Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1992 1992 (12) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA Law of Competition PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2025 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 2 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 1 to 20 of 187 Records

• 1992 (12) TMI 240
  
  ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

  The core legal questions considered in this judgment include:

  • Whether the suit filed is a suit for land and thus outside the jurisdiction of the Court due to the location of the land being outside the local limits of the Court's jurisdiction.
  • Whether the suit should be treated as a suit in personam for specific performance and injunction, rather than a suit for land.
  • The implications of the agreement for specific performance and whether it inherently includes a claim for possession of the land.
  • Whether the claim for injunction against the transfer of property and the declaration of voidness of a subsequent agreement constitute a suit for land.

  ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

  1. Jurisdiction and Nature of the Suit

  • Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The determination of whether a suit is for land depends on the terms of the agreement and other factors. The precedent set in Debendra v. Southern Bank Ltd establishes that a decree for specific performance is not a suit for land. The Supreme Court in Baboo Lall v. Hazari Lall allows a plaintiff to treat specific performance as including a prayer for possession.
  • Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court analyzed whether the suit should be treated as a suit for land based on the agreement terms and the plaintiff's possession status. The plaintiff's possession negated the need to claim possession again.
  • Key Evidence and Findings: The agreement did not contain a clause for delivery of possession post-agreement execution. The plaintiff was already in possession, as admitted in the plaint.
  • Application of Law to Facts: The Court determined that the plaintiff could choose to treat the specific performance claim as a suit in personam, not involving land possession.
  • Treatment of Competing Arguments: The defendants argued that the suit was for land due to the land's location outside jurisdiction, but the Court found the plaintiff's claim did not inherently involve land possession.
  • Conclusions: The suit was not a suit for land, as it primarily sought personal reliefs and the plaintiff was already in possession.

  2. Specific Performance and Injunction

  • Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The Court referenced Brijmohon Lall Rathi v. Geeta Devi, which clarified that specific performance claims do not automatically constitute suits for land.
  • Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The injunction against property transfer was considered an interlocutory relief, not affecting land title or possession directly.
  • Key Evidence and Findings: The injunction was aimed at preventing transfer by defendants, not altering land possession or title.
  • Application of Law to Facts: The injunction was not a suit for land, as it targeted personal actions of the defendants.
  • Treatment of Competing Arguments: The defendants' argument that the injunction related to land was dismissed as it was a personal restraint.
  • Conclusions: The injunction and specific performance claims were not suits for land.

  3. Declaration of Voidness of Subsequent Agreement

  • Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The Court discussed the implications of declaring an agreement void under the Transfer of Property Act, which could remove a charge on the land.
  • Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The declaration of voidness was a personal decree affecting the agreement's validity, not a direct action on the land.
  • Key Evidence and Findings: The subsequent agreement's voidness was argued to remove a land charge, but the Court saw this as an ancillary effect.
  • Application of Law to Facts: The voidness declaration did not convert the suit into a suit for land, as it focused on the agreement's validity.
  • Treatment of Competing Arguments: The defendants' claim that the voidness affected land was countered by the Court's focus on the agreement's personal nature.
  • Conclusions: The declaration of voidness was not a suit for land.

  SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

  • Core Principles Established: A suit for specific performance does not automatically constitute a suit for land unless possession is explicitly claimed or implied in the agreement.
  • Final Determinations on Each Issue: The Court concluded that the suit was not a suit for land, as none of the claims directly involved land possession or title. The claims for specific performance, injunction, and declaration of voidness were treated as personal claims.

  The Court ultimately decided that the suit was maintainable within its jurisdiction, as it was not a suit for land. The application for revocation of leave was dismissed, and costs were assessed to abide by the suit's outcome.

  ---

• 1992 (12) TMI 239
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Validity of the compromise petition filed on 27.2.1991.
  2. Applicability of Order 23, Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).
  3. Legality of the High Court's order setting aside the Trial Court's decision.
  4. The role of fraud in the compromise petition.
  5. The power of the court to recall orders under Section 151 of the CPC.
  
  Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Validity of the Compromise Petition Filed on 27.2.1991:
  The appellant contended that no actual compromise had been reached between the parties, and the petition filed on 27.2.1991 was fabricated. The petition was not signed by the contesting respondent or his counsel, which is a requirement under Order 23, Rule 3 of the CPC. The Trial Court initially accepted the compromise and dismissed the suit based on the petition. However, upon discovering the alleged fraud, the appellant sought to have the order recalled.
  
  2. Applicability of Order 23, Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC):
  Order 23, Rule 3 of the CPC mandates that any compromise must be in writing and signed by the parties. The Trial Court's acceptance of the compromise without the necessary signatures was a significant procedural lapse. The Supreme Court emphasized that the court must be satisfied that the agreement is lawful before accepting it. The proviso to Rule 3 also requires the court to decide any disputes regarding the compromise, ensuring that it is not void or voidable under the Indian Contract Act.
  
  3. Legality of the High Court's Order Setting Aside the Trial Court's Decision:
  The High Court set aside the Trial Court's order, interpreting the compromise petition as a simple withdrawal under Rule 1 of Order 23. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the order on 27.2.1991 was based on a compromise, not a withdrawal. The Supreme Court held that the Trial Court's order should be treated as one under Rule 3 of Order 23, and its validity should be judged accordingly.
  
  4. The Role of Fraud in the Compromise Petition:
  The appellant alleged that the compromise petition was a result of fraud by his counsel in collusion with the respondent. The Supreme Court highlighted that any agreement or compromise obtained through fraud is void under the Indian Contract Act. The Trial Court, upon recognizing the alleged fraud, was justified in recalling the order and restoring the suit.
  
  5. The Power of the Court to Recall Orders Under Section 151 of the CPC:
  The Supreme Court affirmed that the Trial Court has the power to recall orders under Section 151 of the CPC, especially when fraud is alleged. The proviso to Rule 3 of Order 23 also empowers the court to decide the validity of a compromise. The Supreme Court noted that the Trial Court appropriately exercised its power in recalling the order dated 27.2.1991 after determining that the compromise was not lawful.
  
  Conclusion:
  The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order. The Trial Court's decision to recall the order and restore the suit was upheld. The Supreme Court stressed the importance of ensuring that compromises are lawful and free from fraud, and reiterated the procedural requirements under Order 23, Rule 3 of the CPC. The judgment underscores the judiciary's role in scrutinizing compromise agreements to prevent injustice.

  ---

• 1992 (12) TMI 238
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Constitutionality of district-wise selection of primary school teachers.
  2. Rights of candidates included in the panel for appointment.
  3. Validity of appointments made from the panel after the High Court's judgment.
  4. Discrimination between appointed and non-appointed candidates.
  5. Relief for candidates not appointed but included in the panel.
  
  Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Constitutionality of District-wise Selection of Primary School Teachers:
  The primary issue revolves around the constitutionality of the district-wise selection process for appointing primary school teachers in Bihar. The High Court of Patna, in Anil Kumar v. Chief Secretary, declared the district-wise panels unconstitutional. The Government of Bihar subsequently issued a circular on 2.7.1989, rejecting the district-based panels and halting further appointments from these panels. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, emphasizing that the district-wise selection was unconstitutional and should be discontinued.
  
  2. Rights of Candidates Included in the Panel for Appointment:
  The appellants argued that being included in the panel gave them a vested right to be appointed. However, the Supreme Court clarified that empanelment only conferred eligibility for appointment and did not create an indefeasible right to be appointed. The Court cited previous judgments, including State of Haryana v. Subhash Chander Marwaha and Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, to assert that mere inclusion in a panel does not guarantee appointment unless the relevant rules explicitly provide so.
  
  3. Validity of Appointments Made from the Panel After the High Court's Judgment:
  The Supreme Court considered the appointments made after the High Court's judgment in Anil Kumar's case. The Court noted that the appointments made before the issuance of the circular on 2.7.1989, even if against the law laid down in Anil Kumar's case, were not to be disturbed due to the equities that had arisen in favor of those appointees. The Court decided to retain the services of those who had been appointed and were continuing in service by virtue of stay orders issued by the courts.
  
  4. Discrimination Between Appointed and Non-appointed Candidates:
  The appellants contended that the Government's decision to retain the appointed candidates while not appointing others from the same panel was discriminatory and violated Article 14 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, stating that the appointed and non-appointed candidates formed distinct classes. The Court held that the State's decision to protect the appointments of those already appointed was fair and reasonable, given the equities involved, and did not violate Article 14.
  
  5. Relief for Candidates Not Appointed but Included in the Panel:
  The Supreme Court addressed the grievances of candidates who were included in the panel but not appointed. The Court directed that these candidates could apply for consideration under the new rules and suggested that the State Government consider relaxing the age bar in suitable cases to minimize their hardship. The Court remitted specific cases back to the High Court to determine the seniority and eligibility of the appellants vis-a-vis those who had been appointed, directing the State to appoint such candidates if found eligible.
  
  Separate Judgments Delivered:
  - Civil Appeal Nos. 3218/91, 3219/91, 3220/91: The appellants were allowed to continue in service with continuity but without back wages.
  - CA Nos. 3216/1991, 2082/1991, and WP (C) No. 911/1991: The appeals were dismissed, and the non-appointed candidates were directed to apply under new rules.
  - Civil Appeal No. 2082/91: Allowed, and the appellants were to continue in service.
  - CA No. 4254/1991: Allowed, directing consideration of the appellants for appointment.
  - Civil Appeal No. 3217/91: Remitted to the High Court for determination of seniority and eligibility for appointment.
  
  The Supreme Court's judgment provided a comprehensive resolution to the various issues, balancing the equities and legal principles involved.

  ---

• 1992 (12) TMI 237
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Negligence of the bank in scrutinizing the cheque.
  2. Applicability of Section 10, Section 31, and Section 89 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
  3. Requirement of ultraviolet ray lamp for cheque verification.
  4. Payment in due course and the bank's liability.
  
  Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Negligence of the bank in scrutinizing the cheque:
  The trial court found that the cheque did not appear to be fabricated on visual scrutiny but noted that closer scrutiny could have raised suspicion. The court held the bank negligent for not providing an ultraviolet ray lamp at the Thana Branch, which could have detected the forgery. Consequently, the trial court dismissed the suit with costs. The Additional District Judge and the High Court affirmed this view, emphasizing that the bank should have exercised more caution, especially in an industrial area with heavy transactions, by using an ultraviolet ray lamp available in other branches.
  
  2. Applicability of Section 10, Section 31, and Section 89 of the Negotiable Instruments Act:
  The appellant argued that the payment was made according to the apparent tenor of the cheque, as required by Section 89. Section 10 defines "payment in due course" as payment made in good faith and without negligence, while Section 31 obligates the drawee to honor the cheque if sufficient funds are available. The courts below found that the bank failed to meet these standards due to the absence of an ultraviolet ray lamp, thus not acting with proper care and caution.
  
  3. Requirement of ultraviolet ray lamp for cheque verification:
  The appellant contended that the absence of an ultraviolet ray lamp did not constitute negligence, as the bank had verified the cheque's serial number, date, and signature, finding no visible defects. The Privy Council and Calcutta High Court precedents were cited to argue that banks are not required to subject every cheque to advanced technology unless visible defects warrant further scrutiny. The courts below, however, held that the bank's failure to use an ultraviolet ray lamp, especially given its availability in other branches, amounted to negligence.
  
  4. Payment in due course and the bank's liability:
  The Supreme Court noted that the agent of the bank had taken reasonable care in verifying the cheque, and no visible defects were found. The court emphasized that "payment in due course" under Section 10 means payment made in good faith according to the apparent tenor of the instrument. The court found no evidence that the bank was negligent in its visual scrutiny and that the absence of an ultraviolet ray lamp did not automatically imply negligence. The court concluded that the bank was not obligated to use advanced technology for every cheque and that the lower courts erred in holding the bank liable for negligence.
  
  Conclusion:
  The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgments of the lower courts and the High Court. The suit was decreed only for the principal amount without any interest, and no costs were awarded. The court held that the bank had acted with reasonable care and was not negligent in the absence of an ultraviolet ray lamp.

  ---

• 1992 (12) TMI 236
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Whether time was the essence of the contract.
  2. Whether the plaintiffs were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract.
  
  Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Whether time was the essence of the contract:
  The trial court and the Division Bench of the High Court had differing views on this issue. The trial court held that "payment of Rs. 98,000 by 6.9.71 was not the essence of the contract." It concluded that the plaintiffs were always ready and willing to perform their part of the contract and decreed the suit in their favor. However, the Division Bench of the High Court, upon an "elaborate consideration of the oral and documentary evidence," held that the non-payment of Rs. 98,000 by the plaintiffs on or before 6.9.71 constituted a breach of contract. The Division Bench emphasized that the insistence of the plaintiffs on obtaining the income-tax clearance certificate and redemption of the property before the payment of Rs. 98,000 was unjustified and amounted to "trying to vary the terms of the agreement." The Supreme Court agreed with the Division Bench, stating that "the word 'only' has been used twice over" to qualify both the amount and the period of 10 days, thus making time the essence of the contract.
  
  2. Whether the plaintiffs were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract:
  The trial court found that the plaintiffs were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract. However, the Division Bench disagreed, noting that the plaintiffs' readiness and willingness were not substantiated by their actions. The Supreme Court analyzed the notices exchanged between the parties and found that the plaintiffs were not willing to pay Rs. 98,000 unless vacant possession of one room on the ground floor was given. The Supreme Court observed that the plaintiffs' insistence on delivery of possession as a condition precedent for making the payment was contrary to the terms of the agreement. The Court concluded that "though as a general proposition of law time is not the essence of the contract in the case of a sale of immovable property, yet the parties intended to make time as the essence under Clause (1) of the suit agreement." The Court further noted that the plaintiffs' conduct did not demonstrate readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract, agreeing with the Division Bench's conclusion.
  
  Conclusion:
  The Supreme Court dismissed the civil appeal with costs, affirming the Division Bench's judgment that time was the essence of the contract and that the plaintiffs were not ready and willing to perform their part of the contract.

  ---

• 1992 (12) TMI 235
  
  Issues:
  1. Dismissal of departmental appeal by Tribunal based on acceptance of consolidated appellate order.
  2. Challenge of liability of the firm by revenue before the Tribunal.
  3. Justification of dismissal of departmental appeals by Tribunal.
  4. Decision of High Court on the matter.
  
  Issue 1: Dismissal of departmental appeal by Tribunal based on acceptance of consolidated appellate order.
  
  The Tribunal dismissed the departmental appeal on the ground that the revenue failed to show that the consolidated appellate order in a specific case was not accepted. The AAC relied on a decision in the case of Surendra Pratap Jaiswal, and the Tribunal held that without proof of non-acceptance by revenue, the order could not be deemed erroneous. The liability claimed by the assessee was rejected by the WTO, leading to the appeal before the AAC.
  
  Issue 2: Challenge of liability of the firm by revenue before the Tribunal.
  
  The revenue challenged the liability of the firm regarding an agreement with the Government of Rajasthan for liquor lifting. The Tribunal held that the liability, though trading in nature, was not established as the decree favored the firm. The assessee referred the matter to the High Court, leading to a reference back to the Tribunal for further consideration.
  
  Issue 3: Justification of dismissal of departmental appeals by Tribunal.
  
  The High Court opined that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the departmental appeals solely based on the non-challenge of the AAC's decision by the revenue. The Court highlighted that various reasons could exist for not challenging a judgment, and the absence of a valid reason before the Tribunal did not preclude the revenue from contesting the order, especially when the matter was sub judice in the High Court. The reference was answered in favor of the revenue, instructing the Tribunal to rehear the case and issue orders in accordance with the law.
  
  Issue 4: Decision of High Court on the matter.
  
  The High Court held that the Tribunal's dismissal of the departmental appeals was unjustified and directed a fresh hearing, emphasizing that the absence of a challenge by the revenue did not estop them from contesting the order, particularly when the matter was pending in the High Court. The judgment favored the revenue, instructing the Tribunal to reconsider the case without any cost implications.

  ---

• 1992 (12) TMI 234
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Initiation of suo moto criminal contempt proceedings against Ch. Bhajan Lal.
  2. Setting aside the suspension order of Shri S.A. Khan.
  3. Maintainability of the contempt petition by Shri S.A. Khan.
  
  Summary:
  
  1. Initiation of suo moto criminal contempt proceedings against Ch. Bhajan Lal:
  Contempt Petition No. 7 of 1989 was filed by Shri S.A. Khan, DIG of Police, requesting the Court to initiate suo moto proceedings for criminal contempt against Ch. Bhajan Lal. The alleged contemptuous statement was reported in the Indian Express dated 30th July 1989, where Bhajan Lal purportedly threatened Khan for implicating his people in false cases. The Court noted that the statement attributed to Bhajan Lal was based on a newspaper report, which is considered hearsay and inadmissible in evidence without proof by evidence aliunde. The Court emphasized that the absence of any denial by Bhajan Lal does not absolve the applicant from proving the statement of facts as appeared in the Press report. Consequently, the Court found no compelling reason to issue suo moto notice for contempt of court and dismissed the petition.
  
  2. Setting aside the suspension order of Shri S.A. Khan:
  I.A. No. 1/91 and I.A. No. 2/91 were filed by Shri S.A. Khan seeking to set aside the suspension order dated 5.7.1991. The Court noted that these applications were filed in Civil Appeal No. 5412/90, which had already been disposed of on 21st November 1990. The Court did not find any reason to interfere with the suspension order as the applications were inextricably mixed up with the facts and prayers of the contempt proceedings.
  
  3. Maintainability of the contempt petition by Shri S.A. Khan:
  The Court addressed the maintainability of the contempt petition, noting that Khan was neither the investigating officer in the case registered against Bhajan Lal nor a party to the criminal proceedings. Additionally, the Court observed that on the date of the alleged contemptuous statement, the FIR had already been quashed by the High Court, and there was no stay of the High Court's order by the Supreme Court. The Court concluded that the petition was not maintainable as Khan lacked locus standi.
  
  Conclusion:
  The Supreme Court dismissed I.A. Nos. 1 and 2 of 1991 and Contempt Petition No. 7 of 1989, finding no compelling reasons to issue suo moto notice for contempt of court and determining that the petition was not maintainable. No costs were awarded.

  ---

• 1992 (12) TMI 233
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Whether the first respondent (CSC) is the drawer-acceptor of the impugned Bills of Exchange.
  2. Interpretation of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 regarding the definitions and liabilities of drawer, drawee, and acceptor.
  3. Validity of the acceptance of the Bills of Exchange by CSC.
  4. Discretionary power of the court under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 in granting declarations and injunctions.
  
  Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Whether the first respondent (CSC) is the drawer-acceptor of the impugned Bills of Exchange:
  The court examined whether CSC, the first respondent, was the drawer-acceptor of the Bills of Exchange. The facts revealed that CSC had obtained a license to import steel billets and approached MMTC for a letter of authority to import the goods. CSC opened an Irrevocable Letter of Credit in favor of the foreign supplier, M/s. Harlow & Jones Ltd. The Bills of Exchange were addressed to MMTC A/c CSC, and CSC endorsed its acceptance on the Bills of Exchange. When the appellant bank presented the Bills of Exchange for payment, CSC dishonored them, leading to a legal dispute. The court concluded that CSC, by accepting the Bills of Exchange, acted as the drawer-acceptor.
  
  2. Interpretation of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 regarding the definitions and liabilities of drawer, drawee, and acceptor:
  Section 7 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 defines the roles of drawer, drawee, and acceptor. The court emphasized that the maker of a bill of exchange is the drawer, the person directed to pay is the drawee, and upon signing assent, the drawee becomes the acceptor. Section 32 outlines the acceptor's liability to pay the amount at maturity, while Section 33 restricts acceptance to the drawee or a person named in need or for honor. The court reiterated that the acceptor is personally liable unless they state they are acting for a disclosed principal.
  
  3. Validity of the acceptance of the Bills of Exchange by CSC:
  The court examined the acceptance of the Bills of Exchange by CSC. It was noted that CSC had opened letters of credit directly with the foreign supplier and had accepted the Bills of Exchange as drawee. The court referred to legal commentaries and precedents, emphasizing that acceptance must be on the bill itself and that the drawee must be named with reasonable certainty. The court found that CSC had validly accepted the Bills of Exchange as the drawee, and their acceptance was binding.
  
  4. Discretionary power of the court under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 in granting declarations and injunctions:
  The court discussed the discretionary power under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which allows courts to grant declarations and injunctions. The court emphasized that such reliefs are discretionary and must be granted based on sound principles of law and justice. The court criticized the appellate court's decision to grant a declaration that the Bills of Exchange were illegal and void, stating that it impeded the free flow of capital and hindered mercantile business. The court held that the relief granted by the appellate court was unjust and illegal.
  
  Conclusion:
  The appeal was allowed, and the judgment and decree of the appellate court were reversed. The decree of the single Judge was restored, and the suit was dismissed with costs throughout. The court concluded that CSC was the drawer-acceptor of the Bills of Exchange and was liable for their payment. The discretionary relief granted by the appellate court was deemed unjust and illegal, and the court emphasized the importance of upholding commercial integrity and the efficacy of judicial adjudication.

  ---

• 1992 (12) TMI 232
  
  Issues:
  1. Tenant ceased to occupy the building for more than six months without reasonable cause.
  2. Burden of proof on the tenant to show occupation.
  3. Interpretation of the term "occupation" in the context of the Act.
  
  Analysis:
  
  1. The tenant faced eviction under the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act for allegedly not occupying the building for over six months. The Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority found in favor of the landlord based on evidence that the building remained closed for an extended period. The tenant challenged this order through a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution.
  
  2. The tenant argued that the burden of proof was wrongly placed on him to show occupation. The court clarified that while the burden is on the landlord to prove non-occupation for six months, if the evidence suggests otherwise, the burden shifts to the tenant to provide a reasonable cause for non-occupation.
  
  3. The term "occupation" was analyzed in the context of the Act. The court emphasized that possession does not equate to occupation, and occupation requires actual physical use of the building by the tenant or their agents. The court referred to previous judgments to support the interpretation that continuous absence for six months raises a presumption of cessation of occupation, placing the onus on the tenant to rebut this presumption.
  
  4. The court rejected the tenant's arguments based on the interpretation of the term "ceases to occupy" from other judgments, emphasizing that the specific context of the Kerala Act governs the understanding of this term. The court upheld the lower authorities' findings and dismissed the petition, concluding that the contentions raised were insufficient to warrant interference with the eviction order.

  ---

• 1992 (12) TMI 231
  
  Issues:
  Challenge to Commissioner (Appeals) order as arbitrary and illegal; Disallowance of exemption under section 54(1) of the Act; Failure to issue notice under section 143(2) of the Act; Charging interest under section 139(8); Initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(a), 271(1)(b), and 271(1)(c).
  
  Issue 1: Challenge to Commissioner (Appeals) Order
  The assessee appealed against the Commissioner (Appeals) order dated 28th October, 1988, alleging it to be arbitrary and illegal. The appellant contended that the appellate officer did not fully consider the arguments presented and upheld the assessment order regarding the disallowance of exemption under section 54(1) of the Act for capital gains from the sale of property at East Patel Nagar. Additionally, the appellant claimed that the Assessing Officer erred in passing the order under section 144 without issuing a notice under section 143(2) of the Act, charging interest under section 139(8), and initiating penalty proceedings under sections 271(1)(a), 271(1)(b), and 271(1)(c). The appellant relied on various court decisions to support their arguments.
  
  Issue 2: Disallowance of Exemption under Section 54(1) of the Act
  The Assessing Officer did not allow exemption under section 54(1) of the Act for capital gains amounting to Rs. 2,40,000 on the sale of property at East Patel Nagar. This disallowance was due to the property claimed to have been purchased in Greater Kailash being only under an agreement of sale and not a registered sale deed within the statutory period. The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed this assessment order. However, the Tribunal analyzed the chronological events in the case, emphasizing that the date of agreement to purchase could be considered the date of purchase for the purpose of section 54. The Tribunal referred to relevant case laws and concluded that the assessee was entitled to the exemption under section 54(1) based on the facts of the case and legal interpretations.
  
  Issue 3: Failure to Issue Notice under Section 143(2) and Penalty Proceedings
  The appellant argued that the Assessing Officer erred in passing the order under section 144 without issuing a notice under section 143(2) of the Act. Additionally, the appellant contested the charging of interest under section 139(8) and the initiation of penalty proceedings under sections 271(1)(a), 271(1)(b), and 271(1)(c). The Tribunal considered these contentions along with the main issue of disallowance of exemption under section 54(1) and ultimately quashed the orders impugned before them, granting relief to the assessee.
  
  Conclusion:
  The Tribunal quashed the Commissioner (Appeals) order, allowing the appeal of the assessee. The decision was based on the interpretation of relevant provisions of the Income-tax Act, particularly section 54(1), and the assessment of the events in the case. The Tribunal's ruling was supported by legal precedents and the specific circumstances of the case, leading to the grant of relief to the assessee and rendering the alternative grounds of appeal moot.

  ---

• 1992 (12) TMI 230
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Whether an Advocate is entitled to act as Constituted Attorney of a party and also act and plead for the party in the same litigation.
  2. Whether the existing practice of Advocates/Solicitors/Attorneys acting in dual roles for non-resident clients is in conformity with law and professional ethics.
  3. Incidental questions related to the above issues.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  Issue 1: Dual Role of Advocate as Constituted Attorney and Legal Representative
  The court examined whether an Advocate can act as both Constituted Attorney and legal representative for the same party in a litigation. The judgment highlighted the professional ethics and legal provisions that govern the conduct of advocates. It was noted that a Constituted Attorney is entitled to 'act' and 'appear' for a party but does not have the right to 'plead' in court. The court emphasized that advocates must maintain impartiality and detachment in their professional capacity, which is compromised if they also act as Constituted Attorneys. The court concluded that an advocate cannot combine these two roles in the same matter, as it jeopardizes the detachment and impartiality expected of legal professionals.
  
  Issue 2: Existing Practice of Dual Roles for Non-Resident Clients
  The court scrutinized the prevalent practice where advocates or their firms act in dual capacities for non-resident clients. It was observed that such a practice is not sanctioned by law and is opposed to the principles of professional ethics. The court referred to various provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and the Advocates Act, which implicitly prohibit the combination of these roles. It was held that the practice of advocates or their firms acting both as Constituted Attorneys and legal representatives in the same matter is illegal and must be discontinued.
  
  Incidental Questions:
  The court addressed incidental questions related to the main issues. It was noted that the rules framed by the Bar Council of India and the High Court emphasize that an advocate must act independently of the suitor or their Constituted Attorney. The court also highlighted that an advocate who is likely to be a witness in a case should not accept a brief or appear in that case. The possibility of an advocate being summoned as a witness due to their role as a Constituted Attorney further supports the prohibition of combining these roles.
  
  Judgments Delivered:
  1. Prohibition of Dual Roles: An advocate is not entitled to act in a professional capacity and as a Constituted Attorney of a party in the same matter. If a firm of advocates is appointed, none of the partners can act as a recognized agent in the same cause.
  2. Discontinuation of Existing Practice: The prevailing practice of advocates/solicitors/attorneys acting in dual roles, particularly for non-resident clients, is opposed to law and must be discontinued immediately.
  3. Administrative Measures: The Prothonotary and Senior Master of the High Court shall not accept any vakalatnama in favor of a firm of advocates where one or more partners hold a power of attorney from the suitor in the same cause.
  
  Conclusion:
  The judgment underscores the importance of maintaining professional ethics and impartiality in the legal profession. It mandates the discontinuation of the practice where advocates or their firms act in dual capacities for the same client in the same matter, ensuring that the administration of justice remains fair and impartial. The court's decision aims to uphold the noble ideals, traditions, and objectives of the legal profession.

  ---

• 1992 (12) TMI 229
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Whether the petitioner is a creditor of the company within the meaning of section 439(b) of the Indian Companies Act?
  2. Whether the petitioner is a debtor of the company?
  3. Whether it is just and equitable to order winding up of the company?
  4. Whether the company petition is maintainable in view of the various suits pending in the civil courts wherein the parties were agitating their respective rights?
  5. Whether the company petition is maintainable in view of O.S. No. 616/83 on the file of the Court of the I Addl. Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, a suit for dissolution and rendition of accounts of the firm, Progressive Engineering Company?
  6. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the company petition is liable to be dismissed without enquiry?
  7. Whether the petitioner has any locus standi to file the company petition and the same is bona fide?
  8. To what relief?
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  Issue Nos. 1, 2, and 7 in C.P. No. 6 of 1983:
  The petitioner contends that he is a creditor of the company due to his capital investment of Rs. 4,00,000 in PEC. The respondent claims that the petitioner is a debtor owing Rs. 2,65,477.30. The court found substantial evidence, including letters and promissory notes, supporting the petitioner's claim of his capital investment. The court also found the debiting of Rs. 3,84,630.07 to the petitioner's account unauthorized. Therefore, the petitioner is a creditor, not a debtor, and has the locus standi to file the petition.
  
  Issue No. 3 in C.P. No. 6 of 1983:
  The petitioner alleges that the conversion of PEC into PCPL was a fraudulent act to exclude him. The court found that notices for meetings regarding the conversion were not properly served to the petitioner, and the transfer deed dated 9.1.82 was not genuine. The court concluded that the conversion was a make-believe affair and that the partnership firm continued its business in the guise of a private limited company. The court held that it is just and equitable to dissolve the firm PEC and direct settlement of accounts among its partners.
  
  Issue Nos. 4 and 5 in C.P. No. 6 of 1983:
  The respondent argued that the company petition is not maintainable due to pending civil suits. The court found that the civil court does not have jurisdiction to wind up the company or take into consideration the accounts of the company. The court held that the company petition is maintainable despite the pending suits.
  
  Issue No. 6 in C.P. No. 6 of 1983:
  This issue became redundant as an elaborate inquiry was conducted, and both parties provided voluminous evidence. The court did not need to consider this issue further.
  
  Issue No. 3 in C.P. No. 11 of 1983:
  The petitioners alleged that the respondent-company is unable to pay its debts. The court found that the statutory notice was not served on the company at its registered office, which is a mandatory requirement under section 434(1)(a) of the Companies Act. Consequently, the court held that the company petition is liable to be dismissed in limine.
  
  Issues Nos. 10 and 13 in C.P. No. 11 of 1983:
  The court found that the company petition is maintainable despite the pendency of O.S. No. 1065 of 1984 and other legal proceedings in lower courts.
  
  Issue No. 8 in C.P. No. 6 of 1983:
  The court allowed Company Petition No. 6 of 1983, passing a preliminary decree for the dissolution of the partnership and settlement of accounts among the partners of PEC as per the shares in the partnership deed.
  
  Issue No. 15 in C.P. No. 11 of 1983:
  In view of the finding on issue No. 3, the court dismissed Company Petition No. 11 of 1983 as not maintainable and directed each party to bear its costs.
  
  Conclusion:
  The court dissolved the partnership firm PEC and directed the settlement of accounts among its partners. The petition for winding up the respondent-company PCPL was dismissed due to non-compliance with statutory notice requirements.

  ---

• 1992 (12) TMI 228
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Whether the "nominee" has absolute title to the Provident Fund Amount by virtue of nomination under the Employees' Provident Funds Scheme, 1952.
  2. Whether the Provident Fund Amount forms part of the estate of the deceased and is available for distribution among heirs notwithstanding the nomination.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  Issue 1: Absolute Title of Nominee
  The court addressed whether the nominee under the Employees' Provident Funds Scheme, 1952, has absolute title to the Provident Fund Amount. The respondent contended that the nomination confers absolute entitlement, thereby excluding the amount from the deceased's estate. However, the court found that the nomination does not confer absolute or beneficial title. The nominee is merely authorized to receive the amount for the benefit of the deceased's heirs. This interpretation aligns with the legislative history and the Supreme Court's interpretation of the term "vest" in similar contexts, notably in the case of The Fruit and Vegetable Merchants' Union v. The Delhi Improvement Trust. The court concluded that the nominee's right is limited to the collection and distribution of the amount to the rightful heirs.
  
  Issue 2: Inclusion in the Estate
  The court examined whether the Provident Fund Amount forms part of the deceased's estate. The petitioner argued that the nomination of the deceased's brother was invalid as it did not comply with the scheme's requirement that nominations be made in favor of family members, defined as including the wife, children, and dependent parents. The court agreed, referencing para 61(3) of the Employees' Provident Funds Scheme, 1952, which invalidates nominations made in favor of non-family members. Consequently, the Provident Fund Amount is part of the deceased's estate and should be distributed among the heirs.
  
  Legislative and Judicial Precedents
  The court reviewed several precedents and legislative amendments to support its findings. The amendment of Section 5 of the Provident Funds Act, 1925, which removed the term "absolutely," was significant in establishing that nominees do not acquire absolute title. The court also referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Smt. Sarbati Devi v. Smt. Usha Devi, which held that a nomination under the Insurance Act does not confer beneficial interest, drawing an analogy to the Provident Funds Act.
  
  Conflicting Judgments
  The court acknowledged conflicting judgments from various High Courts. The Andhra Pradesh High Court in Shalikh Dawood v. Mahmooda Begum held that the nominee has no title to the Provident Fund Amount, while the Calcutta High Court in Smt. Usha Mujumdar v. Smt. Smriti Basu opined that the nominee has absolute title. The court preferred the Andhra Pradesh view, emphasizing equity, justice, and legislative intent.
  
  Conclusion and Orders
  The court concluded that the nominee has no title to the Provident Fund Amount, which forms part of the deceased's estate. The petitioner, being the minor son and sole heir, is entitled to the amount. The court directed the Prothonotary and Senior Master to expedite the issuance of the Succession Certificate and ensure the minor's interests are safeguarded. The court also instructed inquiries into other amounts due to the deceased from the Central Bank of India.
  
  No Order as to Costs
  Given the complexity of the legal points involved, the court made no order as to costs.
  
  Expedited Actions
  The Prothonotary and Senior Master were directed to act on an ordinary copy of the order and issue the Succession Certificate by January 31, 1993, if possible, and to expedite the issuance of a certified copy of the order.
  
  This comprehensive analysis preserves the legal terminology and significant phrases from the original text, ensuring a thorough understanding of the judgment.

  ---

• 1992 (12) TMI 227
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Eligibility of candidates for the post of Junior Engineer based on the date of obtaining qualifications.
  2. Validity of the selection process and seniority determination.
  3. Application of Rule 37 of the Public Service Commission Business Rules by analogy.
  4. Allegations of mala fide actions by the appointing authority.
  
  Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Eligibility of Candidates for the Post of Junior Engineer Based on the Date of Obtaining Qualifications:
  
  The primary question was whether candidates who were fully qualified at the time of the interview but whose results had not been declared by the application submission date were entitled to be considered for the post of Junior Engineer. The appellants had submitted their applications by the last date (15.7.1982) but received their B.E. (Civil) results on 21.8.1982, just before the interviews commenced on 24.8.1982. The respondents argued that the appellants were not qualified at the time of application submission and thus should not have been considered. However, the appellants contended that they were fully qualified by the interview dates and were rightly selected based on their merits. The Court found that the appellants were indeed qualified by the interview dates and that the intent of the appointing authority was to consider candidates who had obtained necessary qualifications by the interview dates.
  
  2. Validity of the Selection Process and Seniority Determination:
  
  The Division Bench of the Jammu & Kashmir High Court reversed the Single Judge's decision, assuming mala fide actions by the appointing authority and holding that the appellants were wrongly selected. However, the Supreme Court found no evidence of mala fide actions. The Court emphasized that the appellants were fully qualified by the interview dates and that the selection process aimed to be broad-based to attract the best talents. The appellants were selected based on their higher marks in the interview, and thus, their seniority over the respondents was justified.
  
  3. Application of Rule 37 of the Public Service Commission Business Rules by Analogy:
  
  Rule 37 allows candidates who have appeared for an examination but whose results are not declared by the application date to be provisionally considered for interviews, provided they pass the examination before the interview. Although this rule specifically applies to Public Service Commission selections, the Court found its principle applicable by analogy to the present case. The appellants, who had passed their examinations before the interview dates, were rightly considered for selection. The Court noted that this approach ensured that the best talents were not rejected due to administrative delays in result declarations.
  
  4. Allegations of Mala Fide Actions by the Appointing Authority:
  
  The Division Bench assumed mala fide actions by the appointing authority in selecting the appellants. However, the Supreme Court, upon reviewing the relevant files, found no evidence supporting such allegations. The Court concluded that the appellants were rightly appointed based on their merits and qualifications at the time of the interview, and the technical view adopted by the Division Bench was incorrect.
  
  Separate Judgment by R.M. Sahai, J.:
  
  While agreeing with the decision to allow the appeals, R.M. Sahai, J., emphasized that the relief granted to the appellants was based on equitable considerations rather than strict legal principles. He highlighted that the notification required candidates to possess the requisite qualifications by the application submission date and to provide authenticated certificates. The appellants, who were not qualified by the application date, gained an unfair advantage due to the appointing authority's decision to allow them to appear for interviews based on their qualifications obtained before the interviews. Despite this, Sahai, J., agreed to allow the appeals due to the significant passage of time and the earlier rejection of similar claims by the High Court.
  
  Conclusion:
  
  The Supreme Court set aside the Division Bench's judgment and restored the Single Judge's decision, upholding the appellants' selection and seniority. The appeals were allowed, and no order as to costs was made.

  ---

• 1992 (12) TMI 226
  
  Issues Involved:
  
  1. Conviction and sentencing under Sections 4 and 7 of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955.
  2. High Court's interference with concurrent findings of lower courts.
  3. Evaluation of evidence by the High Court.
  4. Sociological and constitutional perspectives on untouchability and civil rights.
  
  Summary:
  
  1. Conviction and Sentencing under Sections 4 and 7 of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955:

  Appa Balu Ingale and four others were tried for offences u/s 4 and 7 of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955. The trial court convicted all under Section 4, sentencing them to simple imprisonment for one month and a fine of Rs. 100 each. Appa Balu Ingale was further convicted u/s 7 but no separate sentence was awarded. The Additional Sessions Judge upheld the conviction and sentence for three accused and acquitted the other two. On revision, the High Court acquitted all. The State of Karnataka appealed to the Supreme Court, which set aside the High Court's judgment and restored the conviction and sentence by the Additional Sessions Judge.

  2. High Court's Interference with Concurrent Findings of Lower Courts:

  The High Court disbelieved the evidence of four prosecution witnesses, citing discrepancies in their testimonies regarding the actual words and actions of the accused. The Supreme Court noted that ordinarily, it is not open for the High Court to interfere with concurrent findings of lower courts, especially by reappreciating evidence in its revisional jurisdiction. The Supreme Court found that the High Court fell into patent error by rejecting the prosecution evidence, which had been proved beyond reasonable doubt by the trial and appellate courts.

  3. Evaluation of Evidence by the High Court:

  The Supreme Court examined the statements of the eye witnesses and found no infirmity in their evidence. The High Court had lost sight of the fact that the social disability of the Harijan community was enforced under the threat of using a gun. The Supreme Court concluded that the evidence proved beyond doubt that the complainants were stopped from taking water from the well on the ground that they were untouchables.

  4. Sociological and Constitutional Perspectives on Untouchability and Civil Rights:

  K. Ramaswamy, J. provided an extensive analysis of the sociological and constitutional angles of untouchability. He emphasized that untouchability is an indirect form of slavery rooted in the caste system, which segregates Dalits from mainstream society. Article 17 of the Constitution abolishes untouchability and its practice in any form is forbidden. The Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955, and subsequent amendments aim to eradicate untouchability and integrate Dalits into the national mainstream. The judiciary has a duty to interpret and enforce these laws in line with constitutional goals to eliminate social inequalities and ensure justice for Dalits.

  The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and restored the conviction and sentence of the accused as determined by the Additional Sessions Judge.

  ---

• 1992 (12) TMI 225
  
  The High Court of Allahabad allowed the revision and annulled the order of the Sales Tax Tribunal, restoring the order of the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) Sales Tax. The case involved a dispute over the estimated turnover of a manufacturer of extra covers made of jute, with the Tribunal setting the turnover at Rs. 11 lakhs despite insufficient evidence, leading to the High Court's decision in favor of the revisionist.

  ---

• 1992 (12) TMI 224
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Whether a delinquent is entitled to be represented by an office bearer of another Trade Union not functioning within the undertaking.
  2. Whether refusal to permit such representation violates principles of natural justice.
  3. Interpretation of relevant statutory provisions and Standing Orders.
  
  Summary:
  
  Issue 1: Representation by an Office Bearer of Another Trade Union
  The primary issue in this appeal was whether a delinquent employee is entitled to be represented by an office bearer of another Trade Union, not a member of either a recognised or non-recognised union within the undertaking, despite the statutory limitations in the certified Standing Orders and Clause (ii) of Section 22 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (the Act). The High Court answered affirmatively, reasoning that for a domestic enquiry to be fair and impartial, the delinquent should be allowed representation by a person of their choice, even if the representative is an outsider, to uphold principles of natural justice.
  
  Issue 2: Violation of Principles of Natural Justice
  The High Court quashed the dismissal order, stating that refusal to allow the delinquent to be defended by Talraja, an office bearer of the Bombay Mazdoor Union, violated principles of natural justice. The High Court remitted the matter to the Labour Court to decide on the merits of the misconduct charges. However, the Supreme Court held that the Enquiry Officer was justified in refusing Talraja's representation since he was not a member of a recognised or unrecognised union within the establishment, as required by Section 22(ii) of the Act and the Certified Standing Orders.
  
  Issue 3: Interpretation of Statutory Provisions and Standing Orders
  The Act provides for the recognition of trade unions and defines the rights of recognised and unrecognised unions. Section 22(ii) allows officers, members of the office staff, and members of any union (other than a recognised union) authorised by the State Government to appear on behalf of any of its members in any domestic or departmental inquiry held by the employer. The Supreme Court noted that the Standing Orders, which form part of the terms and conditions of service, allowed representation only by a clerk or a workman from the same department as the delinquent. The Court concluded that the Enquiry Officer's refusal to allow Talraja's representation was legally justified and did not violate principles of natural justice.
  
  Conclusion
  The Supreme Court held that the right to be represented through counsel or agent is not an absolute right and can be controlled, restricted, or regulated by statute, rules, or Standing Orders. The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and directed the Labour Court to drop the proceedings as infructuous if not already disposed of.

  ---

• 1992 (12) TMI 223
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Validity of the sale of a shop by Ganesh Dutt to respondents nos. 2 and 3.
  2. Nature of the temple of Shri Radha Govindji (public or private).
  3. Right of Smt. Bhagwati Devi to dedicate the shop to the deity.
  4. Admission by Ram Babu regarding the shop being temple property.
  5. Right of appellants to challenge the sale deed.
  
  Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Validity of the Sale of a Shop by Ganesh Dutt:
  The appellants challenged the sale of a shop by Ganesh Dutt to respondents nos. 2 and 3, asserting that the shop was dedicated to the deity and Ganesh Dutt, as a manager, had no right to sell it. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the appellants, but the appellate court reversed the decision, holding that the shop was not dedicated to the deity and that Smt. Bhagwati Devi had no right to dispose of the property after adopting Ram Babu. The Supreme Court remitted the matter to the High Court for reconsideration of whether the shop was endowed to the deity.
  
  2. Nature of the Temple of Shri Radha Govindji:
  The High Court agreed with the findings of the trial court and the Additional District Judge that the temple is a public temple. This finding was not contested further, and the Supreme Court did not disturb this conclusion.
  
  3. Right of Smt. Bhagwati Devi to Dedicate the Shop to the Deity:
  The appellate court held that Smt. Bhagwati Devi had no right to dedicate the shop to the deity as she had adopted Ram Babu, making him the rightful heir. The High Court affirmed this finding, stating that the ex-parte decree obtained by Smt. Bhagwati Devi to cancel the adoption was void. The Supreme Court did not find fault with this conclusion but focused on the admissions made by Ram Babu regarding the shop's status.
  
  4. Admission by Ram Babu Regarding the Shop Being Temple Property:
  The appellants relied on admissions made by Ram Babu in a previous suit, where he claimed the shop as temple property and himself as the manager. The High Court initially dismissed these admissions, noting that Ram Babu was a minor during the litigation. However, the Supreme Court highlighted that Sushila Devi was the guardian of Ganesh Dutt, who was substituted for Ram Babu during the suit. The Supreme Court emphasized that these admissions, unless explained, could infer dedication of the shop to the deity. The matter was remitted to the High Court to consider this aspect.
  
  5. Right of Appellants to Challenge the Sale Deed:
  The Supreme Court upheld the appellants' right to challenge the sale deed, noting that worshippers of a public temple have the right to file a suit to set aside a transfer of immovable property made by a manager. The Court referenced established legal principles that worshippers are the true beneficiaries of religious endowments and can challenge unauthorized alienations.
  
  Separate Judgment:
  In SLP (Civil) No. 6544 of 1992, the Supreme Court addressed the dismissal of a review petition by the High Court. The High Court had dismissed the review petition on the grounds that the special leave petition against the main judgment was pending, leading to an automatic merger of the High Court's judgment with the Supreme Court's order. The Supreme Court clarified that the High Court's judgment would only merge with the Supreme Court's order after the latter had considered the special leave petition on merits. Therefore, the review petition was maintainable until the Supreme Court passed an order on the special leave petition. The special leave petition was dismissed as infructuous following the setting aside of the High Court's judgment.
  
  Conclusion:
  The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and remitted the matter for reconsideration of whether the shop was endowed to the deity. The review petition was dismissed with observations clarifying the High Court's competence to review its judgment despite the pending special leave petition.

  ---

• 1992 (12) TMI 222
  
  Issues Involved: Appeal against reversion from Auditors to Lower Division Clerks, validity of disciplinary proceedings, authority to initiate departmental proceedings, reduction in rank, reversion to lower posts, applicability of Article 311 of the Constitution.
  
  Validity of Disciplinary Proceedings:
  The appellants challenged the validity of their reversion from Auditors to Lower Division Clerks based on disciplinary proceedings initiated by the Senior Deputy Accountant General instead of the Accountant General, who was the appointing authority. The argument was made that this violated Article 311 of the Constitution, depriving them of guaranteed rights for civil post holders under the State.
  
  Authority to Initiate Departmental Proceedings:
  The judgment clarified that while Article 311(1) ensures dismissal or removal by the appointing authority, it does not mandate that departmental proceedings must be initiated only by the appointing authority. Rules can prescribe initiation by an officer not subordinate to the appointing authority, providing additional safeguards. In the absence of such rules, any superior authority can initiate proceedings.
  
  Reduction in Rank and Reversion:
  The Court discussed the concept of "reduction in rank" under Article 311(2), emphasizing that it refers to reversion from a higher post to a lower post, either due to exigencies or as a punishment. It was highlighted that reversion must have a nexus with the post held by the officer, and reversion to a post never held is not permissible.
  
  Judicial Precedents and Anomalies:
  Citing previous cases, the judgment emphasized the need for disciplinary actions to align with the officer's cadre and qualifications. Anomalous situations, such as reversion to posts never held, were deemed unreasonable. The Court upheld the view that disciplinary authorities should not have powers leading to such anomalies.
  
  Decision and Outcome:
  The Court allowed the appeal regarding the reversion of two appellants appointed as Upper Division Clerks to Lower Division Clerks, quashing the orders of reduction in rank. However, no monetary compensation was granted for the period spent in the lower posts. The appeal of the third appellant, initially a Lower Division Clerk reverted to that post from Auditor, was dismissed as the reversion was deemed appropriate punishment without merit for appeal.

  ---

• 1992 (12) TMI 221
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Validity of assessment order without compliance with Section 144B.
  2. Procedural nature of Section 144B.
  3. Jurisdiction of the Income Tax Officer (ITO) in the assessment process.
  4. Legal consequences of non-compliance with Section 144B.
  
  Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Validity of Assessment Order Without Compliance with Section 144B:
  The primary issue was whether the Tribunal was correct in upholding the CIT(A)'s order, which set aside the assessment for non-compliance with Section 144B and directed a fresh assessment. The assessee argued that the assessment order was a nullity due to the ITO's failure to send a draft assessment order to the assessee and refer the matter to the Dy. CIT as required by Section 144B when the variation in income exceeded Rs. 1 lakh.
  
  2. Procedural Nature of Section 144B:
  The court examined whether Section 144B was substantive or procedural. The provision required the ITO to forward a draft assessment order to the assessee if the proposed variation in income exceeded Rs. 1 lakh. The court noted that Section 144B was procedural, incorporating principles of natural justice to ensure a senior officer reviewed substantial variations in income. The court cited multiple precedents, including J.P. Aggarwal vs. CIT and Smt. Mohinder Jaspal Singh vs. CIT, which held that non-compliance with Section 144B was a procedural irregularity, not rendering the assessment order null and void.
  
  3. Jurisdiction of the Income Tax Officer (ITO) in the Assessment Process:
  The court clarified that the ITO retained jurisdiction to pass an assessment order even when Section 144B was applicable. The Dy. CIT's role was limited to providing binding directions to the ITO, but the ultimate authority to pass the assessment order remained with the ITO. The court emphasized that non-compliance with Section 144B did not divest the ITO of jurisdiction but constituted a procedural irregularity.
  
  4. Legal Consequences of Non-compliance with Section 144B:
  The court discussed the legal consequences of non-compliance with Section 144B. It referred to several cases, including Guduthur Bros. vs. ITO, where procedural irregularities did not render the proceedings null and void but required rectification. The court held that the failure to comply with Section 144B resulted in a procedural irregularity, allowing the assessment process to continue from the stage before the irregularity occurred. The court disagreed with the Gauhati High Court's view in Sonai River Tea Co. Ltd. vs. CIT, which held that non-compliance with Section 144B rendered the assessment order a nullity.
  
  Conclusion:
  The court concluded that Section 144B was procedural, and non-compliance with it constituted a procedural irregularity, not rendering the assessment order null and void. The ITO retained jurisdiction to pass the assessment order, and the CIT(A) was correct in setting aside the assessment and directing a fresh assessment. The question of law was answered in the affirmative, in favor of the Revenue, with no order as to costs.

  ---

12345........ 10