|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 24 Records
-
1950 (12) TMI 37
Issues Involved:
1. Liability of the appellants for not insuring the goods.
2. The relevance and impact of the Bombay Explosion (Compensation) Ordinance, 1944.
3. The measure of damages and remoteness of damages.
4. Maintainability of the respondents' counterclaim under Section 18(2) of the Ordinance.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Liability of the Appellants for Not Insuring the Goods:
The appellants, a firm of commission agents, failed to insure 92 bales of piece goods stored in Bombay, which were destroyed by an explosion in the Bombay harbour. The respondents contended that the appellants were liable for the loss due to their failure to insure the goods as agreed. The trial court found no agreement to insure the goods, but the appellate court held that there was such an agreement based on documentary evidence. The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court's finding, stating that the appellants were negligent in their duty as agents and must make good the loss directly arising from their neglect.
2. The Relevance and Impact of the Bombay Explosion (Compensation) Ordinance, 1944:
The Ordinance provided compensation for explosion damage to property, distinguishing between insured and uninsured property. The appellants argued that even if they had insured the goods, the ordinary fire insurance policy would not have covered the explosion risk. The Supreme Court rejected this contention, noting that under the Ordinance, full compensation would have been recovered if the goods had been insured. The Court held that the Ordinance did not break the chain of causation and the appellants were liable for the damages directly arising from their failure to insure the goods.
3. The Measure of Damages and Remoteness of Damages:
The Court discussed the principles of remoteness of damages, emphasizing that damages must be a direct consequence of the breach. The appellants contended that the intervention of the Ordinance could not increase their liability. The Supreme Court held that the Ordinance only quantified the damages and did not create new liability. The appellants' failure to insure the goods directly resulted in the respondents not receiving full compensation under the Ordinance, making the appellants liable for the remaining 50% of the loss.
4. Maintainability of the Respondents' Counterclaim under Section 18(2) of the Ordinance:
The appellants argued that the counterclaim was barred under Section 18(2) of the Ordinance, which extinguished all rights to compensation for explosion damage. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, stating that the respondents' claim was based on the appellants' breach of duty as agents and not directly on the explosion. The Court clarified that the cause of action was the appellants' failure to insure the goods, and the quantum of damages was to be determined by the Court.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding the appellants liable for the loss due to their failure to insure the goods as agreed. The Court upheld the respondents' counterclaim for the remaining 50% of the loss, emphasizing that the appellants' breach of duty directly caused the respondents' inability to recover full compensation under the Ordinance. The measure of damages was to place the respondents in the same position as if the appellants had performed their duty.
-
1950 (12) TMI 35
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of the Payment of Taxes (Transfer of Property) Act, 1949 to leases.
2. Constitutional validity of the Payment of Taxes (Transfer of Property) Act, 1949.
3. Interpretation and effect of Section 9 of the Payment of Taxes (Transfer of Property) Act, 1949.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Applicability of the Payment of Taxes (Transfer of Property) Act, 1949 to leases:
The petitioner, Hind Estates, Ltd., sought a writ of mandamus to prevent the respondents from enforcing notices issued under Section 4(1) of the Payment of Taxes (Transfer of Property) Act, 1949. The petitioner argued that the Act does not apply to leases. The Court examined the language of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act. Section 3 prohibits the registration of certain documents unless a tax clearance certificate is obtained, but leases are excluded from this requirement. The Court noted that Section 4 uses the term "the transfer," which implies the types of transfers mentioned in Section 3, for which a certificate would be necessary. The Court concluded that Section 4 applies only to the class of transfers mentioned in Section 3 and does not extend to leases. Therefore, the Income-tax Officer's action in issuing notices under Section 4 for leases was beyond the scope of the Act.
2. Constitutional validity of the Payment of Taxes (Transfer of Property) Act, 1949:
The petitioner contended that the Act was ultra vires the Constitution of India as it violated fundamental rights. However, the Court did not find it necessary to decide on this issue due to the conclusion reached on the applicability of the Act to leases. The Court mentioned that if it had been necessary to address this constitutional question, it would have referred the matter to a Special Bench of three judges for a more satisfactory resolution.
3. Interpretation and effect of Section 9 of the Payment of Taxes (Transfer of Property) Act, 1949:
The petitioner argued that Section 9 of the Act, which applies Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, kept the previous Ordinance XXI of 1948 alive, thus affecting the current proceedings. The Court rejected this contention, stating that Section 9 merely ensures that proceedings initiated under the previous Ordinances continue to be valid. It does not extend the applicability of the Ordinance to the present Act. Therefore, the Court did not find merit in the petitioner's argument based on Section 9.
Conclusion:
The Court concluded that Section 4(1) of the Payment of Taxes (Transfer of Property) Act, 1949 does not authorize the Income-tax Officer to issue notices in the case of leases. Consequently, the actions taken by the Income-tax Officer were beyond his powers. The rule was made absolute, and the respondents were prohibited from taking any further steps in pursuance of the notices issued. The petitioner was awarded the costs of the application. The application was allowed.
-
1950 (12) TMI 34
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Sholapur Spinning and Weaving Company (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1950 under Articles 31 and 19 of the Constitution of India.
2. Whether the Act infringes Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
3. Legislative competence to enact the Act.
4. Whether an individual shareholder can challenge the Act on grounds of discrimination.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of the Act under Articles 31 and 19 of the Constitution of India:
The petitioner, a shareholder of the Sholapur Spinning and Weaving Company Ltd., challenged the Act on the grounds that it infringed his fundamental rights under Articles 31 and 19(1)(f) of the Constitution. Article 31 provides that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law and mandates compensation for property acquired for public purposes. Article 19(1)(f) guarantees the right to acquire, hold, and dispose of property.
The Court held that the Act did not amount to deprivation of property under Article 31. The petitioner retained ownership of his shares and could still receive dividends and dispose of the shares. The Act merely suspended certain rights, such as voting for directors and passing resolutions, which were deemed reasonable restrictions in the interest of the general public under Article 19(5). Thus, the Act did not violate Articles 31 and 19(1)(f).
2. Whether the Act infringes Article 14 of the Constitution of India:
Article 14 guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws. The petitioner argued that the Act discriminated against the shareholders of the Sholapur Company vis-`a-vis shareholders of other companies.
The Court examined whether the classification made by the Act was reasonable and based on substantial distinctions. The Court noted that the Act was enacted due to specific mismanagement and neglect in the Sholapur Company, which prejudicially affected the production of an essential commodity and caused serious unemployment. The Court emphasized that a law can apply to a single individual or entity if there are special circumstances justifying such classification. The Court found that the petitioner failed to show that other companies were similarly situated and that the classification was arbitrary. Therefore, the Act did not violate Article 14.
3. Legislative competence to enact the Act:
The petitioner contended that the Parliament lacked the legislative competence to enact the Act. The Court referred to Entry 43 of the Union List, which pertains to the incorporation, regulation, and winding up of trading corporations. The Court held that the Act, which regulated the management of the Sholapur Company, fell within the ambit of this entry. Thus, the Parliament had the legislative competence to enact the Act.
4. Whether an individual shareholder can challenge the Act on grounds of discrimination:
The Court considered whether an individual shareholder could challenge the Act on the grounds of discrimination. The Court referred to the principle that a person whose rights are directly affected by a law can challenge its constitutionality. The Court held that the petitioner, as a shareholder, had a direct interest in the company's management and could challenge the Act on the grounds of discrimination under Article 14.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Sholapur Spinning and Weaving Company (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1950, did not violate Articles 31, 19, or 14 of the Constitution. The Act was within the legislative competence of the Parliament, and the petitioner failed to prove that the classification made by the Act was arbitrary or unreasonable. The petition was dismissed with costs.
-
1950 (12) TMI 33
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Bombay City Civil Court Act, 1948 (Act XL of 1948), is ultra vires the Legislature of the State of Bombay.
2. Whether Section 4 of the Bombay City Civil Court Act, 1948, is ultra vires the State Legislature.
3. Whether the Bombay High Court has jurisdiction to try the suit.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Whether the Bombay City Civil Court Act, 1948 (Act XL of 1948), is ultra vires the Legislature of the State of Bombay:
The respondents argued that the Act is ultra vires because it confers jurisdiction on the new court not only in respect of matters within the competence of the Provincial Legislature under List II of the 7th Schedule to the Government of India Act, 1935, but also in respect of matters under List I, reserved for the Central Legislature. The Court examined entries 1 and 2 of List II, and entry 53 of List I, concluding that "administration of justice" and "constitution and organization of all courts" are provincial subjects and the Provincial Legislature can invest courts with power and jurisdiction to administer justice. The Court held that the Provincial Legislature has the power to legislate on "administration of justice" and "constitution and organization of courts," which includes defining, enlarging, altering, and diminishing the jurisdiction of the courts. The Court concluded that the Act is intra vires the Bombay Legislature under entry 1 of List II.
2. Whether Section 4 of the Bombay City Civil Court Act, 1948, is ultra vires the State Legislature:
Section 4 allows the Provincial Government to invest the City Civil Court with jurisdiction to try suits and proceedings of a civil nature up to Rs. 25,000. The respondents contended that this section is invalid as it delegates legislative power to the Provincial Government. The Court referred to the principle of conditional legislation, where the Legislature can delegate the power to determine facts or conditions upon which the law depends. The Court held that Section 4 is an instance of conditional legislation and does not delegate legislative power but prescribes how the Legislature's decision is to be implemented. The Court concluded that Section 4 is valid and does not amount to an improper delegation of legislative power.
3. Whether the Bombay High Court has jurisdiction to try the suit:
The respondents argued that the Bombay High Court has jurisdiction to try the suit because the Act and the notification under Section 4 are ultra vires. The Court examined the jurisdictional provisions and held that the High Court's jurisdiction is barred by the Act, which confers jurisdiction on the City Civil Court for suits up to Rs. 25,000. The Court concluded that the High Court does not have jurisdiction to try the suit, as the jurisdiction is vested in the City Civil Court by the valid provisions of the Act.
Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed, with the Court holding that the Bombay City Civil Court Act, 1948, is intra vires the Legislature of the State of Bombay, Section 4 of the Act is valid as it constitutes conditional legislation, and the Bombay High Court does not have jurisdiction to try the suit. The judgment of the High Court was set aside.
-
1950 (12) TMI 32
Issues:
Interpretation of Section 15(2)(c) of the Indian Income-tax Act regarding deduction of proportionate expenses in managing Jajieerao Cotton Mills Limited for tax exemption.
Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act regarding the deduction of proportionate expenses incurred by an applicant company in British India in managing Jajieerao Cotton Mills Limited, Gwalior, to determine the profits of the Gwalior Mills exempted from taxation under Section 15(2)(c) of the Act. The case involves assessments for the years 1943-44, 1944-45, and 1945-46, with the central issue revolving around whether the entire directors' fees can be considered legitimate expenses for tax calculation purposes.
The assessees, a company residing in British India, were managing agents of a cotton mill in Gwalior State. The taxing authorities contended that as part of the company's income was not taxable due to Section 14(2)(c) of the Act, the entire directors' fees could not be considered legitimate expenses for calculating taxable income. The argument was made for allowing only a proportion of directors' fees attributable to earning taxable income in India. However, the assessees argued that the directors' fees were legitimate expenses of a company resident in Calcutta and should be fully deductible against gross income.
The judgment extensively discussed the case of McMillan v. Guest to support the argument that directors' fees can be considered legitimate expenses even if activities are conducted outside the jurisdiction. The court emphasized that unless there is a statutory provision or agreement for apportionment of directors' fees, the entire fees should be deductible as an expense incurred in earning taxable income. The judgment highlighted the impracticality and potential injustice of apportioning fees based on activities in different locations without a clear agreement.
Ultimately, the court held that the directors' fees, being earned and payable in Calcutta, must be regarded as legitimate expenses of the company for tax calculation purposes. It concluded that the taxing authorities should have allowed the entire remuneration payable to the directors without disallowing any proportion attributable to earning income in Gwalior. The question posed was answered in the negative, indicating that the entire directors' fees should be deductible against the gross income for tax assessment purposes.
In agreement with the Chief Justice's judgment, Banerjee, J., concurred with the decision.
-
1950 (12) TMI 31
Issues:
1. Determination of the next reversioners of a deceased individual.
2. Dispute over the natural daughter of the deceased individual.
3. Evaluation of evidence including oral testimony, account sheets, and entries in the almanac.
4. Preliminary objection regarding court-fees in an appeal.
Analysis:
1. The case involved a dispute over the reversioners of a deceased individual, Govind Ballab Ray. The plaintiffs claimed to be the next reversioners after the death of Govind Ballab's widow, Sarnamayee, while the defendants contended that Binodini, allegedly Govind Ballab's natural daughter, was the nearer reversioner. The main issue revolved around establishing Binodini's parentage to determine the rightful heirs.
2. The trial court initially found in favor of the plaintiffs, but the High Court reversed this decision based on the contention that Binodini was the natural daughter of Govind Ballab. The Subordinate Judge's reliance on certain account papers and entries in the almanac was scrutinized by the High Court. The oral evidence presented by both parties was also thoroughly examined, with the High Court emphasizing the credibility of the witnesses supporting the defendants' claim.
3. The Subordinate Judge's reliance on account sheets and almanac entries to support the plaintiffs' case was challenged by the High Court. The High Court found the account sheets of 1297 and entries in the almanac to be unreliable and lacking probative value. The authenticity and reliability of the documents presented as evidence were crucial in determining the natural lineage of Govind Ballab's heirs.
4. A preliminary objection regarding the court-fees in the appeal was raised, questioning the maintainability of the appeal filed by the respondents. The issue stemmed from a procedural matter concerning the payment of court-fees on the appeal. The High Court allowed an amendment to the appeal prayer, which was contested by the appellants. The High Court's decision on the amendment and payment of court-fees was upheld, dismissing the preliminary objection raised by the appellants.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's judgment in favor of the defendants as the nearer reversioners. The decision was based on a comprehensive analysis of the evidence presented, including oral testimony, account papers, and almanac entries. The procedural issue regarding court-fees in the appeal was also addressed, with the Court ruling in favor of the respondents.
-
1950 (12) TMI 30
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the execution application is barred by limitation.
2. Whether the final decree was conditional.
3. Whether the period occupied by insolvency proceedings should be excluded under Section 14(2) of the Limitation Act.
4. Whether the period occupied by a third party creditor in seeking to execute the decree should be deducted.
5. Whether fraudulent concealment by the judgment-debtor provides a fresh starting point of limitation under Section 18 of the Limitation Act.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Whether the execution application is barred by limitation:
The primary issue in this case is whether the execution application filed on 4th October 1946, to execute a final decree passed on 6th December 1932, is barred by limitation. The previous execution application was dismissed on 9th September 1940, and more than three years had elapsed before the current application was filed. The High Court held that the application was barred under Article 182 of the Limitation Act, as more than three years had passed since the dismissal of the previous application.
2. Whether the final decree was conditional:
The appellant contended that the final decree was conditional, as it required the payment of deficit court fees before execution could proceed. However, the court found that the decree was not conditional in the sense that some extraneous event was to happen before it could be executed. The payment of court fees was within the power of the decree-holder and did not prevent the decree from being executable from the date it was passed.
3. Whether the period occupied by insolvency proceedings should be excluded under Section 14(2) of the Limitation Act:
The appellant argued that the period from 10th August 1937 to 14th December 1942, during which insolvency proceedings were ongoing, should be excluded under Section 14(2) of the Limitation Act. However, the court held that the insolvency proceedings were for a different relief and could not be invoked to exclude this period. The relief sought in insolvency was different from the relief sought in the execution application.
4. Whether the period occupied by a third party creditor in seeking to execute the decree should be deducted:
The appellant also contended that the period occupied by one Tendulkar, who was a creditor of the decree-holder, in seeking to execute the decree should be deducted. The court found that the steps taken by Tendulkar to attach and execute the decree did not save limitation, as they were taken more than three years after the dismissal of the previous execution application.
5. Whether fraudulent concealment by the judgment-debtor provides a fresh starting point of limitation under Section 18 of the Limitation Act:
The court found that the judgment-debtor had fraudulently concealed his ownership of the 'Prabhat' newspaper, thereby preventing the execution of the decree. Both the Subordinate Judge and the High Court concurred that this fraudulent concealment provided a fresh starting point of limitation under Section 48(2) of the Civil Procedure Code, allowing the decree-holder another 12 years to execute the decree. However, the court held that this did not provide a fresh starting point under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, as the fraud did not prevent the decree-holder from knowing his right to apply for execution. The appellant's argument that he was kept from the knowledge of his right to execute the decree was not supported by the facts, as he admitted knowledge of the judgment-debtor's ownership of the newspaper.
Conclusion:
The court concluded that the execution application was barred by limitation under Article 182 of the Limitation Act. The decree was not conditional, the period occupied by insolvency proceedings could not be excluded, and the steps taken by Tendulkar did not save limitation. While the fraudulent concealment by the judgment-debtor provided a fresh starting point under Section 48(2) of the Civil Procedure Code, it did not extend the limitation period under Section 18 of the Limitation Act. The appeal was dismissed with costs.
-
1950 (12) TMI 29
Issues:
- Validity of presentation of plaint under power of attorney
- Authority conferred by power of attorney to engage an advocate and conduct a suit in a specific court
Issue 1: Validity of presentation of plaint under power of attorney
The appeal in this case was against the judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Chitoor dismissing the suit filed by the appellants due to an issue with the presentation of the plaint. The suit was initially filed in the Court of the District Munsif of Tirupathi but was returned as the subject-matter exceeded the pecuniary jurisdiction of that court. The plaint was then represented in the Subordinate Judge's Court, Chitoor, by a different power of attorney agent. The defendants contended that the new agent did not have the authority under the power of attorney to engage an advocate or conduct the suit in the Subordinate Judge's Court. The Subordinate Judge accepted this contention and dismissed the suit, leading to the appeal.
Issue 2: Authority conferred by power of attorney to engage an advocate and conduct a suit in a specific court
The main question in this appeal revolved around whether the power of attorney given by the plaintiffs authorized the new agent to conduct the suit in the Subordinate Judge's Court of Chittoor. The principles governing the construction of a power of attorney were cited, emphasizing that powers of attorney must be strictly pursued and construed to give only the authority expressly or by necessary implication. The power of attorney in question specifically empowered the agent to conduct a particular suit pending in a particular court. The document did not explicitly grant the authority to engage the attorney for conducting litigation generally regarding the properties in the plaint. The argument that such power should be inferred by necessary implication was rejected, as the parties did not expressly confer such power, and it was not assumed they contemplated any jurisdictional issues when filing the suit. The court concluded that the agent did not have the authority, under the power of attorney, to institute and conduct the suit in the Subordinate Judge's Court of Chittoor. Therefore, the Subordinate Judge's decision to dismiss the suit was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed with costs.
-
1950 (12) TMI 28
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the agreement for the assignment of the lease was contingent on obtaining the lessor's consent.
2. Whether the lessor unreasonably withheld consent to the assignment of the lease.
3. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to specific performance of the agreement.
4. Whether the appeal court appropriately allowed additional evidence.
5. Whether the term requiring the lessor's consent was for the plaintiff's benefit.
6. Potential liability of the defendant for damages due to breach of covenant.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Contingency of Agreement on Lessor's Consent:
The defendant argued that the agreement was contingent on obtaining the lessor's consent, and without it, no effective agreement existed. The court analyzed the correspondence between the parties. The plaintiff's offer on January 27, 1945, included terms that required the defendant to obtain the lessor's consent before transferring the lease. The defendant's response on January 28, 1945, was a counter-offer, not an unconditional acceptance. The plaintiff made a fresh offer on January 29, 1945, which the defendant accepted with a slight reservation on February 1, 1945. The plaintiff unconditionally accepted this reservation on February 2, 1945, forming a concluded agreement. The court held that the agreement was not contingent on obtaining the lessor's consent but required the defendant to obtain such consent as a substantive term of the agreement.
2. Lessor Unreasonably Withholding Consent:
The court examined whether the lessor unreasonably withheld consent to the assignment of the lease. The lease contained a covenant that the lessor's consent "not to be unreasonably withheld in the case of respectable or responsible person." The court found that these words limited the lessee's covenant and relieved the lessee if the lessor unreasonably withheld consent. The plaintiff argued that he was a respectable and responsible person, and the lessor unreasonably withheld consent. The court agreed, noting that the lessor's refusal to consent without assigning any reason was unreasonable, thereby relieving the defendant from the burden of the covenant.
3. Entitlement to Specific Performance:
The plaintiff sought specific performance of the agreement. The defendant contended that the plaintiff should not have been allowed to argue that the lessor's consent was unreasonably withheld. The court found no element of surprise since the plaintiff relied on facts admitted and proved by the defendant. The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to specific performance as the lessor unreasonably withheld consent.
4. Allowance of Additional Evidence:
The appeal court allowed the plaintiff to adduce further evidence by examining the Maharaja of Cossimbazar. The defendant objected, arguing that this should not have been permitted. The court noted that the appeal court required the evidence "in order to clear up the matter" and "for the purpose of enabling it to come to a proper decision." This was covered by Order XLI, rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the court found no reason to interfere with the appeal court's discretion.
5. Term for Lessor's Consent Benefiting Plaintiff:
The court examined whether the term requiring the lessor's consent was for the plaintiff's benefit. The term was introduced by the plaintiff and was not expressed to protect the defendant. The defendant could not use the absence of the lessor's consent to avoid performing the agreement if the plaintiff waived the objection. The court held that the term was for the plaintiff's benefit, allowing the plaintiff to insist on performance despite the lack of consent.
6. Defendant's Liability for Damages:
The defendant argued that specific performance exposed him to the risk of damages for breach of covenant. The court noted two points: (1) the defendant should have made his obligation to transfer conditional on obtaining the lessor's consent, which he did not do, and (2) the plaintiff being a respectable and responsible person made the measure of damages speculative. The court found that the lessor unreasonably withheld consent, enabling the defendant to assign the lease without such consent. The court agreed with the lower courts' discretion in granting specific performance.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's judgment and decree for specific performance. The defendant was ordered to pay the costs of the appeal.
-
1950 (12) TMI 27
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 136.
2. Interpretation of relevant articles in the Constitution of India.
3. Retrospective application of the Constitution.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 136:
The primary issue was whether the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to grant special leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The court examined the relevant articles, including Articles 133, 134, 135, and 136, to determine the scope of its jurisdiction. The petitioners argued that they had a right to appeal which existed on January 25, 1950, and that this right should not be taken away by the application of the Constitution to the Hyderabad State. However, the court held that the jurisdiction of the Privy Council of the Hyderabad State ceased with the commencement of the Constitution, and no pending proceedings were transferred to the Supreme Court. Therefore, the Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction to entertain these petitions for special leave to appeal against the judgments of the Hyderabad High Court.
2. Interpretation of Relevant Articles in the Constitution of India:
The court analyzed Articles 133, 134, 135, and 136 to determine their applicability. Article 133 deals with civil matters, while Article 134 pertains to criminal proceedings. Article 135 provides for the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in matters not covered by Articles 133 and 134, specifically those where the Federal Court had jurisdiction before the Constitution. Article 136 allows the Supreme Court to grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence, or order in any cause or matter passed by any court or tribunal in the territory of India. The court emphasized that the Hyderabad courts were not within the territory of India when they pronounced their judgments in December 1949. Therefore, the judgments did not fall within the scope of Article 136.
3. Retrospective Application of the Constitution:
The court addressed the argument regarding the retrospective application of the Constitution. The petitioners contended that their right to appeal should be preserved despite the Constitution's commencement. However, the court held that legislation is primarily prospective and not retrospective unless explicitly stated. The court cited precedents, including the Privy Council decisions in Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd. v. Income Tax Commissioner, Delhi & Another, and The Colonial Sugar Refining Co. Ltd. v. Irving, to support its view. The court concluded that there was no express provision or necessary implication in the Constitution to grant the Supreme Court jurisdiction over decisions of courts that were not within the territory of India before January 26, 1950.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the petitions for special leave to appeal against the judgments of the Hyderabad High Court under Article 136 of the Constitution. The court emphasized that the omission to provide for such relief in the Constitution could not be remedied by the Supreme Court, and any assumption of jurisdiction not warranted by the clear words of the relevant articles would amount to judicial overreach.
-
1950 (12) TMI 26
Issues:
1. Deductibility of expenditure on changing cables of flour mill plant under Section 10(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act.
2. Determination of loss incurred in connection with alleged manufacture without stock register.
3. Commencement of working of starch factory in the accounting year.
4. Allowability of loss in sulphur and depreciation claimed in the business of manufacturing starch.
5. Allowability of expenditure on boarding and lodging of partners during business tours under Section 10(2) of the Act.
Issue 1:
The first issue revolves around the deductibility of the expenditure incurred on changing cables of the flour mill plant under Section 10(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act. The Tribunal questioned whether the expenditure of &8377; 1,554 could be considered as a current repair and thus allowable under Section 10(2)(v) of the Act. The Court analyzed the distinction between repair and renewal, emphasizing that repair involves renewal of subsidiary parts, while renewal reconstructs the entirety. The Court highlighted that the term "repair" in the Act is further qualified by "current," limiting it to petty repairs periodically carried out. The Court noted that since one-third of the cables were replaced, the expenditure did not qualify as a current repair and could not be deducted under Section 10(2)(v) of the Act.
Issue 2 and 3:
The second and third issues pertain to the determination of loss incurred in connection with alleged manufacture without a stock register and the commencement of working of the starch factory in the accounting year. The Tribunal found that the loss was indeterminable due to the absence of a stock register and that the factory had not commenced manufacturing in the relevant year. The Court concurred that without proper records, the loss could not be determined, and as there was no entry of starch manufacture, the factory was not operational during the accounting year. These issues did not raise any legal questions for the Court to address.
Issue 4:
The fourth issue concerns the allowance of loss in sulphur and depreciation claimed in the business of manufacturing starch. The Tribunal held that since no starch was manufactured in the accounting year, there could be no loss or depreciation related to starch manufacturing. The Court agreed that in the absence of starch production, no loss or depreciation could be attributed to the manufacturing of starch. This issue did not present a legal question necessitating a response from the Court.
Issue 5:
The final issue involves the allowance of expenditure on boarding and lodging of partners during business tours under Section 10(2) of the Act. The Tribunal disallowed the expenditure, deeming it personal to the partners rather than for business purposes. The Court examined Section 10(2)(vii) and concluded that boarding and lodging expenses of partners could not be considered wholly and exclusively for business purposes. The Court reasoned that such expenses, necessary for sustenance, could not be solely attributed to business needs. Consequently, the Court answered this question in the negative and awarded costs to the revenue.
In conclusion, the judgment addressed various issues related to deductibility of expenditures, determination of losses, operational status of the factory, and allowance of partner expenses, providing detailed analyses and interpretations of relevant provisions under the Indian Income-tax Act.
-
1950 (12) TMI 25
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Bombay City Civil Court Act, 1948 (Act XL of 1948), is ultra vires the Legislature of the State of Bombay.
2. Whether section 4 of the above Act is ultra vires the State Legislature.
3. Whether the Bombay High Court has jurisdiction to try the suit.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Whether the Bombay City Civil Court Act, 1948 (Act XL of 1948), is ultra vires the Legislature of the State of Bombay:
The Act purports to create an additional civil court for Greater Bombay with jurisdiction to try civil suits not exceeding a certain value. The respondents contended that the Act is ultra vires because it confers jurisdiction on the new court in matters beyond the legislative competence of the Provincial Legislature under List II of the 7th Schedule to the Government of India Act, 1935, including matters reserved for the Central Legislature under List I.
The argument revolves around the interpretation of legislative entries. Entry 1 of List II, which includes "administration of justice" and "constitution and organization of all courts except the Federal Court," is argued to encompass the power to confer jurisdiction on courts. This interpretation is supported by the historical legislative practice and the comprehensive nature of the term "administration of justice," which includes both civil and criminal justice. The court concluded that the Provincial Legislature has the power to invest courts with jurisdiction to try any cause or matter within its legislative competence.
2. Whether section 4 of the above Act is ultra vires the State Legislature:
Section 4 of the Act allows the Provincial Government to extend the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court up to Rs. 25,000 by notification. The respondents argued that this constitutes an improper delegation of legislative power. However, the court found that the Legislature had already determined the policy and limits of jurisdiction, leaving only the timing and extent of extension to the discretion of the Provincial Government. This was deemed a form of conditional legislation, not a delegation of legislative power. The court referenced the principle established in Queen v. Burah, where conditional legislation was upheld as valid.
3. Whether the Bombay High Court has jurisdiction to try the suit:
The High Court's jurisdiction was challenged based on entries 28 and 33 of List I, which relate to "cheques, bills of exchange, promissory notes and other like instruments." The respondents argued that only the Central Legislature could confer jurisdiction over such matters. However, the court held that the Provincial Legislature's power to legislate on "administration of justice" and "constitution and organization of courts" includes the power to confer jurisdiction on courts for civil matters, unless explicitly barred by Central legislation. The court referenced the Privy Council decision in Prafulla Kumar Mukherjee v. Bank of Commerce Limited Khulna, which supported the view that provincial legislation could incidentally affect matters in the Central List without being ultra vires.
Conclusion:
The court concluded that the Bombay City Civil Court Act, 1948, is intra vires the Provincial Legislature under entry 1 of List II, which covers "administration of justice" and "constitution and organization of all courts except the Federal Court." Section 4 of the Act, allowing the Provincial Government to extend the court's jurisdiction, is a valid form of conditional legislation. Consequently, the Bombay High Court does not have jurisdiction over suits cognizable by the City Civil Court under the Act. The appeal was allowed, and the judgment of the High Court was set aside.
-
1950 (12) TMI 24
Issues:
Application in revision against the composition amount fixed by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax at Rs. 3,000. Preliminary objection raised regarding the appeal or revision to the Tribunal based on the nature of the composition under Section 26 of the Sales Tax Act.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Composition Amount Dispute:
The applicant, a dealer in Baroda, was found to have discrepancies in his accounts by the Sales Tax Officer, leading to allegations of offenses. The Deputy Commissioner fixed a composition amount of Rs. 3,000 for the alleged offenses, which the applicant contested as excessive for a small trader like him.
2. Preliminary Objection:
The opponent raised a preliminary objection that no appeal or revision could be made to the Tribunal as the matter involved composition under Section 26 of the Sales Tax Act, which did not constitute an appealable or revisable order.
3. Jurisdiction and Procedure:
The Tribunal acknowledged the objection reluctantly, indicating that the matter amounted to compounding offenses under Section 26. It was noted that the correct procedure would have involved allowing the applicant to propose a composition, with the Deputy Commissioner either accepting or counter-offering. The absence of a formal order for appeal or revision was emphasized.
4. Completed Agreement and Lack of Order:
Despite the applicant's initial protest, he paid the composition amount without further objection, leading to a completed agreement under Section 26. The Tribunal clarified that negotiations and payments did not constitute an appealable order and advised the applicant to seek recourse in the Civil Court if necessary.
5. Penal Provisions and Hearing Opportunity:
Sections 24 to 26 of the Sales Tax Act were highlighted as penal provisions to prevent tax evasion. The Tribunal stressed the importance of providing the concerned party with an opportunity to be heard before deciding on prosecution or composition amounts to ensure fairness and reasonableness.
6. Penalties and Prosecution Timing:
Concerns were raised about the imposition of maximum penalties for interconnected offenses and the timing of prosecution decisions before completion of assessment proceedings. The Tribunal suggested reserving maximum penalties for severe cases and considering prosecutions only after assessment completion.
7. Independent Judgment of Officers:
The Tribunal criticized the practice of lower officers consulting higher authorities before making decisions, which could undermine the independence and effectiveness of appeal and revision processes. It was emphasized that officers should exercise independent judgment to uphold the integrity of the process.
In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected the application based on jurisdictional grounds, highlighting the need for adherence to proper procedures, fair hearings, and independent decision-making by tax authorities to ensure transparency and justice in tax-related matters.
-
1950 (12) TMI 23
Issues Involved:
1. Competence of the reference to B.P. Sinha, J.
2. Applicability of Clause 28, Letters Patent, and Section 98, Civil Procedure Code.
3. Maintainability of the application under Article 133 of the Constitution of India.
4. Interpretation of the term "judgment" under Article 133.
5. Determination of whether the proceeding is a "civil proceeding" under Article 133.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Competence of the Reference to B.P. Sinha, J.
A preliminary point was raised questioning the competence of the reference to B.P. Sinha, J., and whether there was a lawful decision of the Court disposing of the reference under Section 21(3) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1944. The provision for a reference to a third Judge is contained in Clause 28, Letters Patent, and Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Code. Clause 28 relates to a difference of opinion arising in the exercise of the High Court's "original or appellate jurisdiction," and Section 98 relates to a difference arising in appeal. It was concluded that neither Clause 28, Letters Patent, nor Section 98, Civil Procedure Code, has any application to the present case. The High Court has the authority to mold a convenient form of procedure in the absence of a specific provision, as supported by the cases Smith v. Williams and Maharajadhiraja of Darbhanga v. Commissioner of Income-tax.
2. Applicability of Clause 28, Letters Patent, and Section 98, Civil Procedure Code
The Court discussed the applicability of Clause 28, Letters Patent, and Section 98, Civil Procedure Code, in the context of the reference under the Bihar Sales Tax Act. It was concluded that these provisions do not apply to the present case because the jurisdiction in question is vested in the High Court by a special statute (the Bihar Sales Tax Act) and not by the Letters Patent or the Civil Procedure Code. The Court referred to the case Tata Iron and Steel Co., Ltd. v. Chief Revenue Authority, Bombay, to support this conclusion.
3. Maintainability of the Application under Article 133 of the Constitution of India
The further objection raised was that the application is not maintainable under Article 133 of the Constitution of India. The Court examined whether the decision of the High Court in this case is a "judgment" under Article 133. It was argued that the decision of the High Court in a sales tax matter is a judgment in a civil proceeding, but the Court concluded that the decision in question was not a "final judgment" within the meaning of Article 133. The Court relied on the decision in Tata Iron Steel Co., Ltd. v. Chief Revenue Authority, Bombay, which held that the decision of the High Court in a reference under the Income-tax Act was merely advisory and not a final judgment.
4. Interpretation of the Term "Judgment" under Article 133
The Court discussed the interpretation of the term "judgment" under Article 133 of the Constitution of India. It was argued that the term "judgment" in Article 133 does not need to be final and can include interlocutory judgments. However, the Court concluded that the term "judgment" in Article 133 should be interpreted in the same way as it was interpreted under Sections 205 and 206 of the Government of India Act, 1935. The Court referred to the decision in Tata Iron and Steel Co., Ltd. v. Chief Revenue Authority, Bombay, which held that the word "judgment" is not used in its strict legal and proper sense in the context of references under the Income-tax Act.
5. Determination of Whether the Proceeding is a "Civil Proceeding" under Article 133
The Court considered whether the decision in question arises out of a "civil proceeding" under Article 133. It was argued that the expression "civil proceeding" in Article 133 has been used in contradistinction to the term "criminal proceeding" in Article 134. The Court referred to the decision in Pritam Singh v. The State, where it was observed that the Supreme Court can grant special leave in civil cases, criminal cases, income-tax cases, and other cases. The Court concluded that income-tax cases and sales tax cases are not "civil proceedings" within the meaning of Article 133.
Conclusion:
The Court concluded that the application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court is not maintainable under Article 133 of the Constitution of India. The decision of the High Court in a reference under the Bihar Sales Tax Act is not a "final judgment" and does not arise out of a "civil proceeding" within the meaning of Article 133. Therefore, the application was dismissed with costs.
-
1950 (12) TMI 22
Issues:
1. Interpretation of the statement made by the accused as a plea of guilty.
2. Affording the petitioner an opportunity to substantiate the contention of not being legally assessed.
3. Examination of the legality of the assessment based on the expression "fails to pay any tax assessed on him" in Section 20(b) of the Mysore Sales Tax Act.
4. Consideration of the availability of remedies such as appeals, revisions, and references under the Mysore Sales Tax Act.
5. Prohibition on civil courts from questioning the assessment made under the Act.
6. Validity of the tax assessed in criminal court proceedings.
The judgment involves a firm prosecuted for default in sales tax payment under the Mysore Sales Tax Act of 1948. The accused claimed not to have conducted any business and, thus, was not liable for assessment. The Magistrate convicted the accused, imposing a fine and ordering tax recovery. The petitioner contended that the Magistrate erred in treating the statement as a guilty plea and not allowing a chance to challenge the assessment's legality. The court referred to precedents establishing that the burden shifts to the accused once prima facie proof of liability is presented. The court found the assessment, demand notice, and non-compliance established prima facie, shifting the burden to disprove assessment onto the accused. The petitioner's argument that the court should examine the assessment's legality was dismissed, citing provisions for appeals, revisions, and restrictions on civil courts questioning assessments. The judgment upheld the conviction, emphasizing that criminal courts cannot question the validity of assessed taxes meant for penalizing defaults and enforcing payments. Therefore, the petition was dismissed.
-
1950 (12) TMI 21
Issues:
1. Imposition of sales tax on goods exported immediately after purchase for consumption outside the state.
2. Legality of the Sales Tax Ordinance in Vindhya Pradesh.
3. Applicability of President's Sales Tax Order C.O. No. 7.
Analysis:
1. The applicant challenged the imposition of sales tax on goods exported immediately after purchase for consumption outside Vindhya Pradesh. The Sales Tax Commissioner justified the levy citing the Sales Tax Ordinance, which was brought into force after dropping the customs duty on exports. The Court clarified that the focus was on sales for export and not for consumption within the state. It was emphasized that authorities could prevent tax evasion by verifying export sales and refunding the corresponding tax portion upon proof of export. The Court held that the imposition of sales tax on exported goods was legal under the President's Order.
2. The Sales Tax Commissioner contended that the Sales Tax Ordinance was in force before the Constitution's commencement, justifying the imposition of sales tax on exports. The Court examined the nature of the customs duty previously levied and distinguished it from sales tax. It highlighted the difference between sales tax, indicating a change of ownership, and customs duty, representing a change of location. Since no sales tax was levied on exports before the Constitution's commencement, the Court deemed the imposition of sales tax on exported goods illegal.
3. The Court analyzed the President's Sales Tax Order C.O. No. 7 in light of Article 286 of the Constitution, which classified sales into intra-state, inter-state, and imports/exports categories. The Order enabled states to continue levying sales tax on inter-state commerce until a specified date. However, the Court ruled that the customs duty previously imposed in Vindhya Pradesh did not equate to the sales tax mentioned in the President's Order. Consequently, the Court directed the Sales Tax Commissioner not to levy sales tax on goods purchased within Vindhya Pradesh and exported for consumption outside the state, allowing for administrative measures to prevent tax evasion. Permission for appeal to the Supreme Court was granted due to the substantial legal interpretation involved.
-
1950 (12) TMI 20
Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to stay of attachment and execution proceedings for income-tax and sales tax.
2. Preferential treatment of creditors during voluntary liquidation.
3. Dispute over the amount of income-tax and sales tax due.
4. Bona fides of the declaration of solvency.
5. Delay in liquidation proceedings.
6. Undertakings and conditions imposed on the liquidators.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Entitlement to Stay of Attachment and Execution Proceedings for Income-tax and Sales Tax:
The liquidators of the company sought an order to stay all attachment and certificate proceedings initiated for the realization of income-tax and sales tax. The court considered Sections 211 and 216 of the Indian Companies Act, which provide for the application of a company's property in satisfaction of its liabilities pari passu and allow the liquidator to apply for setting aside any attachment or execution put into force after the commencement of winding up. The court noted that allowing execution might interfere with the distribution of assets among creditors equally, a principle upheld in English law as well.
2. Preferential Treatment of Creditors During Voluntary Liquidation:
The court examined whether the Union of India and the State of West Bengal were entitled to preferential treatment for their claims. It was established that except for preferential creditors, execution proceedings against a company in voluntary liquidation should be stayed as a matter of course unless there are special circumstances. The court referred to precedents indicating that the distribution of assets should not be interfered with by allowing execution.
3. Dispute Over the Amount of Income-tax and Sales Tax Due:
Significant disputes existed regarding the amounts due for income-tax and sales tax. The company contested the income-tax assessment for 1943, and appeals were pending. The court found that the Union of India had not established its claim as a preferential creditor for any definite sum. Similarly, the State of West Bengal's claim for sales tax was contested, with the petitioners admitting only a portion of the claimed amount as preferential.
4. Bona Fides of the Declaration of Solvency:
The respondents contended that the declaration of solvency was dishonest and that the company was insolvent. The petitioners argued that the income-tax assessment was arbitrary and the actual tax payable was much less. The court found no evidence of false statements in the declaration of solvency and noted that it was too early to determine the outcome of the pending appeals.
5. Delay in Liquidation Proceedings:
Allegations of delay in the liquidation proceedings were raised, but the court found no extraordinary delay. The petitioners explained that numerous outstanding amounts had to be realized and jobs completed. The court did not find any exceptional circumstances justifying the continuation of execution proceedings by the Union of India.
6. Undertakings and Conditions Imposed on the Liquidators:
The court imposed several undertakings and conditions on the liquidators to safeguard the interests of the respondents. These included making an inventory of the company's assets, allowing inspection and copying of the company's books of account, and not distributing any assets without notice. The liquidators undertook to pay Rs. 4,141-9-6 to the attorney for the State of West Bengal, which would be held subject to further court orders.
Conclusion:
The court ordered the stay of attachment and execution proceedings for income-tax and sales tax under Section 216 of the Indian Companies Act. The State of West Bengal was allowed to realize its admitted preferential claim of Rs. 4,141-9-6, while the Union of India's claim was not established as preferential. The liquidators were required to comply with various conditions to ensure transparency and protect the respondents' interests. The costs of the application and proceedings were to be paid out of the company's assets.
-
1950 (12) TMI 19
Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to restrain the respondents from realizing their claims by execution and attachment.
2. Preferential payment of income-tax and sales tax claims.
3. Allegations of insolvency and delay in liquidation proceedings.
4. Rights and entitlements of the Union of India and the State of West Bengal under the Indian Companies Act.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Entitlement to Restrain Respondents from Realizing Claims by Execution and Attachment:
The petitioners, liquidators of the company, sought an order to stay all attachment and certificate proceedings initiated for the realization of income-tax and sales tax. The court debated whether the petitioners are entitled to restrain the respondents from realizing their claims by execution and attachment. The court referenced Section 216 of the Indian Companies Act, which allows the liquidator to apply for an order setting aside any attachment, distress, or execution put into force against the estate or effects of the company after the commencement of the winding up. The court noted that it is the general practice to stay execution proceedings against a company in voluntary liquidation to ensure the assets are distributed among creditors pari passu.
2. Preferential Payment of Income-Tax and Sales Tax Claims:
The Union of India and the State of West Bengal claimed large sums for income-tax and sales tax, respectively. The court examined whether these claims should be given preferential treatment. The petitioners contended that no income-tax is payable for the year 1943 and that the Union of India is not entitled to preferential payment for income-tax assessed after the company went into voluntary liquidation. The court noted that the Union of India had not established its claim to rank as a preferential creditor for any definite sum of money and decided that there were no exceptional circumstances to allow the Union of India to proceed with execution proceedings. Regarding the State of West Bengal, the court acknowledged that the State is a preferential creditor for the sum of Rs. 4,141-9-6 for sales tax assessed before the company went into voluntary liquidation. The court restrained the State from realizing any amount over this sum by execution.
3. Allegations of Insolvency and Delay in Liquidation Proceedings:
The respondents argued that the declaration of solvency was not honest and that the company was insolvent. The petitioners countered that the income-tax assessment was arbitrary and that the real amount payable was much less than demanded. The court found it too early to determine the outcome of pending appeals in income-tax proceedings and was not satisfied that there had been any false statement in the declaration of solvency. The court also addressed the alleged delay in liquidation proceedings, noting that the petitioners had undertaken necessary completions and that there was no extraordinary delay.
4. Rights and Entitlements of the Union of India and the State of West Bengal under the Indian Companies Act:
The court emphasized that both the Union of India and the State of West Bengal are bound by the provisions of the Indian Companies Act and are not entitled to any preferential rights or treatment beyond what is expressly provided in the Act. The court referenced the judgment in Governor-General in Council v. Shiromani Sugar Mills to support this proposition. The court decided not to determine the final rights of the parties or the extent of preferential payment entitlement at this stage, allowing for these issues to be resolved later.
Conclusion:
The court granted an order to stay the execution and attachment proceedings against the company's estate, except for the admitted preferential claim of Rs. 4,141-9-6 by the State of West Bengal. The petitioners were required to pay this amount to the State's attorney, and the respondents were entitled to the costs of the attachment and execution proceedings. The liquidators provided undertakings to make an inventory of the company's assets, allow inspection of the books of account, and not distribute any assets without notice to the respondents.
-
1950 (12) TMI 18
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the High Court to summon foreign directors under Sections 195 and 235 of the Indian Companies Act.
2. Nature of the deposit made by the applicants and whether it constitutes trust money.
3. Priority of the applicants' claim over the mortgage decree held by Madura Bank Ltd.
4. Liability of the directors for misfeasance under Section 235 of the Indian Companies Act.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Jurisdiction of the High Court to Summon Foreign Directors:
The court addressed a preliminary objection regarding its jurisdiction to consider applications under Sections 195 and 235 of the Indian Companies Act against directors who are permanent residents of Ceylon. The court cited international law principles that restrict serving processes on persons outside its jurisdiction. It referred to the case of Bishadendu Gupta v. H. Langham Reed, which held that the High Court had no jurisdiction over persons residing outside British India. The court concluded that while it had the power under Section 195 to summon the directors, it would be ineffective and inadvisable to issue such an order due to enforcement challenges. However, the application under Section 235 was considered maintainable as it sought a summary remedy for recovery of monies wrongfully converted, which could be treated similarly to a suit under Sections 19 and 20 of the Civil Procedure Code.
2. Nature of the Deposit:
The applicants claimed that the deposit of Rs. 50,000 made under an agreement with the company was trust money and should be treated as a preferential claim. The court examined the terms of the agreement and concluded that the deposit was indeed impressed with a trust. It relied on the decisions in In re Travancore Quilon Bank Ltd. and Kshetra Mohan Dass v. Basu, which held that similar deposits constituted trust money. The court rejected the argument that the absence of a separate account for the deposit negated the trust, emphasizing the intention to create a trust as evidenced by the terms of the agreement.
3. Priority of the Applicants' Claim:
The court considered the rights of the applicants vis-`a-vis the Madura Bank Ltd., which held a mortgage decree against the company's properties. It was argued that the bank had notice of the deposit as trust money from the company's balance sheet. The court found that the bank's security was specific movable and immovable properties, and the applicants' claim could not affect the bank's rights as a secured creditor. The applicants were entitled to proceed against the other assets of the company but not against the properties mortgaged to the bank.
4. Liability of the Directors for Misfeasance:
The court examined whether the directors were liable for misfeasance under Section 235 for utilizing the deposit amount. It noted that the applicants' allegations were vague and lacked specific details of misfeasance or breach of trust. The court referred to several English and Indian decisions, emphasizing that misfeasance must result in actual loss to the company and involve dishonest acts or acts ultra vires the company's powers. The court found no evidence that the directors had misapplied the funds for personal use or unauthorized purposes. The directors had acted bona fide in utilizing the funds for the company's business, and there was no loss to the company directly attributable to their actions. Consequently, the directors were not held liable for misfeasance.
Conclusion:
The court rejected the applicants' prayers (a) and (b) for public examination of the directors and for holding them liable for misfeasance. However, the court granted prayer (c), recognizing the applicants as preferential creditors but not in preference to the claim of the Madura Bank Ltd. No orders were made as to costs.
-
1950 (12) TMI 17
Whether one individual shareholder can, under the circumstances of the case and particularly when one of the respondents is the company which opposes the petition, challenge the validity of the Act on the ground that it is a piece of discriminatory legislation, creates inequality before the law and violates the principle of equal protection of the laws under article 14 of the Constitution of India?
Whether in fact the petitioner has shown that the Act runs contrary to article 14 of the Constitution?
Held that:- Agreeing with the line of reasoning and the conclusion of Mr. Justice Mukherjea as regards the second point relating to the invalidity of the Act on the ground that it infringes article 14 of the Constitution and have nothing more to add. The attack on the legislation on the ground of the denial of equal protection of law cannot succeed.Appeal dismissed.
|
9911796707
