint family property or his separate property.
Facts and Arguments:
- The properties left by the deceased were acquired from the profits of his hotel businesses in Vellore and Madras.
- The accountable persons argued that the business was a joint family business started with the aid of an ancestral nucleus, hence the properties should be considered joint family properties.
- Evidence included affidavits from relatives and associates stating that the business was started with proceeds from the sale of ancestral land.
- The Assistant Controller and the Central Board of Revenue rejected this evidence, doubting its veracity and citing the deceased's income tax returns which showed his status as an individual.
Court's Analysis:
- The court found no justification for rejecting the affidavits, noting that the relatives were the best persons to speak on the origin of the business.
- The court observed that the sale of ancestral property and the start of the business both occurred in 1924, leading to a reasonable inference that the business was started with ancestral funds.
- The court concluded that the business and the properties acquired from its profits were part of the joint family assets.
Conclusion:
- The court answered in favor of the accountable persons, stating that the estate left by Ambi Iyer should be valued as joint family property under Section 7 of the Estate Duty Act.
Issue 2: Whether the hotel business of Ambi Iyer had any goodwill and the basis of such assessment.
Facts and Arguments:
- The Assistant Controller assessed the goodwill of the business at Rs. 45,000 based on average annual income from previous years.
- The Central Board of Revenue reduced this value to Rs. 25,000, considering the precarious tenancy of the business premises.
- The accountable persons initially conceded the goodwill had value but later argued it had none, contending that the business's reputation was tied to its location and the skill of the deceased.
Court's Analysis:
- The court recognized that goodwill is an intangible asset that adds value to a business independent of its physical assets.
- It cited established legal definitions and principles, noting that goodwill is valuable if it attracts customers and is inseparable from the business.
- The court found that Ambi's Cafe had established a reputation and thus had goodwill, despite the precarious tenancy.
- The court agreed with the valuation method used by the Central Board of Revenue, which considered various factors like business nature, risks, and profits, and reduced the value to Rs. 25,000.
Conclusion:
- The court held that the assessment of the goodwill value by the Central Board of Revenue was sound and unassailable.
Final Judgment:
- The estate of the late Ambi Iyer was determined to be joint family property.
- The goodwill of the hotel business was recognized and valued at Rs. 25,000 by the Central Board of Revenue, a valuation deemed appropriate by the court.
- No order as to costs was made.
-
1961 (11) TMI 84
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the notification issued under Section 5 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.
2. Authority of the respondent to prescribe rules regarding "chhat" bidis and the settlement of disputes between employers and employees.
3. Application of the doctrine of implied power in the context of the Minimum Wages Act.
4. Severability of the invalid clauses from the valid ones in the notification.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of the Notification Issued Under Section 5 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948:
The primary issue was the validity of the notification dated June 11, 1958, issued by the State of Bombay (now Maharashtra) under Section 5 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. The petitioners challenged the notification, asserting that clauses 3 to 7 were ultra vires the powers of the respondent under Sections 3, 4, and 5 of the Act. The High Court had a divided opinion, with a majority holding clauses 1 to 5 and the first part of clause 6 as intra vires, while the latter part of clause 6 and clause 7 were held ultra vires.
2. Authority of the Respondent to Prescribe Rules Regarding "Chhat" Bidis and the Settlement of Disputes:
The petitioners argued that the respondent had no power to regulate the extent of "chhat" bidis or to direct actions related to bad bidis, as these matters pertained to industrial disputes outside the purview of the Minimum Wages Act. The respondent contended that the clauses were necessary to make the fixation of minimum wages effective, as the absence of rules regarding "chhat" bidis deprived workers of their minimum wage rights.
3. Application of the Doctrine of Implied Power:
The doctrine of implied power was central to the respondent's argument. The respondent argued that even though the Act did not expressly confer the power to prescribe the impugned clauses, such power could be implied to ensure the effective implementation of minimum wage provisions. The petitioners countered that the Act's scope was limited to fixing minimum wages and did not extend to modifying other terms of employment contracts.
4. Severability of the Invalid Clauses from the Valid Ones:
Both parties agreed that if the impugned clauses were found ultra vires, they were severable from the valid clauses 1 and 2. Thus, the invalidity of clauses 3 to 7 would not affect the validity of clauses 1 and 2.
Detailed Analysis:
Validity of the Notification:
The Supreme Court examined the scope and effect of the impugned clauses. Clauses 1 and 2, which prescribed revised minimum rates district-wise and provided for higher payment for certain types of bidis, were found to be clearly within the respondent's powers and were not disputed by the petitioners. However, clauses 3 to 7, which dealt with the rejection of "chhat" bidis and related procedures, were found to be outside the powers conferred by the Act.
Authority to Prescribe Rules on "Chhat" Bidis:
The Court noted that the prevailing practice allowed employers to reject sub-standard bidis without paying for them, leading to potential injustice for workers. However, it held that the Act did not authorize the respondent to regulate this practice through a notification under Section 5. The Act's focus was on fixing wages, not altering other terms of employment contracts.
Doctrine of Implied Power:
The Court acknowledged the principle that an enabling act implies the power to do everything necessary to carry out its purposes. However, it held that this doctrine could not be used to extend the respondent's powers beyond what was explicitly or implicitly authorized by the Act. The Act's definition of "wages" and its provisions indicated that it was concerned only with remuneration and not with other employment terms.
Severability:
Given that clauses 3 to 7 were found ultra vires, the Court declared them invalid. However, it upheld clauses 1 and 2 as valid and severable from the invalid clauses, ensuring that the notification's core purpose of fixing minimum wages remained intact.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed Civil Appeals Nos. 415 and 417, dismissing Civil Appeals Nos. 416 and 418. The respondent was ordered to pay the costs of the petitioners in Civil Appeals Nos. 415 and 417. The judgment clarified the limits of the respondent's authority under the Minimum Wages Act and reinforced the principle that implied powers cannot extend beyond the statute's clear intent.
-
1961 (11) TMI 83
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Tribunal had materials to hold that the loss due to revaluation of assets arose during the enemy occupation period till 1945 and not on October 1, 1949.
2. Whether any part of the loss incurred till the end of the enemy occupation in 1945 is available under section 24(2) for set-off against the assessments of 1950-51 to 1952-53.
3. Whether contributions by the Kuala Lumpur and Johore businesses constitute proper deductions from the computation of foreign profits for the calendar year 1945.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Tribunal's Materials on Loss Arising Period:
The Tribunal had to determine if the loss of $1,64,958 and $1,96,132 by revaluation of assets arose during the enemy occupation period till 1945 or on October 1, 1949. The Tribunal concluded that the loss arose as and when the transactions took place from time to time during the enemy occupation period and not on October 1, 1949. The Tribunal classified the claims under two heads: loss on account of revaluation of assets and loss on account of depreciation of Japanese currency. It held that the loss by revaluation was not an actual loss but the cumulative result of re-writing the books based on scaled-down values. It further observed that the entire Japanese currency lost its value completely by the date of re-occupation in 1945, and the Debtor and Creditor Ordinance did not bring any further loss beyond what was already lost by 1945.
2. Availability of Loss for Set-off under Section 24(2):
The core question was whether the assessee could set off losses incurred up to 1945 against the assessments of 1950-51 to 1952-53 under section 24(2) of the Indian Income Tax Act. The Tribunal and the High Court concluded that the assessee was not entitled to this set-off. The reasoning was that the Indian Income Tax Act did not extend to Pudukottah until the financial integration in 1950-51. Consequently, there was no obligation on the Income Tax authorities to determine losses for any period before the Act's extension. The High Court emphasized that the losses must be computed under the law in force during the loss year, and since there was no applicable tax law in Pudukottah before the Indian Income Tax Act, no loss could be recognized or carried forward.
3. Contributions as Deductions from Foreign Profits:
The assessee claimed contributions of $2,21,301 and $49,433 made to the Indian Independence League as business expenses necessary to protect its assets and continue its business. The department and the Tribunal rejected this claim, stating that these were voluntary payments not shown to be necessary for carrying on the business. The High Court upheld this view, agreeing that the contributions did not constitute admissible business expenditure.
Conclusion:
The High Court concluded that the assessee was not entitled to the set-off under section 24(2) of the Indian Income Tax Act. It noted that there was no tax law applicable to the assessee's income in Pudukottah prior to the extension of the Indian Income Tax Act, and thus no recognized loss could be carried forward. The contributions to the Indian Independence League were also not considered deductible business expenses. The questions were answered against the assessee, and the assessee was ordered to pay the costs of the department, with counsel's fee fixed at Rs. 250.
-
1961 (11) TMI 82
Issues: Allowability of deduction under section 10(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act for bad and doubtful debts incurred by the assessee in the context of a partnership dissolution and business succession.
Analysis:
The judgment in question pertains to a reference made under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act regarding the deductibility of a specific sum as a bad debt under section 10(2) of the Act. The assessee, initially operating as a proprietary concern, later entered into a partnership where the share of the partner was 8/17. The partnership continued for six years until it was dissolved, and the partner retired from the firm. Following the dissolution, the assessee carried on the business individually, inheriting all assets and liabilities of the former partnership.
During the assessment year 1956-57, the assessee claimed a deduction of a sum as bad and doubtful debts, which were originally owed to the partnership. However, the Income-tax Officer rejected the claim, asserting that it constituted a capital loss rather than a business deduction. This decision was upheld by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Appellate Tribunal, leading to the reference before the High Court.
The Tribunal contended that since the debts belonged to the dissolved partnership, the right to claim a deduction was lost with the dissolution of the entity. Nonetheless, the High Court clarified that in cases where a partnership dissolves, and one partner succeeds and continues the business, it amounts to a succession of the business. As the assessee took over the business with all its assets and liabilities, including the bad debts, it was deemed entitled to write off such debts that had become irrecoverable during the relevant accounting year.
Moreover, the Tribunal suggested that the debts lost their identity as dues to the firm once the assessee took over and operated the business individually. However, the High Court distinguished a previous decision concerning valuation under the mercantile system, emphasizing that the present scenario involved a partner continuing the business after the retirement of another partner, maintaining continuity in assets and liabilities. Consequently, the High Court ruled in favor of the assessee, affirming the deductibility of the bad debts and awarding costs to the assessee.
In conclusion, the judgment elucidates the principles of business succession following a partnership dissolution and underscores the entitlement of the succeeding partner to claim deductions for bad debts incurred during the course of business operations, even if such debts were originally owed by the dissolved partnership.
-
1961 (11) TMI 81
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of penalty orders passed against a deceased person.
2. Applicability of penalty provisions under section 46(1) to a legal representative in respect of tax demands against a deceased assessee.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of Penalty Orders Passed Against a Deceased Person:
The petitioner argued that the penalty orders were a nullity as they were passed against a deceased person. However, the court found this argument to be devoid of substance. The penalty orders were passed against the petitioner, who was alive at the time, not against the deceased. Therefore, the orders cannot be said to have been passed against a dead person and are not a nullity on this ground.
2. Applicability of Penalty Provisions Under Section 46(1) to a Legal Representative:
The petitioner contended that, according to section 24B, no penalty order could be passed against a legal representative in respect of a tax demand against a deceased assessee. The petitioner relied on the Madras High Court decision in E. Alfred v. Additional Income-tax Officer, which stated that a legal representative assessed under section 24B is not an "assessee" within the meaning of sections 29, 45, or 46(1) and, therefore, cannot be penalized under section 46(1).
The court, however, disagreed with this view. It noted that the terms "assessment" and "assessee" are not used consistently throughout the Income-tax Act. The definition of "assessee" in section 2(2) at the material time included "a person by whom income-tax is payable." The court cited various authorities, including the Privy Council and the Supreme Court, to support the view that a legal representative is considered an assessee under the Act. The court also referred to the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Sukumar Mukherjee v. Commissioner of Income-tax, which held that a penalty could be imposed on a legal representative under section 28 as it could be on the assessee himself.
The court further observed that section 24B does not limit the liability of the legal representative only to the cases referred to in that section. This was supported by the Bombay High Court decision in Commissioner of Income-tax v. James Anderson, which was approved by the Supreme Court. The court noted that the legal fiction in section 24B should be fully worked out and not limited to what is expressly enacted.
The court also pointed out that the default leading to the penalty was not the deceased's default but the legal representative's default in paying the tax dues. Therefore, it is logical and legal to impose a penalty on the person whose default it is.
The court emphasized that section 46 is a collecting section and should be liberally construed to make the liability effective. The court cited cases such as Drummond v. Collins and Whitney v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue to support this view.
In conclusion, the court held that a penalty can be properly imposed under section 46(1) on a legal representative where the tax due under an assessment made on the deceased or under section 24B is not paid, and the default is committed by the legal representative. Thus, the second point raised by the petitioner was overruled.
Final Judgment:
The writ petition was dismissed with costs. The court found no merit in the arguments presented by the petitioner, and the penalty orders were upheld.
-
1961 (11) TMI 80
Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the suit.
2. Defaults in payment of rent.
3. Validity of the notice to quit.
4. Interpretation of Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act.
5. Interpretation of Section 42 of the Indian Partnership Act.
6. Whether a suit for ejectment arises out of a contract.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Maintainability of the Suit:
The primary issue was whether the suit was maintainable. The suit was filed by a partnership firm, Messrs. Gorak Nath Champalal Pandey, where one partner had died, and the heirs were not registered as partners. The first court accepted an oral contract that the firm would continue with the heirs of the deceased partner. The courts below differed on the interpretation of Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act, which led to the question of maintainability being seriously contested.
2. Defaults in Payment of Rent:
Both the trial court and the appellate court found that there were defaults in the payment of rent by the defendant. This finding was consistent across both courts and was not contested in the higher appeal.
3. Validity of the Notice to Quit:
Both courts also agreed that the notice to quit served to the defendant was valid and proper. This point was not in dispute in the higher appeal.
4. Interpretation of Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act:
The main contention was whether the suit was barred under Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act, which requires that no suit to enforce a right arising from a contract shall be instituted by or on behalf of a firm unless the firm is registered and the persons suing are shown in the register of firms as partners.
- The defendant argued that the suit was not maintainable because the heirs of the deceased partner were not registered as partners.
- The plaintiff contended that the firm remained registered and that the suit was maintainable even if the heirs' names were not in the register.
The court concluded that both conditions of Section 69(2) must be satisfied: the firm must be registered, and the persons suing must be shown in the register of firms as partners. The court rejected the plaintiff's interpretation that only one condition needed to be satisfied. The court emphasized that the purpose of Section 69(2) is to protect third parties from fraud and omissions, ensuring they know who the partners of the firm are.
5. Interpretation of Section 42 of the Indian Partnership Act:
The court examined whether Section 42, which states that a firm is dissolved by the death of a partner unless there is a contract to the contrary, applied to a firm with only two partners. The court found that an oral agreement existed between the original partners that the firm would continue with the heirs. Therefore, the firm did not dissolve upon the death of one partner.
6. Whether a Suit for Ejectment Arises Out of a Contract:
The court addressed whether a suit for ejectment falls under the purview of Section 69(2). The plaintiff argued that a suit for ejectment does not arise out of a contract. However, the court held that the right to eject a tenant arises from the lease contract, making it intimately connected with the contract and not independent of it.
Conclusion:
The High Court allowed the appeals, set aside the judgment of the appellate court, restored the judgment of the trial court, and directed that the suits be dismissed. The court granted leave to appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.
-
1961 (11) TMI 79
Issues:
Interpretation of provisions under section 4(3)(xii) and section 10(7) of the Income-tax Act for exemption of rental income from a house property for an insurance business.
Analysis:
The case involves the assessment of an insurance company's income from a building partly used for its business and partly rented out. The Income-tax Officer initially granted exemptions under section 4(3)(xii) for the rental income due to the new construction. However, the Commissioner of Income-tax disagreed and issued a notice under section 33B to rectify the assessment, leading to the denial of exemptions and allowances previously granted. The Appellate Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, prompting the assessee to appeal.
The key issue revolves around the interpretation of section 10(7) of the Income-tax Act, which specifies that the profits and gains of an insurance business must be computed according to the rules in the Schedule, overriding other sections like 8, 9, 10, 12, or 18. The Schedule outlines specific rules for computing profits and gains of insurance businesses, treating them as business income exclusively. This means that income from various sources is consolidated and treated as business income, limiting the scope of deductions and exemptions available under other sections of the Act.
The judgment references past cases to support the conclusion that the rules in the Schedule provide an artificial method of calculating profits and gains for insurance businesses, distinct from the traditional heads of income under section 6. The decisions in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Western India Life Insurance Co. Ltd. and Lakshmi Insurance Co. Ltd. reinforce the notion that income from insurance businesses is considered solely as business income under the Schedule, regardless of its original source. The case law cited emphasizes the artificial nature of income calculation for insurance businesses and the exclusivity of the Schedule's rules in determining taxable income.
Ultimately, the court rejects the assessee's argument that income computed under the Schedule retains its original character and is eligible for exemptions under section 4. The judgment affirms that income from insurance businesses is treated uniformly as business income under the Schedule, precluding separate treatment based on the source of income. Therefore, the rental income from the house property, despite being a distinct source, is not exempt under section 4(3)(xii) due to the specific computation rules outlined in section 10(7) and the Schedule.
In conclusion, the court rules in favor of the department, affirming that the rental income from the house property for the assessment years in question is not exempt under section 4(3)(xii) of the Income-tax Act. The assessee is directed to pay the costs of the department, highlighting the strict application of the Schedule's rules in determining taxable income for insurance businesses.
-
1961 (11) TMI 78
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of assessments under section 34 for the assessment years 1949-50, 1951-52, and 1952-53.
2. Inclusion of interest paid by the firm on the capital contributed by the minor sons of the assessee in the total income of the assessee under section 16(3)(a)(ii).
Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of Assessments under Section 34:
Assessment Year 1951-52:
The learned counsel for the petitioner conceded that the department properly initiated proceedings under section 34(1)(a) of the Act as no return was submitted by the assessee for the assessment year 1951-52. Therefore, the validity of the assessment for this year was not contested.
Assessment Year 1949-50:
The assessee argued that section 34 could not be invoked as he had filed his returns and disclosed all material facts necessary for the assessments. The department contended that the return was not valid as the assessee did not fill up Form No. III, which was necessary under section 22(5). The court noted that section 34 comes into play when there is an omission or failure to make a return or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment.
The court observed that while the assessee submitted returns, he did not include the necessary particulars in Part III of the prescribed form for the assessment year 1949-50. This omission meant that the assessee did not disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment. Consequently, the department was correct in invoking section 34(1)(a) for the assessment year 1949-50.
Assessment Year 1952-53:
For the assessment year 1952-53, the assessee included all material facts in his return, including the admission of his minor sons to the benefits of the partnership and their respective shares. The court held that there was no obligation on the assessee to include the income of the minors within his total income for computation under section 16(3). The court concluded that section 34 was inapplicable for the assessment year 1952-53, making the proceedings under that section and the reassessment invalid.
2. Inclusion of Interest Paid by the Firm on the Capital Contributed by Minor Sons:
The court addressed whether the interest paid to the minors on the capital contributed by them should be included in the total income of the assessee under section 16(3)(a)(ii). The court held that the contribution of capital by a minor is incidental to their admission to the benefits of the partnership. Consequently, the interest paid on such capital is includible in the income of the minors under section 16(3). The court referenced the case of Chouthmal Kejriwal v. Commissioner of Income-tax, where it was decided that interest income accruing to a minor from capital supplied as part of a partnership is to be included in the total income of the father under section 16(3)(a)(ii).
Conclusion:
- The assessments for the years 1949-50 and 1951-52 were validly made under section 34.
- The assessment for the year 1952-53 was not valid under section 34.
- The interest paid by the firm on the capital contributed by the minor sons is includible in the total income of the assessee under section 16(3)(a)(ii).
Order:
There will be no order as to costs.
-
1961 (11) TMI 77
Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953.
2. Determination of surplus area in joint Hindu family property.
3. Effect of partition of joint Hindu family property under the Act.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Interpretation of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953:
The Act places a ceiling on land holdings, defining a "small land-owner" as one whose entire land in Punjab does not exceed the "permissible area" of 30 standard acres. The Act's provisions are aimed at limiting land ownership and ensuring land redistribution. The key question was whether the Act's provisions regarding permissible area and surplus area apply differently to joint Hindu family properties.
2. Determination of Surplus Area in Joint Hindu Family Property:
The court had to decide whether the land owned by a joint Hindu family should be considered as a single holding or divided according to each member's share. Petitioners argued that a Hindu father shown in revenue records as holding a large area is entitled to show that he owns only a share jointly with others, making him a small land-owner. The revenue authorities, however, ignored the joint ownership claims, treating the entire holding as one and declaring the excess as surplus. The court held that the actual fact of joint ownership should be recognized, and each member's share should be considered individually.
3. Effect of Partition of Joint Hindu Family Property Under the Act:
The court examined whether a partition of joint family property amounts to a "transfer or other disposition of property" under Section 10-A of the Act. The court concluded that partition does not transfer any interest from one owner to another; it merely converts joint enjoyment into enjoyment in severalty. Therefore, partition is neither a transfer nor a disposition of property as per the Act's provisions.
Conclusion:
1. When land is owned jointly by members of a joint Hindu family, the share of each individual owner must be considered for determining surplus area under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act.
2. A member of a joint Hindu family can prove his share in the jointly owned land by all legal evidence, not just the entries in the record-of-rights.
3. Partition of joint family property does not constitute a transfer or disposition of property under the Act.
The court directed that the writ petitions be placed before a Single Bench for final decision.
-
1961 (11) TMI 76
Issues:
1. Deductibility of expenditure on replacing sleepers on railway tracks for two assessment years.
2. Deductibility of expenditure on replacement of parts of boilers for a specific assessment year.
3. Deductibility of expenditure on new fire-boxes and reconditioning of boilers for another assessment year.
Analysis:
The case involved an assessee, a railway company running a specific railway line. The assessee incurred various expenditures for replacing sleepers, repairing boilers, and other maintenance activities. The primary contention was whether these expenditures could be claimed as deductions under section 10(2) of the Indian Income Tax Act. The Income Tax Officer initially rejected the claims, but the Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed some deductions. However, the Appellate Tribunal overturned these decisions, disallowing the deductions for the replacement of sleepers and boiler repairs.
The High Court analyzed the statutory provision in question, particularly focusing on the interpretation of "current repairs to machinery" under section 10(2)(v) of the Income Tax Act. Citing a previous case, the court emphasized that the term "current repairs" should be understood as repairs within the current accounting year, regardless of the magnitude of the expenditure. The court clarified that replacement could also be considered repair if it involves restoring or replacing subsidiary parts of machinery. However, if the replacement is substantial, it cannot be categorized as repair.
Applying these principles to the case at hand, the High Court held that the assessee was entitled to claim deductions for the expenditure on replacing sleepers for both assessment years, as well as for the replacement of boiler parts and the cost of new fire-boxes and boiler reconditioning for the respective assessment years. The court referenced similar decisions from other High Courts and a Privy Council case to support its interpretation of the law. Ultimately, the High Court ruled in favor of the assessee, allowing the deductions and ordering the Income Tax department to bear the costs of the reference.
In conclusion, the High Court answered all three questions in favor of the assessee, affirming the deductibility of the specified expenditures under section 10(2) of the Income Tax Act. The judgment provided a comprehensive analysis of the legal provisions and precedents to support its decision, ensuring clarity on the treatment of such expenditures for taxation purposes.
-
1961 (11) TMI 75
Issues:
1. Whether the Agreement of July 27, 1954, was acted upon and binding on the Company.
2. Whether the conduct of the rival groups in the allotment of 39,000 new shares amounted to oppression and mismanagement.
3. Whether such oppression and mismanagement were sufficient grounds for winding-up the Company under the "just and equitable" rule.
4. What reliefs, if any, can be given on the present petition.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Agreement of July 27, 1954:
The Agreement dated July 27, 1954, signed by representatives of the three groups, was crucial in the formation of the Company during its financial crisis. The petitioner argued that this Agreement, which included terms for equal representation and shareholding among the three groups, was binding and acted upon. The rival groups, however, described it as a "mere scrap of paper." The court found ample evidence indicating that the Agreement was indeed acted upon, as evidenced by the correspondence between the parties and the changes in the Company's management structure.
2. Alleged Oppression and Mismanagement:
The petitioner claimed that the rival groups' conduct in the allotment of 39,000 new shares amounted to continuous oppression and mismanagement. The court noted that the normal practice of offering new shares to existing shareholders was not followed. The notice for the extraordinary general meeting on March 29, 1958, was misleading, and the resolution passed at that meeting excluded existing shareholders from the new shares. The court found that the rival groups' actions were intended to oust the minority shareholders and gain control of the Company. The allotment of shares on July 30, 1958, was done with undue haste and without proper disclosure, which further evidenced the oppressive conduct.
3. Grounds for Winding-Up:
The court held that the continuous oppression and mismanagement by the rival groups could justify winding up the Company under the "just and equitable" rule. However, winding up would unfairly prejudice the petitioner and other minority shareholders. Instead, the court considered the alternative remedy under Section 397 of the Companies Act, 1956, to bring an end to the oppression and allow the Company to continue operating.
4. Reliefs Granted:
The court provided comprehensive reliefs to address the issues of oppression and mismanagement:
- Removal of the current Board of Directors, except representatives from the Government of Orissa and the Industrial Finance Corporation of India.
- Reconstitution of the Board with equal representation from the three groups.
- Declaration that the resolutions passed on March 29, 1958, and July 30, 1958, were null and void.
- Directions for the respondents to sell the 39,000 shares to the petitioner and/or his nominees.
- Restraint on the Company from increasing share capital before complying with the court's order.
Result:
The petition was allowed, and the court ordered the reconstitution of the Board of Directors, the sale of 13,000 shares to the petitioner, and set aside the resolutions that led to the oppressive allotment of shares. The court ensured that the interests of the Industrial Finance Corporation of India and the Government of Orissa were protected. Each party was directed to bear its own costs.
-
1961 (11) TMI 74
Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer under section 35 for rectification of assessment order.
2. Limitation period for issuing notice under section 35.
3. Availability of alternative remedy through revision under section 33A(2) before approaching the High Court under article 226 of the Constitution.
Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution arising from assessment proceedings of a Hindu undivided family for the assessment year 1946-47. The income of the family underwent various assessments and rectifications over the years. The Income-tax Officer, in an attempt to rectify an error made in a previous order, issued a notice under section 35 proposing corrections to the income figure. The family objected to the notice on the grounds of jurisdiction and limitation, which were overruled by the Income-tax Officer, leading to the filing of the writ petition.
The High Court emphasized that for invoking writ jurisdiction, the petitioner must demonstrate not only errors of law or jurisdiction but also manifest injustice. In this case, the court found that no injustice had been done to the petitioner based on the facts presented. Additionally, the court highlighted the existence of an alternative remedy through revision under section 33A(2) before the Commissioner of Income-tax, which the petitioner had not utilized. Citing precedent, the court noted that failure to exhaust alternative remedies precludes direct recourse to the High Court under article 226.
Regarding the limitation period for issuing the notice under section 35, the court analyzed section 35(5) and noted that the starting point of limitation was linked to the final orders passed in the case of the firms from which the family derived share income. As those dates were not provided, the court concluded that the notice dated September 7, 1959, was not barred by limitation. Furthermore, the court recognized the inherent power of the Income-tax Officer to correct inadvertent errors in judicial proceedings, citing previous judgments to support the notion of possessing such corrective powers.
Ultimately, the court found that the rectification made by the Income-tax Officer was within the scope of his authority, and the writ petition was dismissed with costs, emphasizing that it lacked merit and did not warrant relief through the writ jurisdiction.
-
1961 (11) TMI 73
Issues:
Challenge to notices under section 34 of the Income-tax Act for assessment years 1948-49 and 1949-50.
Analysis:
The petitioner filed a writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution seeking to quash two notices issued under section 34 of the Income-tax Act for the assessment years 1948-49 and 1949-50. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal had disposed of an appeal related to the assessment for the year 1949-50, which included various items. The Tribunal found that two items of &8377; 15,000 each, credited in the petitioner's books on specific dates, should have been included in the assessment year 1948-49 instead of 1949-50. The Tribunal also determined that three other sums of money, deposited through one of the partners, were not connected to the assessee firm's affairs. The Tribunal emphasized that if these sums were assessable in 1949-50, they were not related to the petitioner.
In a Division Bench case, it was established that for the income-tax department to rely on the second provision of section 34(3) to avoid limitation, the direction or finding must pertain to the assessee and the relevant year. In this case, the Tribunal's observations regarding the assessability of the two sums of money in a year other than 1949-50 could not be considered a valid finding. Similarly, the Tribunal clarified that the petitioner had no connection to the other three sums of money, indicating they should be assessed for a different individual. Consequently, the notices issued under section 34 were found to be beyond time, and the writ petition was allowed. The court quashed the two notices dated September 7, 1959, and awarded costs to the petitioner.
-
1961 (11) TMI 72
Issues Involved:
1. Set-off of speculative business loss against other business profits.
2. Interpretation of Section 10 and Section 24(1) of the Income-tax Act.
3. Scope and function of the proviso to Section 24(1).
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Set-off of Speculative Business Loss Against Other Business Profits:
The assessee, a Hindu undivided family, incurred a loss of Rs. 7,628 in speculative business and sought to set off this loss against profits from other business activities and share income from firms. The Income-tax Officer disallowed this claim, stating that speculative losses could only be set off against speculative profits from the same year. The Tribunal, however, allowed the set-off, leading to the referral of the question to the High Court for interpretation.
2. Interpretation of Section 10 and Section 24(1) of the Income-tax Act:
The question referred to the court was whether, under a true interpretation of Section 10 and Section 24(1) along with its first proviso, the assessee was entitled to set off the speculative loss against non-speculative business profits. The second proviso to Section 24, inserted by the Finance Act, 1953, states that losses from speculative transactions should not be taken into account except to the extent of profits from other speculative transactions.
3. Scope and Function of the Proviso to Section 24(1):
The court considered previous judgments from the Bombay and Madhya Pradesh High Courts, which had differing views on whether the proviso should be treated as a substantive provision or confined to Section 24(1). The Bombay High Court in Keshavlal Premchand v. Commissioner of Income-tax held that the proviso was a substantive provision affecting the computation of profits and gains under Section 10. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Ramgopal Kaniyalal also supported this view, stating that the proviso modifies the method of computation under Section 10.
The court noted that the proper function of a proviso is to qualify the generality of the main enactment by providing an exception. However, it acknowledged that a proviso could sometimes be treated as a substantive provision if it would otherwise be meaningless. The court also referenced the commentary by Kanga and Palkhivala, which argued that the proviso should be confined to Section 24(1).
After considering the arguments and previous judgments, the court concluded that the proviso to Section 24(1) should be treated as a substantive provision. This interpretation aligns with the legislative intent to prevent the misuse of speculative losses to reduce taxable profits. The court emphasized that the language of the proviso clearly indicates its application to the computation of profits and gains under the head "profits and gains of business, profession or vocation."
Conclusion:
The court answered the referred question in the negative, holding that the assessee was not entitled to set off the speculative loss against non-speculative business profits. The decision was based on the interpretation that the proviso to Section 24(1) is a substantive provision affecting the computation of profits and gains under Section 10. The Commissioner of Income-tax was awarded costs of Rs. 250.
-
1961 (11) TMI 71
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the allowance of bonus was to be made in the relevant year of account or when it was ascertained and paid.
2. The distinction between legal liability and voluntary payment in the context of mercantile accounting.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Allowance of Bonus in the Relevant Year of Account:
The primary issue was whether the bonus amount debited by Pankaja Mills Limited for the assessment year 1952-53, which included Rs. 70,000, should be allowed as a deduction in the year it was accrued or only when it was actually paid. The Income-tax Officer, Appellate Assistant Commissioner, and the Appellate Tribunal had disallowed the deduction, stating that it could only be allowed when actually paid. The High Court examined whether the assessee, maintaining accounts on a mercantile basis, could claim this deduction in the year of accrual.
The Court noted that the assessee maintained accounts on a mercantile basis, which allows for the deduction of liabilities as they accrue, not necessarily when they are paid. The Court referred to the Industrial Tribunal award dated October 24, 1951, and its publication on December 4, 1951, which created a legal liability for the assessee to pay the bonus. Under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, an award becomes final and enforceable after 30 days of its publication, thereby establishing a legal liability for the assessee.
The Court cited the case of Associated Printers (Madras) Private Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1961] 43 I.T.R. 281, where it was held that liabilities under an award or agreement, even if related to an earlier period, could be debited in the year of account if they became legally enforceable in that year.
2. Distinction Between Legal Liability and Voluntary Payment:
The Court distinguished between the legal liability arising from the Industrial Tribunal award and the voluntary payment advised by the Southern India Mill Owners' Association. The bonus for the year 1948, amounting to Rs. 32,220-8-9, was a legal liability established by the award and was therefore deductible in the year of account.
However, the bonus for the year 1950, amounting to Rs. 33,671-11-9, was a voluntary payment based on the Association's advice and not a legal liability enforceable against the assessee. The Court emphasized that under the mercantile system of accounting, only accrued liabilities could be debited, not contingent liabilities. Since the voluntary payment was not based on any agreement with the workers and was not enforceable, it could not be deducted in advance of actual payment.
The Court referred to the case of Calcutta Company Limited v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1959] 37 I.T.R. 1, where it was held that an accrued liability could be deducted even before actual disbursement, provided it was a legal liability.
Conclusion:
The Court concluded that the bonus payment arising from the Industrial Tribunal award was an allowable deduction for the assessment year in question as it constituted a legal liability. Conversely, the voluntary payment towards the bonus for the year 1950 did not become an accrued liability in the year of account and was not deductible. The question was answered accordingly, with no order as to costs.
-
1961 (11) TMI 70
Issues Involved:
1. Deductibility of legal expenses incurred in connection with suits under section 10(2)(xv) of the Income-tax Act.
2. Nature of expenditure (revenue vs. capital) for legal actions to maintain or acquire title to assets.
3. Allowability of legal expenses for suits challenging internal management and actions of another company.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Deductibility of Legal Expenses:
The primary issue was whether the legal expenses incurred by the assessee company in connection with various suits could be deducted under section 10(2)(xv) of the Income-tax Act. The court examined the nature of these expenses to determine if they were incurred "wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business."
2. Nature of Expenditure (Revenue vs. Capital):
The court distinguished between expenses incurred to maintain an existing title to the assets of the business (revenue nature) and those to acquire or cure a defect in the title to the assets (capital nature). It was held that:
- In O.S. No. 80 of 1946 and A.S. No. 306 of 1949, the expenses were partly for maintaining a pre-existing title and partly for acquiring a new title to shares. The court disagreed with the earlier view that part of the expenditure was of a capital nature, concluding that the suit was intended to protect the title to a capital asset, whether in its original form or an altered form (shares). Thus, the expenses fell within the scope of section 10(2)(xv).
- In O.S. No. 75 of 1948, the expenses were for acquiring new shares, which was considered a capital expenditure and not allowable under section 10(2)(xv).
3. Allowability of Legal Expenses for Suits Challenging Internal Management:
The court analyzed the remaining suits (O.S. Nos. 59 of 1951, 107 of 1951, 129 of 1951, and 113 of 1952):
- For O.S. Nos. 59 of 1951 and 107 of 1951, the suits were related to internal management issues of the defendant company. The court found no correlation between the expenditure and the business of the assessee company. The expenditure was not considered "wholly and exclusively" for the business purpose and was deemed capital in nature.
- For O.S. Nos. 129 of 1951 and 113 of 1952, the court considered the claim that the defendant company sought to oust the assessee company from its membership. The court referred to the decision in Morgan v. Tate and Lyle Ltd. [1954] 26 I.T.R. 195 (H.L.), where expenses to oppose nationalization were allowed as they were to preserve the company's assets. The court held that if the expenditure was to protect the assessee's business interest and prevent depreciation of its capital assets, it could be considered allowable under section 10(2)(xv).
Conclusion:
The court concluded that:
- The legal expenses incurred in O.S. No. 80 of 1946 and A.S. No. 306 of 1949 were allowable under section 10(2)(xv).
- The expenses in O.S. No. 75 of 1948 were not allowable as they were capital in nature.
- The expenses in O.S. Nos. 59 of 1951 and 107 of 1951 were not allowable as they were related to internal management and not wholly and exclusively for the business.
- The expenses in O.S. Nos. 129 of 1951 and 113 of 1952 were allowable as they were to protect the assessee's business interest.
The court answered the questions accordingly, with no order as to costs since the assessee only partly succeeded.
-
1961 (11) TMI 69
Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to passage benefits under the Superior Civil Services (Revision of Pay and Pension) Rules, 1924.
2. Validity of the retrospective cancellation of passage benefits by the All India Services (Overseas Pay, Passage and Leave Salary) Rules, 1957.
3. Constitutional guarantee of service conditions under Article 314 of the Constitution of India.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Entitlement to Passage Benefits under the Superior Civil Services (Revision of Pay and Pension) Rules, 1924:
The respondent, a member of the Indian Civil Service, was entitled to passage benefits under the Superior Civil Services (Revision of Pay and Pension) Rules, 1924, which were framed by the Secretary of State for India-in-Council under s.96B(2) and (3) of the Government of India Act, 1919. Rule 12 of the Statutory Rules provided that passage pay shall be granted to the members of the services and holders of appointments enumerated in Appendix A to that Schedule. The passage benefits were originally part of the salary, with a sum of Rs. 50 per mensem being credited to a General Passage Fund. Amendments in 1926 changed the scheme to maintain separate passage accounts for each officer and their family members, turning the passage benefits into an allowance or privilege rather than part of the salary.
2. Validity of the Retrospective Cancellation of Passage Benefits by the All India Services (Overseas Pay, Passage and Leave Salary) Rules, 1957:
In 1957, the Government of India framed the All India Services (Overseas Pay, Passage and Leave Salary) Rules, 1957, which retrospectively canceled the passage benefits from July 12, 1956. The respondent protested against this cancellation, and while the Government of India granted passage benefits to the respondent, it declined to extend the same to his wife and children. The High Court issued a writ of mandamus commanding the Accountant General to pay the prescribed passage money for the respondent's wife and children. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, declaring that the retrospective cancellation of passage benefits was ultra vires.
3. Constitutional Guarantee of Service Conditions under Article 314 of the Constitution of India:
The conditions of service, including passage benefits, were guaranteed to members of the Indian Civil Service by s.247(1) of the Government of India Act, 1935, and further protected by s.10(2) of the Indian Independence Act, 1947. Article 314 of the Constitution ensured that persons appointed by the Secretary of State to a civil service of the Crown in India would continue to receive the same conditions of service as respects remuneration, leave, and pension. The Supreme Court held that the passage benefits, originally part of the salary and later an allowance or privilege, were part of the remuneration guaranteed under Article 314. The central Government's rule-making power could not override this constitutional guarantee.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the rule-making power exercised by the central Government in framing the All India Services (Overseas Pay, Passage and Leave Salary) Rules, 1957, was incompetent to destroy or cancel the constitutional guarantee of service conditions under Article 314. Therefore, the retrospective cancellation of passage benefits was declared ultra vires, and the appeal was dismissed with costs.
|
9911796707
