|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 70 Records
-
1965 (2) TMI 136
Issues:
Claim for damages for breach of contract, Application of Scrap Control Order to sales for export, Quantum of damages calculation, Knowledge of the respondent regarding export purpose, Compensation under Section 73 of the Contract Act.
Analysis:
The appellant sued the respondent for damages due to breach of contract for the supply of scrap iron. The trial court decreed in favor of the appellant, but the High Court reversed the decision, stating the appellant suffered no damages as the controlled price of scrap iron remained the same. The appeal reached the Supreme Court under Article 133(1)(a) of the Constitution.
The appellant argued that the Scrap Control Order did not apply to sales for export. However, the Court found no exclusion in the relevant rules indicating such an exemption. The controlled price was applicable irrespective of the purpose of sale, including exports.
Regarding the quantum of damages, the appellant claimed the difference between the price paid by the vendees and the price he would have paid to the respondent. However, the Court noted that without informing the respondent of the export purpose, damages could not be calculated on that basis.
The Court analyzed the knowledge of the respondent regarding the export purpose. It was established that the respondent did not have prior knowledge of the export intention at the time of contract formation, thereby negating liability for damages.
Under Section 73 of the Contract Act, compensation is awarded for direct losses. As the appellant did not suffer a direct loss due to the breach, the claim for damages was dismissed. The Court cited Illustration (k) of Section 73 to support the decision.
Ultimately, the Court upheld the High Court's decision, ruling that the appellant did not incur recoverable damages. The Court concluded that the appeal failed, and it was dismissed with costs, without delving into the completion of the contract or the alleged breach by the appellant.
-
1965 (2) TMI 135
Issues Involved:
1. Constitutionality of Section 14(e) of the Punjab Municipalities Act, 1911.
2. Violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Constitutionality of Section 14(e) of the Punjab Municipalities Act, 1911:
The appeals and the writ petition question whether Section 14(e) of the Punjab Municipalities Act, 1911, is unconstitutional as it allegedly violates Article 14 of the Constitution. The appellants were elected to the Municipal Committee, Batala, and their seats were vacated by the Governor of Punjab without notice or hearing, based on a resolution by the outgoing municipal committee. The appellants argued that Section 14(e) is discriminatory and violates Article 14 because it allows the State Government to vacate a member's seat for any reason deemed to affect public interest without providing an opportunity for the member to be heard.
2. Violation of Article 14 of the Constitution:
The Supreme Court analyzed Sections 14(e), 16, and 24(3) of the Punjab Municipalities Act. Section 14(e) allows the State Government to vacate a member's seat for reasons affecting public interest without notice or hearing. In contrast, Section 16 requires the State Government to provide reasons for removal and an opportunity for the member to explain before removal. The Court found that Section 14(e) is more drastic and arbitrary compared to Section 16, as it does not provide for a hearing, thus leading to discrimination.
The Court held that the removal contemplated in Section 16 for reasons in clauses (a) to (g) is in the public interest and requires a hearing. However, Section 14(e) also provides for removal in the public interest but without a hearing, making it more drastic. This discrepancy allows the State Government to choose between the two provisions arbitrarily, leading to discrimination and violating Article 14.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court concluded that Section 14(e) is unconstitutional as it violates Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court struck down the relevant part of Section 14(e) and set aside the notifications vacating the appellants' seats. The direction as to disqualification also failed. The appellants were awarded costs from the State.
Separate Judgment by Mudholkar, J.:
Mudholkar, J., agreed with the conclusion but provided his own reasoning. He emphasized that the power conferred by Section 14(e) is unguided and unconstitutional because it allows the State Government to determine what affects public interest without any guidance. This makes the provision violative of Article 14. Consequently, he also allowed the appeals with costs.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and the writ petition, declaring Section 14(e) unconstitutional for violating Article 14. The appellants' seats were reinstated, and they were awarded costs.
-
1965 (2) TMI 134
Issues:
- Conviction under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code based on circumstantial evidence.
- Admissibility of a soliloquy as an extra-judicial confession.
- Interpretation of the term "confession" in criminal cases.
- Weight of a confessional soliloquy as direct evidence.
Analysis:
The case involved the appellant, accused of killing his daughter-in-law, based on circumstantial evidence. The High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence of death imposed by the Sessions Judge. The circumstances included the accused's illicit connections with the deceased, quarrels between them, and witnesses seeing the accused leaving the house after allegedly admitting to the murder. The Supreme Court noted the well-settled rule on circumstantial evidence, emphasizing the need for facts to be consistent only with the guilt of the accused and conclusive enough to exclude other hypotheses. The Court addressed the issue of whether the accused's soliloquy admitting guilt constituted an extra-judicial confession, which was crucial in this case.
The Court delved into the definition of a confession in criminal cases, emphasizing that a confession is a statement by an accused admitting guilt, whether communicated to another or not. The Court cited relevant provisions of the Evidence Act and established that a statement admitting guilt is a confession, even if not communicated. However, the Court highlighted the distinction between admissibility and the weight of such evidence. A confessional soliloquy, being direct evidence, required precise establishment of the exact words used by the accused and could only be used as corroborative evidence, not the sole basis for conviction.
Regarding the weight of evidence in this case, the Court found that the circumstances, along with the extra-judicial confession through the soliloquy, pointed conclusively to the accused's guilt. The Court noted that no other reasonable hypothesis could be suggested based on the evidence presented. The witnesses' accounts of hearing the accused's admission of the murder further corroborated the circumstantial evidence. Consequently, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision on both conviction and sentence, dismissing the appeal and affirming the death penalty imposed on the accused.
-
1965 (2) TMI 133
Issues Involved:
1. Preliminary Objection on Res Judicata
2. Fundamental Right under Article 19(1)(f)
3. Validity of Travancore Ancient Monuments Preservation Regulation
4. Classification of the Disputed Wall as an Ancient Monument or Archaeological Site
Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Preliminary Objection on Res Judicata:
The learned Advocate-General of Kerala raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the application on the ground that the petition is barred by the principle of res judicata. The petitioner had previously filed O.P. No. 1502 of 1960 in the High Court of Kerala for similar relief, which was dismissed. The High Court did not go into the merits of the petitioner's contentions but dismissed the petition on the ground that the petitioner had an effective remedy by way of a civil suit. The Supreme Court rejected this contention, stating that the doctrine of res judicata could be invoked only if there was a final decision on the merits, which was not the case here.
2. Fundamental Right under Article 19(1)(f):
The petitioner claimed that the notification infringed his fundamental right under Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution. The sale deed under which the petitioner purchased the Eastern Palace from the Maharaja included the outer compound walls. The State admitted the title of the Maharaja to the Eastern Palace but asserted that the disputed wall was part of the historic Fort wall. The Court found that the petitioner had possessory title to the wall and was in physical possession thereof. The petitioner, therefore, had a fundamental right to be protected against interference with that right without the sanction of law.
3. Validity of Travancore Ancient Monuments Preservation Regulation:
The petitioner contended that Regulation 1 of 1112 M.E. was impliedly repealed by the extension of the Central Act, the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act, 1904, and subsequent Central Acts. The Court examined the legislative fields allotted to the Central and State Legislatures and found that Parliament could only make laws with respect to monuments declared to be of national importance. The Central Act of 1904 did not embody any such declaration. Therefore, the State Act continued to hold the field. The Court concluded that the notification issued under the State Act was valid.
4. Classification of the Disputed Wall as an Ancient Monument or Archaeological Site:
The petitioner argued that the disputed wall was not an ancient monument but an archaeological site or remains, and that the matter was covered by entry 40 of the Concurrent List. The Court found it not possible to hold that the Fort wall was not an ancient monument but only an archaeological site or remains. The State Government had notified the Fort wall as an ancient monument. The Court held that the Fort wall was a historical monument, not an archaeological site for exploration and study. Therefore, the State Government was within its rights to issue the notification under Regulation 1 of 1112 M.E.
Conclusion:
The petition was dismissed with costs. The Court upheld the validity of the Travancore Ancient Monuments Preservation Regulation and the notification issued thereunder, rejecting the petitioner's claims on all grounds. The Court did not express an opinion on whether Article 363 of the Constitution was a bar to the maintainability of the petition, as it was not necessary for the decision.
-
1965 (2) TMI 132
Issues:
1. Admissibility of loss in Tata deferred shares for deduction under section 10 of the Income-tax Act.
2. Determining whether dealings in shares, cotton waste, and money-lending constitute the "same business" under section 24(2) of the Income-tax Act.
Analysis:
1. The judgment concerns references from the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the admissibility of a loss of Rs. 21,881 in Tata deferred shares for deduction under section 10 of the Income-tax Act. The Tribunal also questioned if dealings in shares, cotton waste, and money-lending constitute the "same business" under section 24(2) of the Act.
2. The assessee, a private limited company, derived income from various sources, including shares, brokerage, money-lending, dividends, cloth, and cotton waste businesses. The references related to assessment years 1950-51, 1952-53, and 1953-54, with the Tribunal examining the losses and profits from different income heads during these years.
3. The Tribunal held that the loss in speculative business could not be set off against profits from other income sources, citing relevant case law. It also determined that losses from share dealings in previous years could not be carried forward and set off against income from cloth and waste cotton business, as these were not considered the "same business."
4. A Division Bench decision established that losses from speculative dealings could be set off against profits from other businesses under section 10(1) of the Act. Consequently, the first question regarding the admissibility of the loss in Tata deferred shares was answered affirmatively in favor of the assessee.
5. The second question hinged on whether the Tribunal's finding that dealings in shares, cotton waste, and money-lending did not constitute the "same business" was supported by evidence and legal inference. The Tribunal's decision was based on principles laid down by Rowlatt J. and supported by relevant case law.
6. The Tribunal's conclusion that the businesses of cloth and cotton waste were not the same as share dealing and jobbering was upheld, emphasizing the need to consider all facts and circumstances in determining the "same business" concept under section 24(2) of the Act.
7. The Tribunal's legal inference was deemed justified, and the second question was answered in the affirmative but against the assessee. Both parties were directed to bear their own costs, with the Commissioner of Income-tax entitled to costs in specific references.
In conclusion, the judgment addresses the admissibility of losses in specific businesses for deduction and the criteria for determining whether different business activities constitute the "same business" for income tax purposes under relevant sections of the Income-tax Act.
-
1965 (2) TMI 131
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the suit was barred by Section 77 of the Indian Railways Act due to lack of notice.
2. Whether the railway was absolved from responsibility under Risk Note Form Z.
3. Whether there was misconduct by the railway or its servants leading to the non-delivery of goods.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Section 77 of the Indian Railways Act:
The primary issue was whether the suit was barred by Section 77 of the Indian Railways Act, which requires a notice to be given within six months from the date of delivery of the goods for carriage. The trial court, based on certain Patna High Court decisions, held that no notice was necessary in cases of non-delivery, distinguishing it from loss. However, this view was overruled by the Supreme Court in the case of Governor-General in Council v. Musaddilal, which held that non-delivery is a consequence of loss and thus requires notice under Section 77. Despite the respondent's initial claim that no notice was necessary, it was found that a notice dated April 10, 1948, was indeed given, fulfilling the requirements of Section 77. Consequently, the suit was not barred.
2. Risk Note Form Z:
The second issue concerned the applicability of Risk Note Form Z, which absolves the railway from responsibility for loss, destruction, or deterioration of goods except upon proof of misconduct by the railway or its servants. The High Court held that the railway failed to discharge its burden of disclosure as required under the risk note, thus breaching the contract and making the railway liable as a simple bailee under Section 72(1) of the Act. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the obligation to disclose arises only when specifically requested by the consignor before litigation. Since no such request was made before the suit, there was no breach. The court emphasized that even if there was a breach of disclosure, the risk note would still apply, and the responsibility would not revert to that of a simple bailee. The court would instead more readily infer misconduct or apply Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act against the railway.
3. Misconduct by the Railway or its Servants:
The final issue was whether misconduct by the railway or its servants could be inferred from the evidence. The trial court accepted the evidence of the guard who testified that the wagon was intact when it left Mughalsarai, suggesting that the theft occurred between Mughalsarai and Buxar. The High Court, however, doubted this evidence. The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the evidence, found no reason to disbelieve the guard's testimony. The evidence indicated that the wagon was intact when it left Mughalsarai and that the theft likely occurred in the running train. The court noted that the respondent did not request further disclosure or production of additional evidence, such as the seal book or testimony from the watch and ward staff, which could have supported their claim. Therefore, the court concluded that misconduct could not be fairly inferred from the railway's evidence, and the burden of proving misconduct, which was on the respondent, was not discharged.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment and restoring the trial court's decision. The suit was not barred by Section 77 due to the notice given. The railway was not in breach of its disclosure obligation under Risk Note Form Z, and misconduct by the railway or its servants could not be fairly inferred from the evidence. Consequently, the railway was not liable for the non-delivery of the goods.
-
1965 (2) TMI 129
Issues Involved:
1. Inclusion of Rs. 70,860 in the total income of Maneklal for the assessment year 1957-58 under section 16(3)(a)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1922.
2. Inclusion of Rs. 5,104 in the total income of Maneklal for the assessment year 1958-59 under section 16(3)(a)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1922.
3. Inclusion of Rs. 4,183 in the total income of Maneklal for the assessment year 1959-60 under section 16(3)(a)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1922.
4. Inclusion of Rs. 5,105 in the total income of Maneklal for the assessment year 1959-60 under section 16(3)(a)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1922.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Inclusion of Rs. 70,860 for Assessment Year 1957-58:
The primary question was whether the surplus of Rs. 70,860, resulting from the sale of shares gifted by Maneklal to his wife, constituted income arising directly or indirectly from the transferred assets under section 16(3)(a)(iii). The argument presented by the assessee's counsel was that "income" under this section should not include "capital gains" from the sale of the transferred assets. However, the court held that "income" as defined in section 2(6C) includes "capital gains" chargeable under section 12B. The court reasoned that the profits or gains from the sale of the asset arise from the asset itself, even though the operation causing the income is the sale. Thus, the Rs. 70,860 was considered income arising from the transferred assets and was liable to be included in Maneklal's total income for the assessment year 1957-58. The court answered this question in the affirmative.
2. Inclusion of Rs. 5,104 for Assessment Year 1958-59:
The issue was whether the interest earned from the sale proceeds of the transferred assets should be included in the total income of Maneklal. The court noted that the value of the transferred assets at the date of transfer was Rs. 69,730, and the sale proceeds were Rs. 1,54,800, resulting in a gain of Rs. 70,860. The court held that only the interest attributable to the value of the transferred assets (Rs. 69,730) should be included in Maneklal's total income. The interest attributable to the surplus (Rs. 70,860) should not be included as it was income from the income, not from the transferred assets. The court answered this question in the negative.
3. Inclusion of Rs. 4,183 for Assessment Year 1959-60:
The assessee's counsel did not press this question, and the conclusion of the Tribunal was accepted as correct. The court answered this question in the affirmative.
4. Inclusion of Rs. 5,105 for Assessment Year 1959-60:
Similar to the second issue, this question concerned whether the interest from the sale proceeds of the transferred assets should be included in Maneklal's total income. The court reiterated that only the interest attributable to the value of the transferred assets (Rs. 69,730) should be included, and the interest attributable to the surplus (Rs. 70,860) should not be included. The court answered this question in the negative.
Conclusion:
The court answered the first question in the affirmative, confirming the inclusion of Rs. 70,860 in Maneklal's total income for the assessment year 1957-58. Questions two and four were answered in the negative, excluding Rs. 5,104 and Rs. 5,105 from Maneklal's total income for the assessment years 1958-59 and 1959-60, respectively. Question three was answered in the affirmative, accepting the inclusion of Rs. 4,183 in Maneklal's total income for the assessment year 1959-60. There was no order as to costs since both the department and the assessee had partial success.
-
1965 (2) TMI 128
Issues Involved
1. Construction of Section 28(1)(c) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.
2. Determination of concealed income and imposition of penalty.
3. Calculation of maximum penalty under Section 28(1)(c).
4. Discretion in the imposition of penalty.
Detailed Analysis
1. Construction of Section 28(1)(c) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922
The primary issue is the interpretation of Section 28(1)(c) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. This section deals with the imposition of penalties for concealing income or deliberately furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income. The court examined the language of the section, specifically focusing on the terms "income as returned" and "income-tax and super-tax avoided." The court clarified that "income as returned" refers to the income shown by the assessee in their return, not the income assessed by the Income-tax Officer. The term "avoided" was interpreted in the context of the income shown in the return being accepted as correct, meaning the tax that would have escaped assessment.
2. Determination of Concealed Income and Imposition of Penalty
The court analyzed whether the assessee had concealed income and the resulting imposition of a penalty. The Income-tax Officer found that the transactions involving the sale of gunny bags were the business of the assessee, not Laxmichand, and that the assessee had earned and suppressed profits of Rs. 24,000 over three years. Additionally, the Income-tax Officer included Rs. 90,000 as income from an undisclosed source in the assessee's total income for the assessment year 1948-49. The penalty was imposed based on the difference between the returned income and the assessed income.
3. Calculation of Maximum Penalty under Section 28(1)(c)
The court examined the method of calculating the maximum penalty under Section 28(1)(c). The Tribunal's view, supported by the Andhra High Court's decision in Kalidindi Subbaraju Gopalaraju & Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, was that the penalty should be computed based on the difference between the tax on the income as finally assessed and the tax that would have been avoided if the return had been accepted as true. The court agreed with this interpretation, stating that the maximum penalty is one and a half times the amount of tax on the difference between the returned income and the assessed income.
4. Discretion in the Imposition of Penalty
The court highlighted the discretionary nature of imposing penalties within the maximum limit prescribed by Section 28(1)(c). Although the maximum penalty could be disproportionately high relative to the amount of concealed income, the discretion lies with the income-tax authorities and the Tribunal to determine the appropriate penalty based on the nature and gravity of the concealment. The court noted that the penalty imposed in this case appeared disproportionately heavy compared to the concealed income but emphasized that the quantum of penalty is a matter of discretion and not a question of law.
Conclusion
The court concluded that the maximum penalty under Section 28(1)(c) should be calculated based on the difference between the tax on the returned income and the tax on the assessed income. The court upheld the Tribunal's decision, affirming that the penalty of Rs. 62,000 was correctly imposed based on the interpretation of the section. The court's answer to the question referred was in the negative, indicating that the penalty computation should not be limited to the tax on the concealed income alone. The assessee was ordered to pay the costs of the Commissioner.
-
1965 (2) TMI 127
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of partnership where partners represent a Hindu undivided family (HUF).
2. Impact of agreements made by a partner with third parties on the validity of the partnership.
3. Effect of non-disclosure of profits by partners in their returns on the validity of the partnership.
4. Compliance with Section 26A and the rules for registration of the firm.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of partnership where partners represent a Hindu undivided family (HUF):
The primary question was whether the firm could be granted registration under Section 26A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, given that Sir Hukumchand and his son Rajkumar Singh represented their HUF in the partnership. The Tribunal held that the partnership was valid, citing Mayne's Hindu Law and various judicial precedents, including Pichappa v. Chokalingam and Charandas Haridas v. Commissioner of Income-tax, which support the notion that members of an HUF can enter into a partnership with strangers. The Tribunal rejected the revenue's contention that the partnership was invalid due to the representation of the HUF by more than one coparcener. The High Court upheld this view, stating that the partnership was not invalidated merely because Sir Hukumchand and his son represented their HUF. The decision emphasized that while membership of a joint family is a matter of status, partnership is a matter of contract.
2. Impact of agreements made by a partner with third parties on the validity of the partnership:
The Tribunal found that Mannalal's agreements with five other persons, including Chunnilal Onkarmal Ltd., for sharing his profits did not invalidate the partnership. Mannalal continued to participate in the partnership business and performed the functions of a partner. The Tribunal held that the agreements did not entitle the other persons to participate in the conduct of the business, and thus, Mannalal remained a genuine partner. The High Court agreed, noting that a partner can enter into agreements for the sharing of his profits without affecting the validity of the partnership. The Court cited Lindley on Partnership and various judicial precedents, including Commissioner of Income-tax v. Laxmi Trading Co., to support this view.
3. Effect of non-disclosure of profits by partners in their returns on the validity of the partnership:
The revenue argued that the non-disclosure of profits by Sir Hukumchand and Rajkumar Singh in their returns indicated that they were not the actual partners, but rather the private limited company, Sir Sarupchand Hukumchand Ltd., was the partner. The Tribunal rejected this argument, stating that the shares of profits were credited to the individual accounts of Sir Hukumchand and Rajkumar Singh, and the privity of contract was between these individuals and the other partners. The High Court upheld this view, emphasizing that the question of to whom the profits ultimately belonged was relevant for assessment purposes but not for the question of registration.
4. Compliance with Section 26A and the rules for registration of the firm:
The revenue requested a supplementary statement of facts to ascertain whether the application for registration complied with the rules. The High Court denied this request, stating that the revenue could not raise new contentions that were not argued before the Tribunal. The Court emphasized that the facts relevant to the question of compliance with Section 26A and the rules had not been found or dealt with in the orders of the Tribunal or the lower authorities. The Court cited Commissioner of Income-tax v. Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. and New Jehangir Vakil Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax to support its decision.
Conclusion:
The High Court concluded that the assessee-firm was entitled to registration under Section 26A for the assessment year 1954-55. The Tribunal's direction to the Income-tax Officer to register the firm was upheld. The Court awarded costs of the reference to the assessee-firm.
-
1965 (2) TMI 126
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the assessee-company is one in which the public are substantially interested within the meaning of the Explanation to sub-section (9) of section 23A of the Income-tax Act as it stood at the relevant time.
2. Whether the provisions of section 23A as amended in 1955 violated the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution and, as such, were ultra vires the Constitution.
Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Public Interest in the Assessee-Company:
The primary issue was whether the assessee-company could be deemed a company in which the public were substantially interested under section 23A(9) of the Income-tax Act. The assessee, a public limited company engaged in manufacturing, argued that it met the conditions for public interest. The Tribunal identified four cumulative conditions for such a classification:
1. It was not a private company as defined under the Indian Companies Act.
2. Its shares were either dealt with in a recognized stock exchange or were freely transferable to the public.
3. Shares carrying not less than 40% of the voting power were allotted unconditionally to and held by the public.
4. The company's affairs were controlled by not less than six persons or shares carrying more than 60% of the voting power were held by not less than six persons.
The Tribunal found that while the first two conditions were met, the third and fourth conditions were not satisfied. Specifically, Indra Singh & Sons Private Ltd., along with three directors, held more than 60% of the voting power, failing the requirement that no less than six persons should hold such a percentage. The Tribunal also rejected the argument that the conditions were disjunctive, affirming that all conditions must be met cumulatively.
2. Constitutionality of Section 23A:
The second issue was whether the amended section 23A violated fundamental rights under the Constitution. The court referenced its prior judgment in Sardar Ajaib Singh v. Commissioner of Income-tax, concluding that section 23A was neither confiscatory nor in violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(f), (g), and 265 of the Constitution. The court found a rational basis for the percentages of shareholding specified in the section, asserting that these measures were designed to prevent a small group of shareholders from controlling the company and withholding dividends. The reduction of the public shareholding requirement to 40% for manufacturing companies was intended to foster industrial growth. The court dismissed the argument that fixing the number of controlling persons at six was arbitrary, reasoning that it was a practical and reasonable measure to ensure broader control over the company.
Conclusion:
The court answered both questions in the negative, ruling against the assessee. The assessee was ordered to pay the costs of the reference.
-
1965 (2) TMI 125
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the documents (Exhibits 7(a), 7(b), and 12) constituted an equitable mortgage requiring registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act.
2. Whether the High Court's interpretation of the documents was correct.
3. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to a mortgage decree.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Equitable Mortgage and Registration Requirement:
The main question presented for determination in this case was whether the view taken by the High Court as to the legal effect of these documents-exhibits 7(a), 7(b), and 12-was correct. A mortgage by deposit of title deeds is a form of mortgage recognized by Section 58(f) of the Transfer of Property Act, which provides that it may be effected in certain towns (including Calcutta) where a person "delivers to a creditor or his agent documents of title to immovable property with intent to create a security thereon." When the debtor deposits with the creditor title deeds of his property with an intent to create a security, the law implies a contract between the parties to create a mortgage, and no registered instrument is required under Section 59 as in other classes of mortgage. However, if the parties choose to reduce the contract to writing, this implication of law is excluded by their express bargain, and the document will be the sole evidence of its terms. In such a case, the deposit and the document both form integral parts of the transaction and are essential ingredients in the creation of the mortgage. The document which constitutes the bargain regarding security requires registration under Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908, as a non-testamentary instrument creating an interest in immovable property, where the value of such property is one hundred rupees and upwards. If a document of this character is not registered, it cannot be used in evidence at all, and the transaction itself cannot be proved by oral evidence either.
2. Interpretation of the Documents:
The trial court considered that exhibits 7(a) and 7(b) were not merely a record of past transactions but created an equitable mortgage and, therefore, required registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act. The High Court expressed the view that exhibits 7(b) and 12 were not of much consequence and exhibit 7(a) was the material document to be construed in the case. The High Court took the view that exhibit 7(a) written by Lekharam, defendant No. 2, was meant to be an integral part of the transaction and was not intended to be mere evidence for the deposit of the title deeds. The High Court accordingly held that the plaintiff was not entitled to a mortgage decree and therefore dismissed the appeal.
Applying the principle to the present case, the Supreme Court considered that the letter at exhibit 7(a) was not meant to be an integral part of the transaction between the parties. The letter does not mention what was the principal amount borrowed or to be borrowed. Neither does it refer to the rate of interest for the loan. It is important to notice that the letter does not mention details of title deeds which are to be deposited with the plaintiff-bank. The Supreme Court was, therefore, of the opinion that the view of the High Court with regard to the construction of exhibit 7(a) was erroneous and the document was not intended to be an integral part of the transaction and did not, by itself, operate to create an interest in the immovable property. It follows, therefore, that the document-exhibit 7(a)-did not require registration under Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act.
3. Entitlement to Mortgage Decree:
On behalf of the respondents, it was argued in the alternative that exhibits 7(b) and 12 were integral parts of the transaction and would require registration. The Supreme Court was unable to accept this argument as correct. The letter written by Sonaram-exhibit 7(b)-is not of much consequence, for it does not contain the material particulars of the loan and does not mention details of title deeds intended to be deposited with the plaintiff-bank. The letter suggests that the transaction was not finally completed as Babulal Ram-defendant No. 4-was authorized in the letter "to negotiate further in this respect." As regards exhibit 12, the Supreme Court found that it recorded a transaction which had already been concluded and under which rights and liabilities had already been agreed upon. Exhibit 12 is written not by Lekharam-the karta of the joint family-but by Babulal Ram. It recites that he had deposited the title deeds with an intent to create an equitable mortgage "upon all my rights, title and interest in the said properties." The language of exhibit 12 is identical in material respects with the language of the document construed by the court in Rachpal Mahraj v. Bhagwandas Daruka, and is covered by the decision in that case.
For the reasons expressed, the Supreme Court held that the view taken by the High Court must be overruled and the plaintiff must be granted a mortgage decree for the amount of Rs. 31,000 odd, as claimed in the plaint together with interest at 6 percent per annum from the institution of the suit and costs. The plaintiff is accordingly granted the usual mortgage decree under Order 34, Rule 4, Civil Procedure Code, and it should be stated in the decree that if the defendants do not pay the amount within the period of six months from this date, the mortgaged properties described in the schedule to the plaint would be sold for the satisfaction of the amount owing to the plaintiff.
The appeal was accordingly allowed with costs.
-
1965 (2) TMI 124
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the notification issued under Section 64(4) of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951.
2. Whether the trusteeship of the Rajan Kattalai is a right of property under Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution.
3. Whether the impugned notification was issued without giving an opportunity to the appellant to show cause, thereby violating principles of natural justice.
4. Whether the proceedings under Section 64(4) are quasi-judicial in nature.
Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of the Notification Issued Under Section 64(4):
The Governor of Madras issued a notification on August 4, 1956, extending a previous notification concerning the Sri Thiyagarajaswami Temple for five years. The appellant challenged this notification's validity, arguing it was arbitrary and capricious. The High Court rejected the appellant's pleas, but the Supreme Court found that the notification was issued without giving the appellant an opportunity to be heard, violating principles of natural justice. The Supreme Court quashed the notification, emphasizing that any decision to cancel or extend such notifications must involve a fair hearing for the affected parties.
2. Trusteeship as a Right of Property Under Article 19(1)(f):
The appellant argued that the hereditary trusteeship of the Rajan Kattalai is a right of property under Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution, and Section 64 of the Act empowers the State to take away this right arbitrarily. The High Court rejected this contention, and the Supreme Court did not delve into this issue in detail, as the arguments presented in the appeal covered a narrower ground focusing on procedural fairness.
3. Opportunity to Show Cause and Principles of Natural Justice:
The appellant contended that the impugned notification was issued without giving him an opportunity to show cause, violating principles of natural justice. The High Court acknowledged that the proceedings under Section 64(4) are quasi-judicial and require a fair hearing. However, the High Court did not grant relief, reasoning that the notification would soon expire. The Supreme Court found this reasoning erroneous, noting that the appellant had indeed raised the issue of not being heard in his affidavit-in-rejoinder, and the notification's life was statutorily extended beyond the High Court's judgment. Therefore, the Supreme Court held that the appellant should have been given a chance to be heard before the notification was issued.
4. Quasi-Judicial Nature of Proceedings Under Section 64(4):
The Supreme Court examined whether the proceedings under Section 64(4) are quasi-judicial. The respondent State argued that while initial notifications under Section 64(3) require compliance with natural justice principles, decisions under Section 64(4) do not. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the process of deciding whether to cancel or extend a notification under Section 64(4) involves similar considerations as under Section 64(3). Both decisions impact the trustee's rights and require a fair hearing. The Court emphasized that the nature and effect of orders under both sections are similar, necessitating adherence to natural justice principles.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and directed the issuance of an appropriate writ quashing the notification issued by the respondent State on August 4, 1956. The appellant was entitled to costs throughout the proceedings. The judgment underscored the necessity of procedural fairness and the right to be heard in quasi-judicial proceedings affecting trusteeship rights.
-
1965 (2) TMI 123
Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of revenue court to grant damages under Section 209 of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act.
2. Possession of defendants with or without consent of the plaintiff.
3. Requirement of U. P. State as a necessary party in a suit under Section 209.
Analysis:
Issue 1: Jurisdiction of revenue court to grant damages
The plaintiff claimed to be the Bhumidhar and filed a suit under Section 209 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, seeking damages. The trial court and Assistant Collector found the plaintiff to be the Bhumidhar and decreed the suit for ejectment and damages. The defendants appealed, arguing that the revenue court lacked jurisdiction to award damages. However, the High Court held that the revenue court could grant damages under Section 209, even without specific mention in the original schedule. The subsequent amendment adding "and damages" was deemed clarificatory, and the court upheld the lower courts' decision to grant damages.
Issue 2: Possession of defendants with or without consent
The defendants contended that they were in possession with the plaintiff's consent, contrary to the lower courts' finding of trespass. The High Court noted that the question of possession with or without consent is a factual matter. After reviewing the evidence, the court upheld the lower courts' finding that the defendants were in possession with the plaintiff's consent, emphasizing that such factual determinations are not easily interfered with on appeal.
Issue 3: Requirement of U. P. State as a necessary party
The defendants argued that the U. P. State should have been a necessary party in the suit under Section 209, citing a later amendment making it mandatory. The High Court discussed the retrospective application of procedural amendments, emphasizing that changes should not prejudice established rights. The court differentiated between suits and appeals, stating that the amendment requiring the U. P. State's inclusion as a party applied to suits, not necessarily to appeals. The court concluded that while it is advisable to include the U. P. State in pending suits, disrupting valid decrees for impleading the State in appeals would be unjust. Therefore, the High Court dismissed the appeal, maintaining the lower courts' decision.
In conclusion, the High Court upheld the lower courts' decision, affirming the jurisdiction of the revenue court to grant damages under Section 209, the factual finding of possession with consent, and the discretionary inclusion of the U. P. State as a necessary party based on the stage of the legal proceedings.
-
1965 (2) TMI 122
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the respondent contravened Clause 7 of the Iron and Steel (Control) Order, 1956 by not utilizing the iron and steel for the specified purpose.
2. Interpretation of the term "use" under Clause 7 of the Control Order.
3. Whether the application for the permit can be referred to for construing the conditions of the permit.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Contravention of Clause 7 of the Iron and Steel (Control) Order, 1956:
The respondent obtained permits for acquiring iron and steel for constructing a public temple and dharamshala. The prosecution alleged that the respondent did not use the materials for the stated purpose. The Magistrate found that the respondent had purchased at least 18 tons of iron but utilized only 3/4 ton in the construction at Tinhari, which was completed between 1943-52, indicating no portion of the iron obtained was used for the intended purpose. The Sessions Judge, however, found no evidence that the respondent sold the excess iron and suggested the possibility of the iron being retained elsewhere. The High Court upheld this view, stating that mere non-use does not constitute a contravention of Clause 7.
2. Interpretation of the Term "Use" under Clause 7:
The appellant argued that "use" should include "kept for eventual use for another purpose," relying on a broad interpretation from Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, stating that "use" in Clause 7 implies positive utilization or disposal and not mere non-use. The Court emphasized that the context of the Control Order does not support the inclusion of storage within the term "use" without a specified time for utilization.
3. Reference to the Application for Construing Permit Conditions:
The High Court held that only the permit, not the application, could be referred to for determining the conditions of use. The Supreme Court found merit in the appellant's argument that the permit's condition to use materials "for the purpose for which it was asked for and has been given" implicitly refers to the application. However, the applications did not specify a particular location for the construction, and the argument that the iron was intended for use within Deoria district was not substantiated by any jurisdictional orders.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the respondent did not contravene Clause 7 of the Control Order as there was no evidence of misuse or unauthorized disposal of the iron. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the High Court's judgment.
-
1965 (2) TMI 121
Issues:
1. Disallowance of salary paid to a partner under section 10(4)(b) of the Income-tax Act.
2. Whether a direction under section 33(5) should have been given to eliminate the salary paid to the partner in working out the share of income of the Hindu undivided family.
Analysis:
Issue 1: Disallowance of salary paid to a partner under section 10(4)(b) of the Income-tax Act:
The case involved a partnership firm composed of three partners, one of whom was paid a salary of Rs. 6,000 as per an agreement due to his role as a manager of his joint Hindu family. The Income-tax Officer disallowed this deduction under section 10(4)(b) of the Act, which prohibits any allowance for payment of salary or remuneration made by a firm to any partner. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner excluded the salary from partnership income, but the Appellate Tribunal reversed this decision, stating that section 10(4)(b) applied regardless of the profit's destination. The High Court held that the payment to a partner, irrespective of the capacity, falls within the scope of section 10(4)(b) and disallowed the deduction, citing precedents that support this interpretation.
Issue 2: Direction under section 33(5) to eliminate the salary paid to the partner in working out the share of income of the Hindu undivided family:
The Tribunal did not address the second question regarding the direction under section 33(5) to exclude the partner's salary from the family's income share, deeming it irrelevant to the current inquiry. However, the High Court found that the Tribunal should have considered this question, especially since an allocation was made by the Income-tax Officer, making it a final decision. Consequently, the High Court remanded this issue back to the Tribunal for a proper determination, emphasizing the importance of addressing this aspect of the case.
In conclusion, the High Court upheld the disallowance of the partner's salary deduction under section 10(4)(b) but directed the Tribunal to reconsider the issue of giving a direction under section 33(5) regarding the exclusion of the salary from the family's income share. The judgment clarified the application of the Income-tax Act provisions and highlighted the necessity of addressing all relevant questions in tax assessments to ensure a comprehensive and accurate determination of tax liabilities.
-
1965 (2) TMI 120
Issues:
1. Interpretation of provisions under section 10(2)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1922.
2. Determination of written down value for assets acquired before the previous year.
3. Calculation of balancing charge under section 10(2)(vii) based on depreciation allowed.
Analysis:
The case involved a dispute under section 66(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, regarding the addition of Rs. 10,000 to the profits from the sale of three lorries for the assessment year 1949-50. The Income-tax Officer computed the profits under the second proviso to section 10(2)(vii) at Rs. 19,728, based on the written down value of the lorries. However, the written down value was determined using an estimated initial cost without actual depreciation allowances for the relevant years.
The Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld the addition, but the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal reduced the estimated income and profit under section 10(2)(vii) to Rs. 10,000. The main contention was whether the Income-tax Officer could compute the written down value without actual depreciation allowances in earlier years.
The court analyzed the provisions of section 10(5)(b) which define the written down value as the actual cost less depreciation actually allowed. It emphasized that the written down value for assets acquired before the previous year can only be determined based on actual depreciation allowed in earlier assessment years.
The court held that if no actual depreciation was allowed in prior years, the Income-tax Officer could not estimate the written down value based on an estimated initial cost. The provision for a balancing charge under section 10(2)(vii) only applies when actual depreciation has been allowed. In this case, only the depreciation of Rs. 8,860 for eight trucks was actually allowed in the relevant years, and this amount should be considered for computing the excess profit.
Therefore, the court concluded that only actual depreciation allowed should be considered for determining the written down value and calculating the excess under the second proviso to section 10(2)(vii) of the Act. The question was answered accordingly, and no costs were awarded, with the counsel's fee assessed at Rs. 200.
-
1965 (2) TMI 119
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the arrest and detention of the respondent.
2. Applicability of the Judicial Officers' Protection Act, 1850.
3. Determination of whether the appellant acted in a judicial or executive capacity.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Legality of the arrest and detention of the respondent:
The respondent was arrested on March 17, 1950, by the Circle Inspector of Police under the authority of the appellant, who was the Sub-Divisional Officer and Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The arrest was made without any formal complaint or recorded information against the respondent. The respondent was detained until March 20, 1950, when he was released on bail by the local First Class Magistrate. The proceedings against the respondent were eventually closed on May 31, 1950, as no formal charges were lodged, and no First Information Report (FIR) was traceable. The Subordinate Judge and the High Court held that the arrest was "reckless and without any lawful excuse," as no judicial proceeding was initiated against the respondent based on the information received.
2. Applicability of the Judicial Officers' Protection Act, 1850:
The appellant claimed protection under the Judicial Officers' Protection Act, 1850, arguing that he acted in the discharge of his judicial duties. Section 1 of the Act provides protection to judges, magistrates, and other persons acting judicially for acts done in the discharge of their judicial duties, provided they believed in good faith that they had jurisdiction. The Court examined whether the appellant acted judicially or in an executive capacity when ordering the respondent's arrest. The Subordinate Judge and the majority of the High Court judges found that the appellant did not act judicially but rather in an executive capacity, and thus, the protection of the Act did not apply.
3. Determination of whether the appellant acted in a judicial or executive capacity:
The appellant admitted that he did not take cognizance of any offence against the respondent and acted under the oral direction of the Deputy Commissioner. The Court emphasized that for the protection under the Judicial Officers' Protection Act to apply, the appellant needed to have acted judicially by taking cognizance of an offence under Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court found no evidence that the appellant acted judicially, as there was no formal complaint, police report, or recorded information leading to the respondent's arrest. The appellant's letter directing the arrest lacked the formalities of a judicial order, such as the seal of the Magistrate and a clear charge under Section 436 of the Indian Penal Code. Consequently, the Court concluded that the appellant acted in an executive capacity, following the Deputy Commissioner's direction, and not in the discharge of his judicial duties.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of the Subordinate Judge and the High Court, holding that the appellant did not have the protection of the Judicial Officers' Protection Act, 1850, as he acted in an executive capacity. The arrest and detention of the respondent were deemed unlawful, and the decree for compensation of Rs. 5,000 was upheld. The appeal was dismissed with costs.
-
1965 (2) TMI 118
Issues Involved:
1. Ownership of trees standing on forest lands in the 39 villages.
2. Rights of jagirdars to cut and remove trees from the forest lands.
3. Application of the Bombay Merged Territories and Areas (Jagirs Abolition) Act, 1953.
4. Interpretation of Sections 3, 5(1)(b), 8, 9, and 10 of the Jagirs Abolition Act.
5. Rights conferred under the Bombay Land Revenue Code.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Ownership of Trees Standing on Forest Lands in the 39 Villages:
The respondents, who were jagirdars of Waghach State, claimed full ownership of the forest lands and the trees standing on them. However, the court concluded that under Section 3 of the Jagirs Abolition Act, all jagirs were abolished and all rights of the jagirdars were extinguished unless expressly provided otherwise in the Act. The court emphasized that the rights of the occupants under the Bombay Land Revenue Code do not include the right to cut and remove trees from forest lands. The court noted that the 39 villages in question had not been surveyed or settled, and until such survey and settlement, the rights to the trees remained with the State Government. Therefore, the trees standing on the forest lands did not belong to the jagirdars but to the State Government.
2. Rights of Jagirdars to Cut and Remove Trees from the Forest Lands:
The respondents argued that they had the right to cut and remove trees, including reserved species, from the forest lands. However, the court found that under Section 5(1)(b) of the Jagirs Abolition Act, the jagirdars only became occupants of the forest lands and did not acquire the right to cut and remove trees. The court referred to Section 40 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, which states that the right to trees in unalienated land is deemed to be conceded to the occupant only after the completion of the survey and settlement, which had not occurred in this case.
3. Application of the Bombay Merged Territories and Areas (Jagirs Abolition) Act, 1953:
The Jagirs Abolition Act was enacted to abolish jagirs in the merged territories and provide for matters consequential and incidental thereto. The court highlighted that under Section 3 of the Act, all jagirs were deemed to have been abolished, and all rights of jagirdars were extinguished except those expressly provided by the Act. The court interpreted the Act to mean that the jagirdars' rights to the trees were not saved by any provision of the Act.
4. Interpretation of Sections 3, 5(1)(b), 8, 9, and 10 of the Jagirs Abolition Act:
- Section 3: Abolishes all jagirs and extinguishes all rights of jagirdars unless expressly saved by the Act.
- Section 5(1)(b): Confers occupancy rights to jagirdars over the lands in their possession but does not include the right to trees.
- Section 8: Vests all uncultivated lands and waste lands in the State Government.
- Section 9: Vests the rights to trees specially reserved under the Indian Forest Act or any other law in the State Government.
- Section 10: Expressly saves the rights of jagirdars to mines or mineral products but does not mention trees.
The court concluded that these sections collectively indicate that the jagirdars did not retain rights to the trees on the forest lands.
5. Rights Conferred Under the Bombay Land Revenue Code:
The court analyzed the relevant sections of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, particularly Sections 40 and 41, which deal with the rights to trees in unalienated lands. The court noted that the right to trees is deemed to be conceded to the occupant only after the survey and settlement of the village, which had not occurred in this case. Therefore, the jagirdars did not have the right to the trees under the Bombay Land Revenue Code.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court reversed the High Court's judgment, holding that the respondents (jagirdars) did not have the right to cut and remove trees from the forest lands in the 39 villages. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and dismissed the Special Civil Application filed by the respondents. The appellants (State of Gujarat and others) were entitled to costs both in the Supreme Court and the High Court.
Appeal allowed.
-
1965 (2) TMI 117
Issues:
1. Whether the assessee was carrying on a business in providing paying guest accommodation?
2. Whether the income from letting out of the rooms to customers was to be separately computed and assessed under section 9?
Analysis:
Issue 1:
The case involved the assessment of an individual who owned a property with thirteen suites of rooms that were let out individually, along with additional services such as meals, furnishing, and amenities. The Income-tax Officer assessed the rental income as "income from business" under section 10, which was upheld by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal. The Tribunal found that the operations involved a scheme of profit-making and business activities, not merely property rental. The High Court analyzed previous judgments and concluded that the income arose under the head "profits and gains of business" as the assessee was running a paying guest establishment, not just earning rental income. The court highlighted the distinction between income from property and income from business, emphasizing the business nature of the operations in this case.
Issue 2:
The second question was contingent on the first, and the court answered it in the negative based on its affirmative answer to the first question. As the income was deemed to arise under the head of business profits and gains, it was not separately computed and assessed under section 9 for income from property. The court referred to the Bombay High Court decision in a similar matter and the Supreme Court's ruling on income classification under distinct heads. The judgment emphasized the importance of determining the specific head under which income falls for taxation purposes, which, in this case, was determined to be business income rather than property income. The court's decision was influenced by the nature of the operations and the integral role of the property in the assessee's business venture.
In conclusion, the High Court answered the reframed first question in the affirmative and the second question in the negative. The judgment provided a detailed analysis of the distinction between income from property and income from business, citing relevant legal precedents to support the decision.
-
1965 (2) TMI 116
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the respondent was given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself before being compulsorily retired under Article 353 of the Civil Service Regulations.
2. Whether the departmental enquiry complied with the requirements of Article 311(2) of the Constitution.
3. Validity of the second notice served on the respondent.
4. Validity of the final order of compulsory retirement.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Reasonable Opportunity to Defend:
The core issue in this appeal is whether the respondent was given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself before being compulsorily retired. The respondent challenged the compulsory retirement order by filing a suit, claiming it was invalid and ultra vires. The trial court dismissed the suit, finding that the respondent had been given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself. However, the High Court reversed this finding, concluding that the constitutional provisions of Article 311 were not complied with, as the enquiry officer did not hold an oral enquiry or allow the respondent to lead oral evidence.
2. Compliance with Article 311(2):
Article 311(2) mandates that no government employee shall be dismissed, removed, or reduced in rank without being given a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the proposed action. The High Court found that the departmental enquiry suffered from serious infirmities, including the failure to hold an oral enquiry and the denial of an opportunity for the respondent to lead oral evidence. The Supreme Court agreed with this finding, emphasizing that the enquiry officer's failure to hold an oral enquiry and allow the respondent to examine his doctors introduced a fatal infirmity in the enquiry, thereby violating Article 311(2).
3. Validity of the Second Notice:
The High Court also held that the second notice served on the respondent was defective, contributing to the invalidity of the compulsory retirement order. The Supreme Court did not delve deeply into this issue, as it found the enquiry itself to be fundamentally flawed due to the lack of a reasonable opportunity for the respondent to defend himself.
4. Validity of the Final Order:
The final order of compulsory retirement was challenged on the grounds that it did not show that the appellant had considered the respondent's explanation in response to the second notice. The High Court found this to be another reason for the order's invalidity. However, the Supreme Court focused on the primary issue of the enquiry's compliance with Article 311(2) and did not find it necessary to address this point in detail.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, concluding that the enquiry conducted by Mr. Mehta violated the mandatory provisions of Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, which required an oral enquiry if the respondent so desired. The failure to conduct such an enquiry deprived the respondent of a reasonable opportunity to defend himself, as required by Article 311(2). Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the respondent's suit was allowed, entitling him to a decree for Rs. 37,237.
|
9911796707
