|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 30 Records
-
1957 (12) TMI 43
Issues:
1. Dispute arising from an application for probate
2. Appointment of an administrator pendente lite for properties under a will
3. Validity and propriety of the administrator's appointment
Analysis:
1. The dispute originated from an application for probate filed by Amal Chandra Mustafi, joined by Guruprosad Mustafi, regarding a will executed by Hem Nalini Devi. The contentious application was transformed into a plaint due to disputes. Defendant Shoilesh contested the proceedings after being served summons.
2. An application for appointing an administrator pendente lite was filed during the suit, alleging that defendant Shoilesh had taken possession of a property covered by the will without fulfilling obligations. Shoilesh claimed the property was dedicated to a Deity and objected to the appointment. The District Judge appointed an administrator despite objections, which was challenged by the defendant in this appeal.
3. The appellant contended that the District Judge erred in disregarding the objector's claim to the property's title and necessity for appointing an administrator. The Court highlighted the importance of considering conflicting claims when appointing an administrator pendente lite, emphasizing the need to prevent unjust dispossession based solely on inclusion in a will.
4. The Court examined the deed of dedication executed by Hemnalini Devi in 1939, appointing herself as the first sebait, which raised questions about her disposing power in the subsequent will of 1950. The Court emphasized the need to consider such claims when appointing an administrator, contrary to the District Judge's ruling.
5. Referring to a previous case, the Court reiterated that the question of title and possession should be prima facie considered when appointing an administrator pendente lite if the objector asserts an independent claim. The Court upheld the appellant's right to raise title and possession issues, criticizing the lower court's denial of this right.
6. Regarding the propriety of appointing an outsider as an administrator for the disputed property, the Court deemed it unnecessary. The property, a four-storey building with tenants, was occupied by the appellant, who was a co-sebait. The Court canceled the administrator's appointment for this property, ensuring safeguards against waste or mismanagement.
7. The Court directed the appellant to take possession of the property, manage it responsibly, pay taxes, submit accounts, and deposit surplus funds in court. Failure to comply would allow the opposite party to renew their application for an administrator. The probate case was instructed to proceed promptly, with costs to be borne by the parties themselves. Both judges concurred with the judgment.
-
1957 (12) TMI 42
Issues:
Interpretation of Court Fees Act - Section 7, Clause (XI) (cc) - Suit between landlord and tenant - Amendment of written statement to add plea - Privity of contract between original lessee and subsequent lessee - Rights of lessee in obtaining possession - Distinction between landlord and lessee in terms of court fees payable.
Analysis:
The case involved a revision against an order of the District Munsif, where the 6th defendant sought to amend the written statement to add a plea regarding the court fee payable in a suit for possession against a former tenant holding over. The 6th defendant argued that the suit should fall under Section 7, Clause (V) of the Court Fees Act, necessitating court fee payment based on the market value of the property.
The Munsif, following a previous decision, held that the court fee payable was under Section 7, Clause (XI) (cc) of the Court Fees Act, which relates to suits between landlords and tenants for the recovery of property from a tenant holding over. The 6th defendant appealed this decision, leading to the High Court's review.
The High Court analyzed the scope of Section 7, Clause (XI) of the Court Fees Act, emphasizing that it pertains to suits based on a contract of lease between landlord and tenant. The court noted that the amendment to include Clause (cc) was intended to exclude such suits from Clause (V) and restrict the application to lease contracts.
Referring to precedents, the High Court highlighted that a lessee has the right to seek possession from a former lessee holding over, standing in the shoes of the lessor. The court differentiated between a landlord and a lessee, stating that a lessee cannot be equated to a landlord for court fee purposes unless there is an assignment of the landlord's interest.
The court further discussed the requirement of privity of contract between landlord and tenant for the application of Clause (cc) of Section 7, emphasizing that a subsequent lessee cannot be considered a tenant of the original lessor. The judgment underscored that the purpose of Clause (cc) is to provide a simple remedy for landlords to regain possession based on contractual rights.
In conclusion, the High Court allowed the revision, permitting the 6th defendant to amend the written statement as requested. The court held that the suit would be governed by Section 7, Clause (XI) of the Court Fees Act, affirming the decision regarding the court fee payable in suits between landlords and tenants for the recovery of property from a tenant holding over.
-
1957 (12) TMI 41
Issues Involved:
1. Competency of the mother to act as a legal guardian under Mahomedan Law.
2. Validity of the sale deed (Ext. II) executed by the mother on behalf of the minor.
3. Customary law versus Mahomedan Law regarding guardianship.
4. Right of the mother to execute documents on behalf of the minor.
5. Consideration and necessity supporting the sale deed.
6. Administration of the estate by heirs.
7. Effect of the Shariat Act and Madras Civil Courts Act on the case.
8. Judicial recognition of customs.
9. Binding nature of the sale deed on the minor's share.
10. Repayment of debts and mesne profits.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Competency of the Mother to Act as a Legal Guardian under Mahomedan Law:
Under Mahomedan Law, only the father, the executor appointed by the father's will, the father's father, and the executor appointed by the will of the father's father are entitled to be guardians of the property of a minor. The mother, brother, or uncle does not have the right to act as a guardian for a minor's property. This principle is well established in Mulla's Mahomedan Law and has been recognized by the Privy Council in Imambondi v Haji Mutsaddi and the Supreme Court in Mohd. Amin v Vakil Ahmed.
2. Validity of the Sale Deed (Ext. II) Executed by the Mother on Behalf of the Minor:
The lower court found that Ext. II, executed by the mother as the guardian, was not binding on the minor's share. The court upheld the plaintiff's claim that his mother was not his legal guardian and was not competent to execute Ext. II on his behalf. The sale deed was thus set aside concerning the plaintiff's 14/80 share.
3. Customary Law versus Mahomedan Law Regarding Guardianship:
Defendant 6 contended that the family was governed by custom rather than strict Mahomedan Law, which allowed the mother to act as a guardian. However, the court found no evidence of a definite, uniform, and invariable custom that would override Mahomedan Law. The evidence presented did not prove the existence of such a custom.
4. Right of the Mother to Execute Documents on Behalf of the Minor:
The court reiterated that under Mahomedan Law, the mother has no power to deal with the minor's property beyond pledging movables for imperative necessities. The mother, acting as a de facto guardian, cannot legally convey any right or interest in immovable property on behalf of the minor.
5. Consideration and Necessity Supporting the Sale Deed:
The lower court found that Ext. II was supported by consideration and was used to discharge debts of the deceased Moidunny. However, since the mother was not a legal guardian, the sale deed could not bind the minor's share. The plaintiff was directed to pay his proportionate share of the sale consideration to defendant 6.
6. Administration of the Estate by Heirs:
The court examined whether the sale deed could be considered an act of administration by the adult heirs. It was held that under Mahomedan Law, the estate vests immediately in the heirs, and one heir cannot represent others without being appointed by the court. The Full Bench decision in Abdul Majeeth v Krishnamachariyar was cited, which disapproved the notion that one heir could administer the estate on behalf of others.
7. Effect of the Shariat Act and Madras Civil Courts Act on the Case:
The Shariat Act, enacted in 1937, mandates that Muslim Personal Law governs matters of guardianship. However, since Ext. II was executed in 1935, the court considered the law as it stood then. The Madras Civil Courts Act allowed for the application of custom unless altered by legislative enactment. The court found that the Shariat Act did not retrospectively affect the case.
8. Judicial Recognition of Customs:
For a custom to be judicially recognized, it must be definite, uniform, and invariable. The court found that the evidence did not establish a consistent custom regarding the mother's right to act as a guardian. The documents and testimonies presented showed variations in practice, thus failing to prove a binding custom.
9. Binding Nature of the Sale Deed on the Minor's Share:
The court held that Ext. II was not binding on the minor's share as it was executed by the mother, who was not a legal guardian. The sale deed was set aside concerning the plaintiff's 14/80 share, and the plaintiff was required to pay his proportionate share of the debts.
10. Repayment of Debts and Mesne Profits:
The lower court directed that the plaintiff could recover his share of the properties only after paying his proportionate share of the sale consideration. The court upheld this direction, and the plaintiff was also entitled to past and future mesne profits.
Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed, and the lower court's decree was upheld, affirming that the sale deed (Ext. II) executed by the mother was not binding on the plaintiff's share. The plaintiff was required to pay his proportionate share of the debts, and the properties were to be partitioned accordingly.
-
1957 (12) TMI 40
Issues Involved:
1. Legality and validity of the Director Consolidation of Holdings' order dated 15-12-1956.
2. Assumption of facts regarding the shortage of land to Bhan Singh.
3. Consent of Bhan Singh to accept inferior quality land.
4. Compliance with the scheme provisions during re-partition.
5. Nature of the order under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948.
6. Grounds for interference by certiorari.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Legality and Validity of the Director Consolidation of Holdings' Order:
The petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges the order made by the Director Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, on 15-12-1956. The Director's order was based on the assumption that Bhan Singh had not received a fair deal during the re-partition and ordered a reallocation of land between Bhan Singh and Fauja Singh. The petitioners argued that the Director's order was contrary to the scheme confirmed in 1954 and that Bhan Singh had initially agreed to the allocation.
2. Assumption of Facts Regarding the Shortage of Land to Bhan Singh:
The petitioners contended that the Director's statement about the shortage of 75 kanals of land to Bhan Singh was incorrect. According to the written statement of respondent No. 1, Bhan Singh received 55 kanals and 14 marlas less of superior quality land, not 75 kanals. The petitioners argued that the Director's order was vitiated by this incorrect assumption of facts.
3. Consent of Bhan Singh to Accept Inferior Quality Land:
The petitioners argued that there was no material on record to show that Bhan Singh had not agreed willingly to accept the inferior quality land. Bhan Singh had not filed any objections during the re-partition process and had signed the document agreeing to the allocation. The Director's assumption that Bhan Singh could not have agreed willingly was not supported by any evidence, leading to an error apparent on the face of the record.
4. Compliance with the Scheme Provisions During Re-partition:
The petitioners contended that the Director's order violated the scheme provisions, which did not allow for the splitting of holdings into multiple parcels. The Director's order resulted in the petitioners' holdings being split into four or five parcels, contrary to the scheme. The respondents argued that the scheme provisions could not stand in the way of an order under Section 42, but the court found this position untenable.
5. Nature of the Order Under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948:
The respondents argued that the order under Section 42 was administrative and not quasi-judicial, relying on the observations in Tara Singh v. Director, Consolidation of Holdings Punjab. However, the court examined the provisions of the Act and concluded that the power exercised under Section 42 involved a judicial process, requiring a determination of facts and affecting the rights of parties. Therefore, the order could be challenged by a writ of certiorari.
6. Grounds for Interference by Certiorari:
The court found that there was a wrong assumption of facts regarding the shortage to Bhan Singh and the excess received by the petitioners. Additionally, there was no evidence to support the Director's finding that Bhan Singh had not agreed willingly to accept the inferior quality land. The court also noted that the Director's order violated the scheme provisions, which had become final under Section 21(4) of the Act. Consequently, the court allowed the petition and quashed the Director's order dated 15-12-1956.
Conclusion:
The petition was allowed, and the order of the Director Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, dated 15-12-1956, was quashed. The petitioners were entitled to their costs in the court.
-
1957 (12) TMI 39
Issues:
Interpretation of Section 77 of the Indian Railways Act regarding the requirement of notice for claiming compensation for loss, destruction, or deterioration of goods delivered for carriage by railway.
Detailed Analysis:
The revision before the court arose from a suit filed by the respondent against the Union of India owning the Southern Railway for the recovery of a sum of money due to missing sarees at the time of delivery of goods. The plaintiff claimed compensation for the shortage of delivery, while the Railway contended that the plaintiff did not give notice within the required time frame as per Section 77 of the Indian Railways Act. The section mandates that a claim for compensation must be made in writing to the Railway administration within six months from the date of delivery of goods for carriage by railway.
The court analyzed the language of Section 77 and emphasized that the notice should be within six months from the date of the delivery of goods for carriage by Railways, not from the date of delivery to the consignee. The purpose of the notice is to promptly inform the Railway authorities of any loss or damage to enable a quick investigation. The court clarified that the notice period should be calculated from the date of entrustment of goods, not delivery to the consignee.
The court discussed various interpretations of the term "loss" in Section 77, citing different judicial decisions. The term "loss" was construed broadly to include non-delivery or misdelivery of goods, not limited to complete loss. The court referred to judgments from different High Courts, including Allahabad, Calcutta, Bombay, and Madras, supporting the view that loss encompasses various scenarios affecting the owner's interests, such as non-delivery or misdelivery.
The court highlighted that the word "loss" in Section 77 should be interpreted liberally to cover cases of non-delivery, except in instances of willful withholding of goods by the Railway Company. The court noted that the right to claim compensation arises regardless of the cause of action, whether based on contract or tort. Ultimately, the court allowed the revision, setting aside the lower court's judgment and dismissing the plaintiff's suit due to the lack of notice under Section 77 of the Railways Act. The petitioner was awarded costs for both courts.
-
1957 (12) TMI 38
Issues: Jurisdiction of High Court vs. District Court under the Provincial Insolvency Act
Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the jurisdictional issue under the Provincial Insolvency Act. The appellant filed an appeal before the High Court challenging an order made by the Assistant Judge appointing a receiver in an insolvency petition. The key legal point discussed is whether the appeal should have been filed before the High Court or the District Court as per Section 75 of the Act. The court emphasizes that Section 75(1) clearly states that appeals from decisions of courts subordinate to a District Court must be made to the District Court, not the High Court. The judgment delves into the interpretation of Section 3 of the Act, highlighting that even if the Assistant Judge was invested with jurisdiction, he remains subordinate to the District Court. The court clarifies that the Assistant Judge, despite having concurrent jurisdiction, is still considered subordinate to the District Court. The judgment also references Saurashtra Ordinance No. XI of 1948, emphasizing that an Assistant Judge does not qualify as a District Court under the ordinance. Therefore, the appeal should have been directed to the District Court, not the High Court.
The court further discusses the provisos under Section 75(1) of the Act. It points out that the High Court's role is limited to reviewing the legality of orders passed by the District Court, not hearing appeals directly from subordinate courts. The judgment clarifies that the High Court's jurisdiction is revisional, not appellate, in insolvency proceedings. Additionally, the court explains the conditions under which appeals to the High Court are permissible, highlighting that in this case, the appeal did not meet the criteria outlined in the Act. The judgment concludes that the appeal should have been filed before the District Court, and the leave granted by the Assistant Judge for appeal to the High Court was based on a misunderstanding of the jurisdictional provisions. Consequently, the appeal memo is directed to be returned to the appellant's advocate for filing before the appropriate court, emphasizing that no costs are to be awarded.
In summary, the judgment meticulously analyzes the jurisdictional provisions of the Provincial Insolvency Act, emphasizing the hierarchy between the High Court and the District Court for appeals from subordinate courts. It underscores the importance of adhering to the statutory framework and directs the appellant to pursue the appeal in the correct forum, i.e., the District Court, in accordance with the relevant legal provisions.
-
1957 (12) TMI 37
Issues Involved:
1. Definition of "Factory" under the Factories Act.
2. Definition of "Worker" under the Factories Act.
3. Applicability of the Factories Act to the petitioner's business.
4. Compliance with Sections 6 and 7 of the Factories Act.
5. Interpretation of employment and control over workers.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Definition of "Factory" under the Factories Act
The primary issue was whether the petitioner's premises qualified as a "factory" under the Factories Act. The definition under Clause (m) of Section 2 states that a factory is any premises where:
- 10 or more workers are working with the aid of power, or
- 20 or more workers are working without the aid of power.
The court noted, "The prosecution has no case that at the premises of the Gujarat Travancore Agency any manufacturing process is being carried on with the aid of power." Therefore, the focus was on whether 20 or more workers were engaged without the aid of power.
2. Definition of "Worker" under the Factories Act
The court examined whether the individuals engaged in the petitioner's premises were "workers" as defined in Clause (1) of Section 2. The definition includes any person employed, directly or through any agency, whether for wages or not, in any manufacturing process. The court emphasized, "It is enough if the person concerned is shown to be engaged in any of the items of work specified in the definition."
3. Applicability of the Factories Act to the Petitioner's Business
The court had to determine if the petitioner's business operations fell under the purview of the Factories Act. The court found that the process of garbling pepper, which includes washing, drying, and winnowing, constitutes a "manufacturing process" as defined in Clause (k) of Section 2. However, it was crucial to establish whether the individuals performing these tasks were employed by the petitioner.
4. Compliance with Sections 6 and 7 of the Factories Act
Sections 6 and 7 mandate the occupier to obtain prior permission and provide written notice before using any premises as a factory. The petitioner admitted non-compliance but argued that his premises did not qualify as a factory. The court noted, "If the evidence on record is sufficient to make out that the petitioner is running a factory as defined in the Factories Act, the conviction entered against him by the lower courts has only to be confirmed."
5. Interpretation of Employment and Control Over Workers
The court scrutinized whether the 23 individuals engaged in garbling pepper were employed by the petitioner. The court observed, "The work of garbling pepper had been given by the petitioner to P.W. 3 under a contract." It was P.W. 3 who employed and paid these workers. The court concluded, "It is impossible to hold that the 23 persons mentioned in the mahazar Ext. A and the list Ext. B were persons employed by the petitioner."
The court further clarified that the Factories Act could not be applied unless the workers were employed by the person having ultimate control over the business. The court stated, "It follows, therefore, that these 23 persons were not 'workers' under the Gujrat Travancore Agency and that the firm could not be deemed to be a 'factory' as defined in the Factories Act."
Conclusion:
The court concluded that the petitioner's premises did not qualify as a factory under the Factories Act because the individuals engaged in the manufacturing process were not employed by the petitioner. Consequently, the petitioner's failure to comply with Sections 6 and 7 of the Act did not constitute an offense. The court stated, "The petitioner's failure to comply with the requirements of Sections 6 and 7 of the Act or of Rules 3, 4, and 12 of the Rules framed thereunder, cannot amount to the commission of any offense punishable under Section 92 of the Act."
Judgment:
The revision petition was accepted, and the conviction and sentence awarded by the lower court were set aside. The petitioner was acquitted of the charges, and any fine paid was ordered to be refunded.
-
1957 (12) TMI 36
Issues:
1. Validity of the orders of Additional Income-tax Officer dated March 30, 1955, and March 31, 1955, revising individual assessments made on March 31, 1952 under section 35 of the Income-tax Act.
2. Whether the original assessment orders were provisional and subject to variation based on the agreement made by the petitioners.
3. Applicability of section 35(5) to the case.
4. Validity of the impugned order made under section 35(1) of the Income-tax Act.
Analysis:
The judgment involves three petitions challenging the orders of the Additional Income-tax Officer revising individual assessments made under section 35 of the Income-tax Act. The petitioners, partners in a firm, submitted their returns declaring income and agreed to revise the order after the firm's assessment. The main contention was the legality of the revision under section 35. The court considered whether the original assessments were provisional and subject to variation based on the agreement. It was crucial to determine if section 35(5) applied to the case, which would affect the outcome of the petitions. The court analyzed precedents to establish the scope of section 35(5) and its retrospective application.
The court delved into whether the agreement made by the petitioners could be used to revise the assessments under section 35(1) of the Act. It was noted that for rectification under section 35(1), there must be a mistake apparent from the record. The court referred to previous cases to determine the interpretation of a mistake apparent from the record, emphasizing the need for a clear error evident from the assessment records. The judgment highlighted the distinction between cases where the assessment was provisionally accepted based on an agreement and those where no such agreement existed.
Furthermore, the court discussed the aspect of time limitation in completing assessments under sections 23 and 29. It noted that the Income-tax Officer could have waited for the firm's assessment completion but acted based on the petitioners' promise. The court emphasized the importance of parties acting in good faith and honoring agreements made during the assessment process. It concluded that the petitioners, by waiving their right to challenge the assessment based on the agreement, could not now dispute the competence of the Income-tax authority. The judgment dismissed the petitions, citing that the petitioners had relinquished their right by acting in full faith on their word, and their conduct did not merit discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.
-
1957 (12) TMI 35
Issues:
Whether the Appellate Tribunal should refer certain questions of law to the High Court under the Indian Income-tax Act.
Analysis:
The case involved two petitions under section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act concerning whether the Appellate Tribunal should refer questions of law arising from its order dated July 19, 1954. The petitions were filed by the Commissioner of Income-tax against two companies: Motor and General Finance Limited and Goodwill Pictures Limited. The dispute arose from the treatment of certain sums received by the companies as trading receipts or capital receipts.
The first company initially engaged in the hire purchase of motor vehicles but later expanded its business to include film finance. It entered into agreements with a film producer for distribution rights, leading to a dispute and a compromise decree. The second company was appointed as a sole distributor for certain films. The Tribunal held that the sums received by the companies were capital receipts due to the cessation of their film distribution activities. The Commissioner sought a reference to the High Court on questions of law regarding the nature of the receipts.
The Tribunal dismissed the applications, stating that the disappearance of the business structure was a factual finding with legal consequences. The Commissioner challenged this decision, arguing that there was no evidence supporting the Tribunal's findings. The High Court emphasized that Tribunal findings on facts are binding unless unsupported by competent evidence. It clarified that the legal effect of evidence and the nature of a receipt are questions of law. The High Court held that if there is an entire failure of evidence to support a finding, a question of law arises.
The High Court accepted the petitions, requiring the Tribunal to refer the questions of law to the court as proposed by the Commissioner. The court awarded costs to the petitioner in each case. Justice Mehar Singh concurred with the decision.
In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issue of whether the Tribunal should refer questions of law to the High Court under the Income-tax Act. It clarified the legal principles governing Tribunal findings, evidence, and the distinction between revenue and capital receipts. The High Court's decision emphasized the importance of legal analysis in determining the nature of receipts and upheld the Commissioner's request for a reference to address the legal questions raised in the case.
-
1957 (12) TMI 34
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Excise Orders
2. Interpretation of Excise Rules and Statutes
3. Estoppel Against Government
4. Jurisdiction and Applicability of Article 226
5. Nature of Sikkim as a Foreign State
6. Legality of Gallonage Fee
7. Legislative Competence and Constitutional Validity
Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of the Excise Orders:
The applicant sought a writ of certiorari to quash the orders of the Collector of Excise, Commissioner of Excise, and Government of West Bengal, which demanded payment of gallonage fees amounting to Rs. 11,989/8/- for foreign liquors supplied to a dealer in Sikkim. The Collector's order dated 30th July 1954 was the original order under dispute.
2. Interpretation of Excise Rules and Statutes:
The applicant argued that he had been selling foreign liquor to licensed dealers in Sikkim since 1946 and issued passes as per the Bengal Excise Act, 1909. The Bengal Excise (Foreign Liquor License Fee) Rules, particularly Rule 3(b), required payment of fees for liquor not supplied under a valid excise pass issued to a licensed dealer. The Court held that the interpretation of statutes and rules cannot be altered by official advice and that there can be no estoppel against the Government on a point of law.
3. Estoppel Against Government:
The applicant relied on a letter from the Collector of Excise, which stated that sales to licensees in areas where sales had been previously made would continue without imposition of gallonage fees. The Court ruled that the Government is not bound by the advice contained in such letters, citing precedents from the American Supreme Court and the House of Lords, which held that official advice does not alter the legality of an act.
4. Jurisdiction and Applicability of Article 226:
The Court noted that the applicant had already availed himself of the ordinary remedies provided by the special Act and could not challenge the original order under Article 226 of the Constitution after failing at all previous stages. This principle was supported by the decision in Kanai Lal Sethi v. Collector of Land Customs, Calcutta.
5. Nature of Sikkim as a Foreign State:
The applicant's argument that Sikkim was a foreign sovereign state was rejected. The Court clarified that Sikkim was a protectorate of India, enjoying autonomy in internal affairs but not considered a foreign state in the context of the Bengal Excise Act. The sale to a dealer in Sikkim did not qualify as a sale under a valid excise pass within the meaning of Rule 3(b).
6. Legality of Gallonage Fee:
The Court held that the sale to Sikkim did not meet the conditions of a valid excise pass, and the gallonage fee was correctly imposed. The assessable quantity of liquor included the stock sold to Sikkim, as there was no valid pass issued under the Bengal Excise Act.
7. Legislative Competence and Constitutional Validity:
The applicant contended that the levy of gallonage fees was ultra vires the powers of the State Legislature under the Constitution. The Court disagreed, stating that the Bengal Excise Act and the rules made thereunder did not deal with international or inter-state trade but were covered by the State subjects in List 2 of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. The Court affirmed the legislative competence of the State to impose such fees under the Bengal Excise Act, 1909.
Conclusion:
The Court dismissed the application, holding that the fee was authorized and permitted by statute, and was neither ultra vires, illegal, nor unconstitutional. The Rule was discharged, and the interim order, if any, was vacated without any order as to costs.
-
1957 (12) TMI 33
Issues:
Interpretation of section 5(1) of the Travancore-Cochin Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950 regarding the deduction of expenses incurred for the upkeep and maintenance of rubber plants in calculating assessable agricultural income.
Analysis:
The judgment involved references under section 60(1) of the Act, raising a common question regarding the interpretation of section 5(1) concerning deductions for agricultural income. The case concerned four references, with different accounting years and amounts, involving two different assessees. The question revolved around whether expenses for maintaining immature rubber plants in a rubber estate could be deducted from assessable agricultural income.
The court analyzed the definition of "agricultural income" under section 2(a) of the Act, emphasizing that deductions under section 5(j) must be laid out or expended wholly or exclusively for the purpose of deriving agricultural income. The court highlighted that expenses must be directly related to the crop that earned the profits forming the basis of assessment in the relevant accounting year.
Referring to a previous case, the court emphasized the need for expenses to be intimately related to the crop that generated the income claimed for deduction. The court rejected the argument that section 5(j) should have a broader interpretation based on another specific provision in the Act, emphasizing the plain meaning of the provision.
The court also addressed the contention that section 5(j) should be considered a residuary provision, comparing it to similar provisions in other tax laws. The court concluded that section 5(j) is not a residuary provision and held that the deductions claimed for maintaining immature rubber plants were not permissible under the Act.
In the final decision, the court found the contentions of the assessees unsustainable, ruling that the deductions claimed were not permissible under section 5(j) of the Act. The court answered the questions referred in the negative and directed the judgment to be sent to the Appellate Tribunal as required by the Act.
-
1957 (12) TMI 32
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the interim injunction under Order 39, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code.
2. Jurisdiction of the court to grant an interim injunction against a non-party to the suit.
3. The scope of Rule 1(a) of Order 39, Civil Procedure Code, regarding wrongful execution of a decree.
4. The relevance of the main suit's claims to the interim relief sought.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of the interim injunction under Order 39, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code:
The appellant sought an interim injunction to restrain the respondent from executing a decree obtained in C.S. No. 228 of 1954. The Additional City Civil Judge dismissed the application, stating that the decree was not wrongful and did not satisfy the requirements of Order 39, Rule 1(a), Civil Procedure Code. The appeal challenges this dismissal, arguing that there was a prima facie case showing the appellant's rights in the properties of Abdulla, which were yet to be adjudicated.
2. Jurisdiction of the court to grant an interim injunction against a non-party to the suit:
The core argument was whether the court had jurisdiction to grant an injunction under Order 39, Rule 1(a), against the respondent, who was not a party to the suit O.S. No. 1119 of 1955. The appellant's counsel argued that Rule 1(a) had a broader scope compared to Rules 1(b) and 2(1) and could include persons who were not parties to the suit. The court, however, found no precedent where an injunction was granted against a non-party, emphasizing that interim relief should not exceed the scope of relief that could be granted in the main suit.
3. The scope of Rule 1(a) of Order 39, Civil Procedure Code, regarding wrongful execution of a decree:
The court examined whether the execution of the decree in C.S. No. 228 of 1954 could be considered wrongful under Rule 1(a). It was noted that the decree itself was not alleged to be wrongfully obtained, and the appellant did not seek any relief against the mortgage in the main suit O.S. No. 1119 of 1955. The court highlighted that interim relief should be based on a prima facie right claimed in the main suit, which was not the case here.
4. The relevance of the main suit's claims to the interim relief sought:
The court stressed that interim relief is granted to maintain the status quo until the main suit's claims are adjudicated. Since the respondent was not a party to the main suit and no relief was sought against the mortgage decree in O.S. No. 1119 of 1955, the interim injunction would not serve this purpose. The court concluded that granting interim relief in such circumstances would be beyond its jurisdiction and discretion.
Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed with costs, affirming the decision of the Additional City Civil Judge. The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to grant an interim injunction against a non-party to the main suit and emphasized that interim relief should not exceed the scope of relief that could be granted in the main suit itself.
-
1957 (12) TMI 31
Issues Involved:
1. Basis of assessment under section 7 of the Bengal Agricultural Income-tax Act.
2. Valuation of unsold stock of paddy at procurement rate.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Basis of Assessment under Section 7 of the Bengal Agricultural Income-tax Act
The primary issue was whether the actual receipt should be the basis of assessment under section 7 of the Bengal Agricultural Income-tax Act. The Tribunal originally held that the assessment should be based on the actual yield of the year, not merely the estimated or actual collection. The court clarified that the Act provides for the taxation of agricultural income on a receipt basis, meaning no tax can be levied on income that has not been realized. It was emphasized that "receivability" without receipt is nothing. The court stated that the share of the produce received by the bargadar should be treated as received by the owner, either actually or constructively, but the owner's own share should only be included in the computation to the extent it was actually received. The court concluded that the owner's share of produce from land cultivated by bargadars is liable to agricultural income-tax only to the extent that it is actually received, unless the unrealized portion has been remitted.
2. Valuation of Unsold Stock of Paddy at Procurement Rate
The second issue was whether the procurement rate fixed by the Government should be taken as the basis of valuation of the unsold stock of paddy. The court referred to rule 4(2)(a) of the Rules, which states that the market value of produce not sold in the market must be taken as the average price at which such produce has been sold in the locality during the previous year. The court found no justification for the contention that the procurement rate should be applied. It was not proven that all the paddy in the locality had been requisitioned and purchased at the procurement rate, nor was it alleged that there was no open market. The court concluded that the open market rate should be used for valuation, as the assessee would have had to purchase paddy at the open market price if he did not have the paddy received from his bargadars.
Conclusion:
The court answered the questions as follows:
1. Yes, the actual receipt should be the basis of assessment under section 7, so far as the assessee's own share of the produce was concerned, unless it was found that the portion not received had been remitted.
2. No, the procurement rate should not be taken as the basis of valuation of the unsold stock of paddy.
The court noted that success was equally divided and thus made no order for costs.
-
1957 (12) TMI 30
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the sum of Rs. 40,000 paid to Mr. E.V. Crushandal is a capital expenditure or revenue expenditure.
2. Whether the eleven annas share in the Jaipuria firm belonged to Chuni Lal individually or to the family firm.
3. Whether the assessee firm was legally debarred from raising objections regarding the apportionment of the shares of profits in the hands of Chuni Lal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal.
4. Whether the Income-tax Officer can determine a partner's status other than what is shown in the partnership deed while making the assessment.
5. Whether the Tribunal's order dismissing the appeal of the Hindu undivided family Behari Lal Beni Parshad is vitiated by not fully considering the remand report.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Capital Expenditure vs. Revenue Expenditure:
The primary issue was whether the Rs. 40,000 paid to Mr. E.V. Crushandal should be treated as capital expenditure or revenue expenditure. The court found that the amount was paid to oust Crushandal from competition, enabling the Jaipuria firm to secure the contract for armour plates without difficulty. This payment was not for acquiring stock-in-trade but to prepare the ground for securing business, making it a capital expenditure. The Tribunal's conclusion that it was a capital expenditure was upheld as there was no error in reaching this conclusion.
2. Ownership of Eleven Annas Share in Jaipuria Firm:
The second issue was whether the eleven annas share in the Jaipuria firm was Chuni Lal's individual share or belonged to the family firm. The Income-tax Officer, Appellate Assistant Commissioner, and the Tribunal all concluded that the share belonged to the family firm based on several factors:
- No capital was invested by Chuni Lal himself.
- Significant payments were made by the family firm for the Jaipuria firm's business.
- The family firm paid Baij Nath Bajoria's share upon dissolution.
- Chuni Lal had no qualifications to justify his large share except for the family's financial backing.
The court held that this was a factual determination supported by evidence, and there was no basis for interference.
3. Legal Debarment of Raising Objections:
The court addressed whether the assessee firm was legally debarred from raising objections regarding the apportionment of profits in Chuni Lal's hands. The Tribunal had held that since the family firm did not appeal the initial assessment, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner should not have entertained Chuni Lal's appeal. The court did not find any legal error in this conclusion.
4. Determination of Partner's Status by Income-tax Officer:
The court examined whether the Income-tax Officer could determine a partner's status different from what was shown in the partnership deed. The Tribunal found that the Income-tax Officer was correct in determining that Chuni Lal was a partner representing the family. The court upheld this finding as it was based on substantial evidence.
5. Consideration of Remand Report:
The final issue was whether the Tribunal's order dismissing the appeal of the Hindu undivided family was vitiated by not fully considering the remand report. The court found that the Tribunal had referred to the report and agreed with the Income-tax Officer's reasoning. The court concluded that there was no failure to consider the material facts.
Conclusion:
The applications were dismissed as the court found no merit in the claims. The findings of the Income-tax authorities were based on substantial evidence, and there was no jurisdiction for the court to interfere. The petitions were dismissed with costs, and counsel for the respondent was allowed a fee of Rs. 150.
-
1957 (12) TMI 29
Issues:
1. Interpretation of section 44 of the Cochin Income-tax Act regarding the 8-year rule for assessments.
2. Validity of the Commissioner's order canceling the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's order and the issue of limitation.
Analysis:
The High Court of Kerala addressed a reference by the Commissioner of Income-tax regarding assessments under the Cochin Income-tax Act. The first issue involved the correctness of the Income-tax Officer's assessments for the years 1120 and 1121 M.E. under the 8-year rule of limitation as per section 44 of the Act. Section 44(2) specifies the time limit for assessments, with a longer period of eight years applicable in cases of income concealment or deliberate inaccurate reporting. The Court noted that if section 38(1)(c) is not applicable and the eight-year period is unavailable, the assessments in question would be out of time.
The Court delved into section 38(1) of the Act, emphasizing that the longer period of eight years is only available in cases of concealing income particulars or furnishing inaccurate details. Since the assessee had not filed returns for the relevant years as required, the Court concluded that the case fell under clause (a) of section 38(1) rather than clause (c). It was highlighted that failure to furnish any return cannot be equated with concealing income particulars or providing inaccurate details under clause (c).
Consequently, the Court determined that the Department was not entitled to the extended eight-year period for assessments in this case, answering the first question accordingly. Given this finding, the Court stated that the second question regarding the Commissioner's order cancellation did not require consideration. The judgment directed the transmission of a copy to the Commissioner of Income-tax as per statutory provisions and made no order as to costs, ultimately resolving the reference in line with the Court's analysis.
-
1957 (12) TMI 28
Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of the term "paid" under Section 10(5) of the Income-tax Act.
2. Allowability of Rs. 51,610 as an expense under Section 10(2)(iv) of the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 1947-48.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Interpretation of the term "paid" under Section 10(5) of the Income-tax Act:
The first question posed by the Tribunal was whether the word "paid" as defined in Section 10(5) means actual payment in the year under assessment, particularly when accounts are kept on a mercantile system. The court declined to answer this question, stating that it was too general and did not specifically arise from the appellate order of the Tribunal. The court emphasized that it confines itself to answering specific questions of law that arise in a particular case, rather than laying down general principles for the guidance of Income-tax authorities. The definition of "paid" would be considered when addressing the second question.
2. Allowability of Rs. 51,610 as an expense under Section 10(2)(iv) of the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 1947-48:
The second question addressed whether the amount of Rs. 51,610, paid by the assessee in respect of insurance premiums for earlier years, was allowable as an expense under Section 10(2)(iv) of the Income-tax Act in the assessment year 1947-48.
The facts established that the assessee was required to insure its stock-in-trade under the War Risks (Goods) Insurance Ordinance, 1940. The Government detected that the assessee had failed to pay the proper insurance premium for earlier years, leading to a demand for unpaid premiums and penalties. The matter was compromised for Rs. 1,03,220, with Rs. 51,610 representing the unpaid premium and the remaining Rs. 51,610 as composition money for the criminal offence of non-compliance.
The Tribunal had previously held that the Rs. 51,610 could not be deducted as an expenditure in the account year in question because the liability had arisen in earlier years. However, the assessee contended that the amount was actually paid during the relevant account year and that the exact liability was ascertained during this period, making it deductible in the assessment year 1947-48.
The court examined the provisions of the War Risks (Goods) Insurance Ordinance, 1940, and its amendments. It noted that the liability to pay the premium arose under a policy issued in accordance with the scheme, and the exact liability was determined by an officer authorized under Section 7-A of the Ordinance. The court found that the evasion of premium payment was detected, and the liability was ascertained and paid during the account year in question.
The court concluded that under the mercantile system of accounting, a liability cannot be entered as an expenditure unless it is an ascertained sum of money. Since the liability was ascertained and paid during the account year in question, the amount of Rs. 51,610 was deductible as an expense under Section 10(2)(iv) of the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 1947-48.
The court also referred to decisions of the Madras High Court and the Calcutta High Court, which supported the principle that only an ascertained liability can be entered in accounts maintained on a mercantile basis.
Conclusion:
The court answered the second question in the affirmative, holding that the amount of Rs. 51,610 was "paid" by the assessee in the relevant account year and was deductible as an expense for the assessment year 1947-48. The assessee was entitled to claim this amount as a legitimate deduction, and the Department was ordered to pay costs of Rs. 400 to the assessee.
-
1957 (12) TMI 27
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the fixation of quotas for sale to non-licensees.
2. Imposition of a 20% commission on sales exceeding the quota.
3. Alleged infringement of fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
4. Validity of the statutory order under Section 17 of the Cochin Abkari Act.
5. Compliance with Section 69 of the Cochin Abkari Act regarding publication of rules and notifications.
Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Legality of the Fixation of Quotas for Sale to Non-Licensees:
The respondent, a wholesale dealer in foreign liquor, contested the excise authorities' right to fix quotas for sales to non-licensees. The High Court concluded that the fixation of quotas was unauthorized and illegal. The court found that the excise authorities had no legal basis to set different quotas for different licensees, which introduced unfair discrimination contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution.
2. Imposition of a 20% Commission on Sales Exceeding the Quota:
The respondent was informed by the excise authorities that a 20% commission was to be levied on sales exceeding the fixed quota. The High Court held that this imposition was unauthorized and illegal. The court determined that the collection of the commission lacked legal support and was enforced through the threat of closure, which was deemed illegal. The court directed the excise authorities to repay the collected commission and desist from imposing any such commission until a law authorizing it was enacted.
3. Alleged Infringement of Fundamental Rights under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution:
The respondent argued that the fixation of quotas and the imposition of the 20% commission constituted an unreasonable restriction on his business, infringing his fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The High Court agreed, finding that the restrictions imposed were not reasonable and infringed on the respondent's right to carry on his business. The court also found that the discriminatory quotas violated Article 14, which guarantees equality before the law.
4. Validity of the Statutory Order under Section 17 of the Cochin Abkari Act:
The appellants contended that the order dated July 14, 1950, was a statutory order under Section 17 of the Cochin Abkari Act, authorizing the imposition of the 20% commission. However, the court found that there was no evidence that this order was communicated to the respondent or published in the official Gazette. The court concluded that the order was merely a departmental instruction and not a statutory order with legal effect.
5. Compliance with Section 69 of the Cochin Abkari Act Regarding Publication of Rules and Notifications:
Section 69 of the Cochin Abkari Act mandates that all rules and notifications must be published in the official Gazette to have the force of law. The court found that the endorsement at the foot of Exhibit 1, which purported to impose the 20% commission, was not published as required. Consequently, the court held that the imposition lacked legal authority and could not be enforced. The court emphasized that any variation of the rules, including the imposition of additional fees, must be published in the official Gazette to be valid.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's judgment that the fixation of quotas and the imposition of the 20% commission were unauthorized and illegal. The court affirmed that the restrictions imposed on the respondent's business were unreasonable and infringed his fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The court also highlighted the necessity of complying with statutory requirements for the publication of rules and notifications to give them legal effect. The appeal was dismissed with costs.
-
1957 (12) TMI 26
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the subsidy of Rs. 89,791/- paid by the Government of India to the assessee company during the present accounting period is liable to be assessed as income, profits, or gains of the assessee's business.
2. Whether this sum of Rs. 89,791/- is in the nature of a refund of the additional excise duty levied and paid by the assessee during the year under consideration.
Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: Taxability of the Subsidy as Income
The court examined whether the subsidy of Rs. 89,791/- paid by the Government of India to the assessee company should be considered as income, profits, or gains of the business. The assessee, a limited company engaged in manufacturing sugar, had to pay increased wages to its workers as directed by the U.P. Government. To compensate for this additional expenditure, the Government of India decided to provide a subsidy to the sugar factories in U.P. and Bihar. The subsidy was paid at the rate of 9 annas per maund of sugar produced during the 1946-47 season.
The assessee argued that this subsidy was a casual receipt and not income arising from business, thereby claiming exemption under Section 4(3)(vii) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal, however, rejected this contention, stating that the subsidy was income liable to tax based on the principle laid down in the case of Pontypride and Rhondda Joint Water Board v. Ostime (H.M. Inspector of Tax), 1946-14 ITR 45 (Sup).
The court held that the nature of the receipt must be judged by considering the circumstances and the purpose for which it was given. The subsidy was paid to compensate for the loss of profits due to additional wage payments, which were business-related expenses. Consequently, the subsidy was inseparably connected with the business and arose from it. Thus, it was considered a trading receipt and included in the taxable income of the company.
Issue 2: Nature of the Subsidy as a Refund of Additional Excise Duty
The second issue was whether the subsidy could be considered a refund of the additional excise duty paid by the assessee. The court noted that there was no finding that the amount paid as excise duty was equal to or greater than the subsidy received. The circumstances indicated that the subsidy was compensation for additional wages paid, not a refund of excise duty. The mere fact that the subsidy was paid from the proceeds of the additional excise duty did not convert it into a refund of excise duty.
Conclusion:
The court answered the first question in the affirmative, holding that the subsidy was taxable as income arising from the business. The second question was deemed unnecessary to answer in light of the first conclusion, although the court incidentally noted that the subsidy could not be considered a refund of excise duty. The record was returned with the court's opinion, and costs for the reference were fixed at Rs. 250/- for the department.
-
1957 (12) TMI 25
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the income-tax authorities are entitled to change the method of valuing films at 40% of the cost in the first year of release to a time-based calculation at 60% per annum.
2. Whether the method of accounting regularly employed by the assessee was properly rejected.
3. Whether the mechanical time-basis rule adopted by the Tribunal reflects the true profits of the assessee.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Change in Valuation Method:
The primary issue was whether the income-tax authorities could change the method of valuing films from 40% of the cost in the first year to a time-based calculation at 60% per annum. The assessee, Gemini Pictures Circuit Limited, had traditionally valued films at 40% of their cost at the end of the first year of release, 15% at the end of the second year, and nil at the end of the third year. This method was accepted by the Income-tax Department in previous years. However, for the assessment year 1950-51, the Income-tax Officer changed this method, valuing the film based on a pro-rata amortisation rate of 60% per annum for the 72 days the film was exhibited, resulting in a higher valuation of the closing stock.
2. Rejection of Assessee's Method:
The Tribunal and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld the Income-tax Officer's decision to reject the assessee's method of valuation. They argued that the assessee's method could lead to absurd results, such as a film depreciating by 60% even if it was exhibited only on the last date of the accounting period. The Tribunal concluded that the only reasonable method was to adopt per annum amortisation rates. The court agreed, stating that the assessee's method did not reflect the true profits and gains of the business, thereby justifying the rejection under the proviso to Section 13 of the Indian Income-tax Act.
3. Mechanical Time-Basis Rule:
The court examined whether the mechanical time-basis rule adopted by the Tribunal accurately reflected the true profits of the assessee. The court found that while the time-basis rule might be better than the assessee's method, it was still flawed. The court noted that the rate of depreciation is not constant but progressively decreases. The court suggested that a more appropriate method would consider the actual collections from the film during its normal life. The court proposed several alternative methods, including calculating depreciation based on the total revenue from the film over its three-year life or using the collections from the first year to estimate the depreciation rate.
Conclusion:
The court concluded that the method of accounting regularly employed by the assessee was properly rejected as it did not disclose the true profits. However, the mechanical time-basis rule adopted by the Tribunal was also found to be inadequate. The court directed that the assessments be revised in light of the principles it enunciated, emphasizing the need to consider actual collections in determining the rate of depreciation. The court dismissed the related writ petition, stating that the issues raised were addressed in the reference case.
Final Judgment:
The court answered the reference by stating that the method of accounting regularly employed by the assessee was properly rejected, and the mechanical time-basis rule adopted by the Tribunal did not reflect the true profits. The assessments were to be revised based on the court's guidelines, and the writ petition was dismissed.
-
1957 (12) TMI 24
Issues Involved:
1. Compliance with Article 311(2) of the Indian Constitution.
2. Reasonable opportunity to show cause against proposed action.
3. Validity of the dismissal order.
4. Procedural fairness and adherence to service rules.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Compliance with Article 311(2) of the Indian Constitution:
The primary issue was whether the appellant was given a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the action proposed to be taken against him, as mandated by Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The Court emphasized that Article 311(2) provides a statutory protection to government servants, ensuring that they are not dismissed, removed, or reduced in rank without being given a reasonable opportunity to defend themselves. This protection is a constitutional safeguard, converting the procedural requirements of service rules into statutory rights.
2. Reasonable Opportunity to Show Cause Against Proposed Action:
The Court elaborated that the reasonable opportunity envisaged by Article 311(2) includes:
- An opportunity to deny guilt and establish innocence, which requires the government servant to be informed of the charges and the evidence against them.
- An opportunity to defend oneself by cross-examining witnesses and presenting one's own evidence.
- An opportunity to make representations against the proposed punishment, which should be communicated to the government servant after the enquiry is over and a tentative decision on the punishment is made.
The Court found that the appellant was not given this reasonable opportunity. Although he was served with a charge sheet and appeared before the Enquiry Officer, he was not given a chance to show cause against the proposed punishment after the charges were established.
3. Validity of the Dismissal Order:
The Court held that the dismissal order issued by the Deputy Commissioner on December 17, 1951, was inoperative as it did not comply with the constitutional requirement of giving the appellant a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the proposed dismissal. The Court emphasized that the appellant should have been given a further opportunity to make his case against the punishment of dismissal after the charges were proved and a tentative decision on the punishment was made.
4. Procedural Fairness and Adherence to Service Rules:
The Court noted that the procedural fairness required by Article 311(2) was not adhered to in this case. The enquiry conducted by Shri Mahipal Singh and the subsequent report by Shri J. B. Tandon did not provide the appellant with the necessary opportunity to defend himself at both stages of the disciplinary process. The Court also highlighted that the appellant's request for the enquiry to be conducted by a Gazetted Officer was denied, and he was not given a copy of the report by Shri Mahipal Singh, if any was made.
Conclusion:
The Court concluded that the appellant's dismissal was not in accordance with the constitutional protection provided under Article 311(2). The Court set aside the order of the Single Judge, decreed the appellant's suit, and declared that the order of dismissal was inoperative. The appellant was entitled to costs throughout all courts, and any court fees due from him were to be paid. The Court assessed the appellant's fees at Rs. 250.
Appeal Allowed.
|
9911796707
