|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 74 Records
-
1967 (2) TMI 113
Issues:
Determining whether a document should be classified as a conveyance or a release under the Indian Stamp Act.
Analysis:
The judgment in question revolves around the classification of a document as either a conveyance or a release under the Indian Stamp Act. The case involved a settlement deed dated 5-4-1955, where the settlor and his first son were co-owners of certain immovable properties. The settlor made a settlement of his undivided half share in the properties in favor of his second son, thereby ending the right of survivorship. The second son would then hold the property along with the first son as tenants-in-common in equal shares.
The subsequent document dated 12-7-1957 was under scrutiny, where the first son assigned a mortgage to the second son as consideration for the release of his undivided half share and interest in the entire property. The consideration for the release was the amount secured under the mortgage, valued at Rs. 51,250. The question before the court was whether this document should be construed as a conveyance or a release under the Indian Stamp Act.
The court emphasized that the nomenclature or language used in the document is not decisive; instead, the actual character of the transaction and the nature of the rights created must be considered. Referring to relevant authorities, including the decision in Board of Revenue v. Murugesa Mudaliar, the court highlighted that in cases of co-ownership, a release can enlarge the share of the other co-owners without the need for a conveyance. The court also cited the Supreme Court decision in Kuppuswami Chettiar v. Arumuga Chettiar, which emphasized that a release deed can only feed title but not transfer title.
The court rejected arguments that the document should be interpreted as a conveyance based on distinctions between joint tenancy and tenancy in common or the language of Article 55 of Schedule I. The court held that the document, which operated to enlarge the rights of the releasee, should be classified as a release under Article 55 of Schedule I of the Indian Stamp Act and is liable to duty as such.
In conclusion, the court unequivocally answered that the document in question was rightly interpreted as a release under the Indian Stamp Act and should be subject to stamp duty as such.
-
1967 (2) TMI 112
Issues:
1. Suit for possession of property by an idol represented by a worshipper.
2. Maintainability of the suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
3. Right of a worshipper to represent an idol when the Shebait acts adversely.
Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1:
The case involved a suit filed by an idol, represented by a worshipper, for possession of a property against an alienation by the Shebait. The High Court decreed the suit in favor of the idol, leading to the appeal to the Supreme Court.
Issue 2:
The appellant challenged the findings of both lower courts on factual and legal aspects. The Supreme Court upheld the concurrent findings, stating that the transaction was not binding on the idol and the consideration was inadequate. The Court also confirmed the right of the idol to file the suit through a worshipper, as the relief sought was not covered under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Issue 3:
The key question was whether a worshipper could represent an idol when the Shebait acted against its interest. The Court discussed the legal status of an idol in Hindu law, emphasizing that an idol is a juridical person capable of holding property. It was established that in cases where the Shebait fails to protect the idol's interest, worshippers can represent the idol to safeguard its rights. The Court cited various precedents supporting this view and rejected contrary decisions that limited the right to the Shebait.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the maintainability of the suit filed by the idol represented by a worshipper. The judgment clarified the legal standing of an idol, the role of worshippers in protecting idol's interests, and the limitations of Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure in such cases.
-
1967 (2) TMI 111
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 9 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1961 to a municipal district.
2. Validity of the notification due to the inquiry process.
3. Delegation of inquiry power to the Development Commissioner.
4. Allegation of mala fide exercise of power.
5. Constitutionality of Section 9 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1961 due to excessive delegation of legislative power.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Applicability of Section 9 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1961 to a municipal district:
The appellants contended that the local area of a municipal borough is not "any local area, comprising a revenue village, or a group of revenue villages or hamlets forming part of a revenue village, or such other administrative unit or part thereof" within the meaning of Section 9 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1961. The court rejected this contention, stating that Section 307 of the Act shows that a local area co-extensive with or included within the limits of a municipal district or a municipal borough may be declared to be a gram or nagar under Section 9, and on such a declaration, the municipality functioning within the local area or part thereof ceases to exist.
2. Validity of the notification due to the inquiry process:
The appellants argued that the notification was invalid as no inquiry as prescribed by Rule 2 of the Gujarat Panchayats (Declaration of nagar or gram) Inquiry Rules, 1962 was in fact made. The court found no merit in this contention, stating that the Development Commissioner had made the prescribed inquiry under Section 9(1) before issuing the notification.
3. Delegation of inquiry power to the Development Commissioner:
The appellants contended that the power to make the inquiry under Section 9(1) was not delegated by the State government to the Development Commissioner. The court held that the power to make the declaration necessarily carries with it the power to make the inquiry preliminary to the declaration. The relevant notification sufficiently authorized the Development Commissioner to issue the declaration after making the prescribed inquiry.
4. Allegation of mala fide exercise of power:
The appellants suggested that the notification under Section 9(1) was issued mala fide, alleging that the State government, having failed to impose its opinion regarding the inclusion of the vadi areas upon the municipality, adopted the device of the declaration under Section 9(1) for imposing its opinion at the instance of a ruling party MLA. The court rejected this suggestion, stating that the State government had the power to alter the limits of the municipal borough under Section 4(1)(b) of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963, and it was not necessary for the government to resort to the device of a declaration under Section 9(1) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1961.
5. Constitutionality of Section 9 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1961 due to excessive delegation of legislative power:
The appellants argued that Section 9(1) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1961 is ultra vires and unconstitutional on the ground of excessive delegation of legislative power to the State government. The court held that the legislature cannot delegate its essential legislative functions to an administrative agency. However, having laid down the legislative policy, the legislature may confer discretion on an administrative agency as to the execution of the policy and leave it to the agency to work out the details within the framework of the policy. Judged by this test, the court found that Section 9(1) does not suffer from the vice of excessive delegation.
Separate Judgment by Shelat, J.:
Shelat, J. concurred with the conclusions on contentions 1 to 4 but dissented on the fifth contention regarding the validity of Section 9. He argued that Section 9 delegates to the government an uncontrolled power under sub-sections (1) and (2) both as regards declaration and alteration of local areas without laying down any criterion which should govern and guide the government in the exercise of its power. He concluded that Section 9 suffers from excessive delegation and is invalid, and the impugned notification issued thereunder must fall along with it.
Conclusion:
The majority opinion dismissed the appeal without costs, holding that the notification dated June 14, 1965, declaring the area of Khambalia municipality to be a nagar was lawful and justified under Section 9(1) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1961.
-
1967 (2) TMI 110
Issues: Interpretation of art. 164 of the Indian Limitation Act 1908, Application to set aside ex-parte decree in Suit No. 25 of 1958, Knowledge of the decree for setting aside, Limitation period for setting aside a decree, Sufficiency of knowledge of the decree under art. 164
In this judgment, the Supreme Court addressed the interpretation of art. 164 of the Indian Limitation Act 1908, specifically in the context of setting aside an ex-parte decree. The appellant had two suits against them - one for a mortgage and the other for a ruqqa. An application was filed to set aside the ex-parte decree in the ruqqa suit, which was granted by the First Civil Judge, Kanpur, with certain conditions. However, an appeal against this order was dismissed. Subsequently, the appellant filed an application to set aside the ex-parte decree in the mortgage suit, which was dismissed by the Civil Judge and the High Court, citing that the application was barred by Limitation under art. 164. The Court explained that under Order 9, Rule 13 of the CPC, a decree passed ex-parte can be set aside if the summons was not duly served or if the defendant had a sufficient cause for not appearing. The period of limitation for such an application is 30 days from the date of the decree or from when the defendant had knowledge of the decree. The burden of proof is on the defendant to show the application is within time and that they had knowledge of the decree within 30 days. The Court referred to precedents to clarify that "knowledge of the decree" means knowledge of the specific decree sought to be set aside, not just any decree. The sufficiency of knowledge is based on what it meant to the defendant considering their previous dealings and circumstances known to them. In this case, the appellant's claim of first learning about the decree on a later date was found to be false, as evidence showed they were personally informed by the Civil Judge earlier. The Court concluded that the application filed by the appellant was time-barred under art. 164 and upheld the lower courts' decisions, dismissing the appeal with costs.
Overall, the judgment provides a detailed analysis of the interpretation of art. 164 of the Indian Limitation Act 1908 in the context of setting aside an ex-parte decree, emphasizing the importance of the defendant's knowledge of the specific decree being sought to be set aside within the prescribed limitation period. The Court highlighted the burden of proof on the defendant to establish timely application and clear knowledge of the decree, as well as the sufficiency of information conveyed to impute such knowledge. The decision underscores the significance of factual circumstances and previous dealings between the parties in determining the sufficiency of knowledge for the purpose of setting aside a decree under art. 164.
-
1967 (2) TMI 109
Issues:
1. Seizure of goods by police under Sections 54 Cr. P. C./411 I. P. C.
2. Application by Customs authorities to hand over seized goods.
3. Interpretation of provisions of old Sea Customs Act and Customs Act.
4. Power of Customs Authorities under Sections 110 and 151 of the Customs Act.
5. Discretion of the Court in passing orders in favor of Customs Authorities.
6. Conflict between Customs Authorities and police in seizing goods.
7. Appropriateness of orders in the facts and circumstances of the case.
8. Detention of a seized lorry pending confiscation proceedings.
Analysis:
The judgment involves two cases where goods, suspected to be smuggled property, were seized by the police. The Customs authorities sought a direction from the Chief Presidency Magistrate to hand over the seized goods for proceedings under the Customs law. The Magistrate declined, stating the goods should be returned to the accused for independent seizure by Customs if necessary. The issue revolved around the interpretation of the Customs Act provisions compared to the old Sea Customs Act. The argument highlighted the wide powers of seizure granted to Customs Authorities under Sections 110 and 151 of the Customs Act.
The Magistrate's order emphasized the need for the Court to be satisfied about the Customs Authorities' belief that the goods are contraband before passing any order in their favor. However, the judgment emphasized that the Court need not delve into the merits of the Customs Authorities' belief, as long as they have the legal power to seize the goods. The judgment stressed that an appropriate order should be made considering the practical difficulties that may arise if the Court refuses to act on the Customs Authorities' request.
The judgment concluded that the Magistrate erred in rejecting the Customs Authorities' prayer in both cases. It suggested that the seized goods should be handed over to Customs Authorities to avoid conflicts between different agencies and ensure smooth proceedings under the Customs Act. Additionally, regarding the seized lorry, the judgment recommended its return to the registered owner on a bond and terms, pending confiscation proceedings under Section 115 of the Customs Act.
In summary, the judgment made the Rules absolute, setting aside the Magistrate's orders and directing the cases to be reconsidered in light of the observations made. The seized goods were to be handed over to Customs Authorities, and the lorry was to be returned to its owner with specified conditions.
-
1967 (2) TMI 108
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the notification and declaration under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act.
2. Allegation of vagueness in the notification and declaration.
3. Allegation of mala fide intention and colourable exercise of power by the State.
4. Petitioner's right to object under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act.
5. Respondents' duty to disclose the specific purpose of acquisition.
Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of the Notification and Declaration under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act:
The Petitioner challenged the validity of the notification dated November 3, 1961, and the declaration dated June 20, 1963, under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, arguing that they were vague and did not state the public purpose clearly. The Court held that it is not necessary for the Government to provide detailed particulars in the notification specifying the projects of industrial development or the industries to be established. The Supreme Court in Barkya Thakur v. State of Bombay and Arnold Rodricks v. State of Maharashtra had established that a statement indicating the land is needed for a public purpose suffices for the validity of land acquisition proceedings.
2. Allegation of Vagueness in the Notification and Declaration:
The Petitioner argued that the notification and declaration were vague, depriving him of his rights under Section 5A of the Act. The Court noted that the Petitioner did not request further information at any stage, and there was no evidence that he had asked for such information. The Court found that the notification stating the land was needed for industrial development at Asansol was sufficient and not vague.
3. Allegation of Mala Fide Intention and Colourable Exercise of Power by the State:
The Petitioner alleged that the real purpose of the acquisition was to make land available cheaply to Sen Raleigh Industries of India Limited, constituting a colourable exercise of power. The Court observed that the Land Acquisition Collector's affidavit did not adequately address this allegation. The Court emphasized that public authorities must exercise their powers in good faith and disclose specific purposes when questioned. The Court found the Respondents' failure to disclose material facts and answer the Petitioner's allegations as indicative of a potential colourable exercise of power.
4. Petitioner's Right to Object under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act:
The Petitioner claimed he was deprived of his right to object under Section 5A due to the vagueness of the notification. The Court noted that the Petitioner had already filed an objection and did not complain of a lack of particulars. The Court held that since the Petitioner did not request further particulars at the proper stage, the question of prejudice did not arise.
5. Respondents' Duty to Disclose the Specific Purpose of Acquisition:
The Court criticized the Respondents for not disclosing the specific purpose of the acquisition and for evading the Petitioner's allegations. The Court underscored that public authorities must answer questions about the specific public purpose of their actions frankly and fairly. The Court found that the Respondents' failure to provide material facts made it impossible for the Court to decide on the issue of colourable exercise of power.
Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed, and the order of the learned Judge was set aside. The Rule was made absolute without any order as to costs. The Court emphasized the Respondents' duty to disclose relevant material facts to enable the Court to make a just decision. The order was made without prejudice to the Respondents' rights to take further steps under the law for the acquisition of the land in question.
-
1967 (2) TMI 107
Issues Involved:
1. Constitutional validity of the U.P. Civil Service (Judicial Branch) Rules, 1951.
2. Requirement of consultation with the High Court under Article 234 of the Constitution.
3. Validity of rules framed under Article 309 instead of Article 234.
4. Requirement of consultation with the Public Service Commission.
5. Interpretation of Article 234 regarding consultation for each appointment versus rule-making.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Constitutional Validity of the U.P. Civil Service (Judicial Branch) Rules, 1951:
The petitioner challenged the constitutional validity of the U.P. Civil Service (Judicial Branch) Rules, 1951, on the basis that they were not framed in accordance with the mandatory provisions of the Constitution. The petitioner argued that the rules violated Article 234, which mandates consultation with the High Court.
2. Requirement of Consultation with the High Court under Article 234:
The petitioner contended that the consultation required by Article 234 means consultation with all the Judges of the High Court, and not just a committee or individual judges. The court, however, held that Article 234 does not specify that the consultation must be with all the judges. The court emphasized that the High Court's administrative function does not necessitate consultation with the entire bench of judges. The court also noted that practical difficulties would arise if consultation required all judges to be involved in every administrative decision.
3. Validity of Rules Framed under Article 309 Instead of Article 234:
The petitioner argued that the rules were invalid as they were framed under Article 309 instead of Article 234. The court held that the validity of the rules must be tested by whether the Governor had the power to make those rules. The court found that the Governor had the requisite power to frame rules under both Article 234 and Article 309, and the non-mention of Article 234 in the preamble did not invalidate the rules. The court cited precedents to support the principle that the exercise of power is valid if it can be sustained under any provision of the law.
4. Requirement of Consultation with the Public Service Commission:
The petitioner claimed that the Public Service Commission was not consulted prior to the framing of the rules. The court found that the Public Service Commission was indeed consulted, as evidenced by the correspondence between the State Government and the Commission. Thus, this point raised by the petitioner had no merit.
5. Interpretation of Article 234 Regarding Consultation for Each Appointment Versus Rule-Making:
The petitioner argued that Article 234 requires consultation with the High Court for each appointment to the judicial service, not just for the framing of rules. The court rejected this interpretation, stating that Article 234 pertains to the making of rules for recruitment and not individual appointments. The court referred to the legislative history and the intention behind Article 234, which was to ensure the independence of the judiciary by involving the High Court in the rule-making process.
Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petition, holding that the U.P. Civil Service (Judicial Branch) Rules, 1951, were valid and had been framed after the necessary consultation with the High Court and the Public Service Commission. The court also clarified that the consultation required by Article 234 pertains to the framing of rules and not individual appointments. The petitioner's arguments were found to be without merit, and the petition was dismissed with costs.
-
1967 (2) TMI 106
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction and Pleas of Guilty
2. Interpretation of Section 12(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act
3. Conduct of Petitioners and Discretionary Nature of Certiorari
4. Constitutionality of Section 23(1) under Article 14 of the Constitution
5. Intrusion of Irrelevant Matter and Bias in Orders
6. Existence of Alternative Remedies
7. Penalization of Firms as Legal Persons
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Jurisdiction and Pleas of Guilty
The petitioners invited adjudication by the Director of Enforcement and pleaded guilty to charges under Sections 4(1) and 12(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. The learned Advocate-General argued that these facts should influence the court's perspective on the Director's orders. Conversely, the petitioners contended that the Director failed to exercise his jurisdiction properly by not ascertaining whether the ingredients of Section 12(2) were evident from the facts, irrespective of the pleas.
2. Interpretation of Section 12(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act
The interpretation of Section 12(2) was central to the case. The petitioners argued that the Director misconceived the ingredients of the offenses, as over-invoicing cannot be punished under Section 12(2). The court examined the procedure and terms of Section 12(2), finding that the legal obligations attach to either the seller or consignor. The court concluded that the Director was justified in holding the parties to their declarations and requiring them to repatriate the full amount payable by the foreign buyer, which is the same as the full export value.
3. Conduct of Petitioners and Discretionary Nature of Certiorari
The learned Advocate-General contended that the petitioners approached the court with unclean hands, tainting their conduct with fraud. The court acknowledged that the writ of certiorari is discretionary and can be denied if the applicant's conduct is tainted by fraud. The court emphasized that the petitioners' fraudulent contrivances should not be used as a defense to avoid penalties.
4. Constitutionality of Section 23(1) under Article 14 of the Constitution
The petitioners argued that Section 23(1) is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, as it confers arbitrary power on the Director of Enforcement. The court held that the section does not offend Article 14, as the statute provides guidance for the exercise of discretion by the Director. The court also noted that the penalties imposed were not discriminatory and were based on the gravity of the offenses.
5. Intrusion of Irrelevant Matter and Bias in Orders
The petitioners argued that the Director's orders were vitiated by the intrusion of irrelevant matter and bias. The court found that the Director's narrative was based on facts disclosed by the parties and that the use of strong expressions was a reaction to the disclosures. The court concluded that the orders were not liable to be struck down on this ground.
6. Existence of Alternative Remedies
The court considered the existence of alternative remedies under the statute, noting that appeals are provided for under Section 23-E and Section 23-EE. The court held that the existence of alternative remedies, even if onerous, does not preclude the exercise of writ jurisdiction but is a relevant consideration.
7. Penalization of Firms as Legal Persons
The court addressed the argument that a firm cannot be penalized as a person under the Act. The court concluded that the definition of "person" in Section 3(42) of the General Clauses Act includes a firm, making it liable as such. The court also noted that the liability of partners should be scrutinized within the scope of Section 23-C of the Act.
Conclusion:
The court found that the Director of Enforcement acted within his jurisdiction and that the penalties imposed were justified. The court emphasized the discretionary nature of certiorari and the importance of the petitioners' conduct in seeking relief. The interpretation of Section 12(2) was clarified, and the constitutionality of Section 23(1) under Article 14 was upheld. The court also addressed the intrusion of irrelevant matter and the existence of alternative remedies, concluding that the orders were not liable to be struck down on these grounds. Individual proceedings were to be posted for disposal in light of these findings.
-
1967 (2) TMI 105
Issues Involved:
1. Scope of appellate and revisional powers under Sections 203 and 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code.
2. Jurisdiction of the Commissioner to entertain appeals against the Collector's decisions in partition proceedings.
3. Applicability of Section 54 of the Civil Procedure Code to revenue officers.
4. Interpretation of "revenue officer" under Section 3(1) of the Bombay Land Revenue Code.
5. Implications of Mysore High Court's judgment in Ramchandra Shamrao v. Pralhad Krishnaji.
6. Discretionary powers of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Scope of Appellate and Revisional Powers under Sections 203 and 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code:
The core issue was whether the decisions of the Collector in partitioning agricultural lands under a Civil Court decree are appealable under Section 203 and revisable under Section 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code. Section 203 allows appeals from decisions or orders passed by a revenue officer under any law in force, while Section 211 provides for revision by the State Government or a senior revenue officer. It was determined that the Collector's decisions in such matters are indeed subject to appeal and revision under these sections, as there is no express provision in the Bombay Land Revenue Code or any other law to the contrary.
2. Jurisdiction of the Commissioner to Entertain Appeals Against the Collector's Decisions in Partition Proceedings:
The Commissioner initially refused to entertain the appeals, citing a government clarification that he had no jurisdiction over such matters. However, the court held that the Commissioner erred in this view. The appellate jurisdiction of the Commissioner over the Collector's decisions in partition proceedings was affirmed, as the Collector is a revenue officer and the Commissioner is his immediate superior, with no law expressly barring such appeals.
3. Applicability of Section 54 of the Civil Procedure Code to Revenue Officers:
Section 54 of the Civil Procedure Code mandates that the partition of revenue-paying lands be carried out by the Collector. The court clarified that while the partition is executed under the Civil Procedure Code, the decisions made by the Collector in this regard are appealable under the Bombay Land Revenue Code. The court rejected the Mysore High Court's view that such partitions do not involve decisions or orders, emphasizing that the Collector's actions in partitioning lands do constitute decisions and orders.
4. Interpretation of "Revenue Officer" under Section 3(1) of the Bombay Land Revenue Code:
The term "revenue officer" was interpreted to mean an officer appointed under the Land Revenue Code and engaged in revenue administration. The court rejected the argument that the Collector ceases to be a revenue officer when performing tasks not directly related to revenue administration. It was held that the Collector remains a revenue officer even when executing partitions under Section 54 of the Civil Procedure Code, thus making his decisions appealable under Section 203.
5. Implications of Mysore High Court's Judgment in Ramchandra Shamrao v. Pralhad Krishnaji:
The Mysore High Court had held that partitions by the Collector under Section 54 of the Civil Procedure Code are not appealable under Section 203 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code. This judgment was not accepted by the Bombay High Court, which found that the Collector's decisions in such partitions do involve rendering decisions and making orders, thereby falling within the scope of Section 203. The court also dismissed concerns about potential jurisdictional conflicts between civil courts and revenue authorities.
6. Discretionary Powers of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution:
The court exercised its discretionary powers under Articles 226 and 227 to set aside the Commissioner's order in one petition, directing the Commissioner to hear the appeal on merits. However, in another petition, the court declined to interfere, noting that the petitioners were not genuinely aggrieved by the partition and were using the appeal to delay the transfer of possession.
Conclusion:
The Bombay High Court concluded that the Commissioner has jurisdiction to entertain appeals against the Collector's decisions in partition proceedings under Section 203 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code. The court emphasized that the Collector remains a revenue officer when executing partitions under Section 54 of the Civil Procedure Code, and his decisions in such matters are subject to appeal and revision. The judgment clarified the scope of appellate and revisional powers under the Bombay Land Revenue Code and rejected the contrary view of the Mysore High Court. The court also highlighted the discretionary nature of its powers under Articles 226 and 227, choosing to intervene only when necessary to serve the interests of justice.
-
1967 (2) TMI 104
Issues Involved:
1. Proper service of notice terminating the tenancy.
2. Reasonable requirement for eviction for personal use and occupation.
3. Reasonable requirement for eviction for building, rebuilding, substantial additions, and alterations.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Proper Service of Notice Terminating the Tenancy:
The defendant contested the suit on the grounds that the notice terminating the tenancy had not been properly served. The plaintiffs initially sent a notice by registered post to the defendant's address in Kanpur, which was returned with the endorsement "not found" due to an incorrect address. Subsequently, a copy of the notice was sent by ordinary post under Certificate of Posting to the suit premises in Calcutta and was also tendered to the defendant's mother and affixed to the door of the premises.
Both courts held that the notice sent by registered post was not correctly addressed and thus not effective. However, the notice sent by ordinary post under Certificate of Posting and the notice affixed to the door of the suit premises were deemed effective. The court relied on the presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act that the notice sent by ordinary post was delivered to the defendant.
The court rejected the defendant's argument that the presumption under Section 114, Evidence Act, should not apply to notices sent by ordinary post or Certificate of Posting. The court held that the suit premises, being a residential address taken on rent by the defendant for residential purposes, was a correct address for service of notice, even if the defendant was temporarily residing elsewhere.
2. Reasonable Requirement for Eviction for Personal Use and Occupation:
The plaintiffs claimed that they required the premises for their own use and occupation, as their family consisted of 25 members, including the plaintiffs, their immediate family, and extended family members. The available accommodation in the other premises owned by the plaintiffs was insufficient for their needs.
Both courts found that the plaintiffs' requirement for additional accommodation was reasonable. The court noted that the plaintiffs needed additional rooms for various purposes, including bedrooms, a drawing room, a kitchen, a store room, a Thakurghar, and study rooms for children. The court rejected the defendant's argument that the plaintiffs' family did not include extended family members such as cousins and their families. The court held that the extended family members had been living with the plaintiffs for a long time and were considered part of the family.
3. Reasonable Requirement for Eviction for Building, Rebuilding, Substantial Additions, and Alterations:
The plaintiffs also sought eviction on the grounds of building and rebuilding, including substantial additions and alterations. They produced a plan sanctioned by the Corporation of Calcutta and provided evidence that the construction works could not be carried out without evicting the tenant-defendant from the suit premises.
Both courts held that the plaintiffs had the financial capacity to undertake the construction and that the construction works were necessary for their reasonable requirement. The court rejected the defendant's argument that the requirement for personal use and occupation could not coexist with the requirement for building and rebuilding. The court held that it was possible for the plaintiffs to require the premises for both purposes simultaneously.
Conclusion:
The court concluded that the notice terminating the tenancy was properly served, the plaintiffs reasonably required the premises for their own use and occupation, and the plaintiffs also reasonably required the premises for building and rebuilding. The appeal was dismissed with a modification of the decree to provide the defendant with time to vacate the premises under certain conditions. The defendant was given time until 31st October 1967, and if an undertaking to vacate was given, time was extended until the end of February 1969, subject to conditions regarding the deposit of monthly compensation for use and occupation.
-
1967 (2) TMI 103
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the assessee, Messrs. Modern Flats Private Ltd., is liable to be taxed under the head "Income from property" under section 9 of the Indian Income-tax Act for the assessment years 1954-55 to 1958-59.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Ownership and Tax Liability under Section 9 of the Indian Income-tax Act
The primary issue in this case is whether Messrs. Modern Flats Private Ltd. (the assessee) can be considered the owner of the property at Colaba, Bombay, for the purpose of taxation under section 9 of the Indian Income-tax Act for the assessment years 1954-55 to 1958-59.
- Historical Background: The property in question was initially subject to a licence agreement between Govindji Lalji and the Governor of Bombay dated June 2, 1948. Subsequently, Govindji Lalji entered into a partnership and constructed a building on the plots. The rights to the land and the part-built property were then transferred to Messrs. Mehta Estates Ltd., which further transferred the property to Messrs. Modern Flats Ltd. on January 9, 1951. Modern Flats Ltd. completed the building and leased out flats to various individuals.
- Licence vs. Lease: The original agreement between Govindji Lalji and the Governor of Bombay was a licence, not a lease. The document explicitly stated that Govindji Lalji was a "bare licensee" with no legal interest until a formal lease was executed and registered. The lease was eventually executed on December 21, 1959, in favor of the Official Assignee of Bombay, representing Govindji Lalji's estate.
- Transfer of Rights: The rights obtained by Govindji Lalji were assigned to Messrs. Mehta Estates Ltd., and subsequently to Messrs. Modern Flats Ltd. However, these documents were not registered, raising questions about their legal validity in transferring ownership.
- Tribunal's Decision: The Tribunal concluded that the assessee was not the owner of the property due to the absence of a registered transfer document. Therefore, the assessee could not be taxed under section 9 as the owner of the property.
- Department's Argument: The department contended that Messrs. Modern Flats Private Ltd. should be considered the owner since they spent money on constructing the building. They argued that the term "owner" in section 9 should be interpreted broadly to include anyone who contributed to the construction of the building.
- Court's Analysis: The court emphasized that without a registered document, the tangible immovable property could not be legally transferred. The court also rejected the application of equitable principles like the equity of part performance under section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, which does not confer title but only a defensive equity.
2. Rights of the Individual Flat Owners
- Agreements with Flat Owners: The assessee transferred its rights to individual flat owners through agreements. These agreements, although unregistered, indicated that the flat owners acquired the right, title, and interest in the property.
- Nature of Agreements: The agreements clearly stated that the company (assessee) agreed to assign and transfer its rights to the flat owners. The flat owners were referred to as "purchasers," and they had the liberty to sell or assign their interests.
- Common Stipulations: Some clauses in the agreements imposed restrictions for the common good of all flat owners, such as prohibiting demolition or new construction. These were not seen as limitations on the ownership rights of the flat owners but rather as necessary stipulations for communal living.
- Conclusion on Ownership: The court concluded that the assessee had transferred its entire right, title, and interest to the flat owners, and thus, the assessee could not be considered the owner of the property for the relevant assessment periods.
Conclusion:
The court answered the question in the negative, holding that Messrs. Modern Flats Private Ltd. were not liable to be assessed under section 9 of the Indian Income-tax Act as the owner of the property for the assessment years 1954-55 to 1958-59. The Commissioner was directed to pay the costs of the assessee.
-
1967 (2) TMI 102
Issues:
1. Violation of principles of natural justice in quasi-judicial proceedings.
2. Discrepancy in charges leveled and charges found proved.
3. Prejudgment of the issue by the State Government before considering the explanation of the Board.
Analysis:
Issue 1: Violation of principles of natural justice in quasi-judicial proceedings.
The High Court held that the proceedings under section 298 of the Assam Municipal Act were quasi-judicial and found a violation of natural justice as the Board was not given a personal hearing or the opportunity to produce evidence. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, emphasizing that the State Government followed the procedure by giving notice, seeking an explanation, and then deciding to supersede the Board. The Court ruled that since the Board did not request a personal hearing or the chance to produce evidence, there was no breach of natural justice. The Court clarified that compliance with the statutory procedure sufficed, and the absence of a demand for a personal hearing meant the State Government was not obligated to provide one.
Issue 2: Discrepancy in charges leveled and charges found proved.
The High Court alleged that the charges found proved differed from those initially leveled against the Board. The Supreme Court, however, scrutinized the charges and discovered that while the order of enumeration changed, the substance of the charges remained the same. The Court clarified that the additional charges in the notice were mere inferences, not requiring explanation, hence their absence in the notification superseding the Board. Consequently, the Court rejected the High Court's finding of discrepancies in the charges.
Issue 3: Prejudgment of the issue by the State Government.
The High Court criticized the State Government for indicating a tentative conclusion of supersession before considering the Board's explanation, deeming subsequent proceedings a farce. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the State Government's tentative conclusion did not preclude it from considering the explanation or being open to persuasion. The Court rejected the analogy to Art. 311 of the Constitution, emphasizing that s. 298 did not necessitate a second notice after considering the explanation. The Court upheld the State Government's right to tentatively indicate its course of action, ruling that the proceedings were not invalidated by the initial expression of intent.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, overturning the High Court's decision, and dismissed the writ petition. The Court found no violation of natural justice, no material discrepancy in charges, and no prejudgment by the State Government. The respondent's stay order allowed them to function until the end of their term, rendering the appeal moot. No costs were awarded in the circumstances.
-
1967 (2) TMI 101
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the show-cause notice and the supersession order dated September 29, 1965.
2. Compliance with Section 408 of the City of Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948.
3. Assessment of the grounds for supersession.
4. Determination of the nature of the order under Section 408 (administrative or quasi-judicial).
5. Impact of irrelevant grounds on the validity of the supersession order.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of the Show-Cause Notice and the Supersession Order
The appeal arises from a writ petition challenging the show-cause notice dated July 21, 1965, and the supersession order dated September 29, 1965, issued by the Government of Maharashtra to the Nagpur Municipal Corporation. The High Court quashed the supersession order, holding that the State Government exercised its power on grounds not reasonably related to its legitimate exercise and that the findings were rationally impossible based on the materials before the State Government.
2. Compliance with Section 408 of the City of Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948
Section 408 allows the State Government to supersede the municipal corporation if it appears that the corporation is incompetent, persistently defaults in its duties, or abuses its powers. The State Government must provide an opportunity for the corporation to show cause unless it is an emergency. The order must be published in the Gazette with stated reasons. The High Court found that the State Government did not comply with these requirements as the grounds for supersession were not adequately substantiated.
3. Assessment of the Grounds for Supersession
The supersession order was based on two grounds:
- First Ground: The corporation planned its expenditure on uncertain receipts and allowed its financial position to deteriorate. The High Court found that the show-cause notice did not mention this charge, and the corporation was not given an opportunity to explain it. The financial deterioration was not adequately proven as the corporation had paid salaries, and the dearness allowance was delayed due to bill scrutiny.
- Second Ground: The corporation neglected to improve the water supply and provide sufficient water. The State Government required the corporation to meter the water supply and have a separate budget for water supply to guarantee a loan for water supply improvements. The corporation's resolution on July 12, 1965, did not accept these conditions, leading the State Government to conclude that the corporation was not competent.
4. Determination of the Nature of the Order under Section 408
The court considered whether the order under Section 408 was administrative or quasi-judicial. It was noted that the distinction was not material in this case as it was not an emergency, and the State Government was bound to give the corporation an opportunity to show cause.
5. Impact of Irrelevant Grounds on the Validity of the Supersession Order
The court examined whether the order could be sustained if one of the grounds was found irrelevant. Citing precedents, the court concluded that an order based on several grounds could be upheld if the authority would have passed the order on the basis of the relevant grounds alone. The second ground regarding water supply was deemed sufficient for the State Government to form the opinion that the corporation was not competent.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order and dismissing the writ petition. It held that the supersession order was valid based on the second ground alone, despite the first ground being irrelevant. The appeal was allowed without any order as to costs in both the Supreme Court and the High Court.
-
1967 (2) TMI 100
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of disciplinary proceedings against the appellant.
2. Validity of the charges against the appellant.
3. Validity of the disciplinary proceedings initiation.
4. Validity of the suspension order.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Jurisdiction of Disciplinary Proceedings Against the Appellant:
The appellant argued that the Government had no jurisdiction to take disciplinary proceedings against him for acts and omissions with regard to his work as Commissioner under the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951. The appellant contended that as the Commissioner is a corporation sole, he is not a servant of the Government and hence not subject to its disciplinary control. The court held that Rule 4(1) of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, does not impose any limitation or qualification as to the nature of the act or omission in respect of which disciplinary proceedings can be instituted. The court concluded that the Government could take disciplinary proceedings against the appellant for acts or omissions that reflect upon his reputation for integrity, good faith, or devotion to duty as a member of the Service, even if those acts were committed in his capacity as Commissioner.
2. Validity of the Charges Against the Appellant:
The charges against the appellant included misconduct in sanctioning leases of extensive and valuable forest lands belonging to Devaswoms, fixing the premium for lease arbitrarily, initiating proposals for leases, and sanctioning leases to relations and friends. The court examined whether the Commissioner was exercising quasi-judicial functions in sanctioning the leases and whether his orders could be questioned through disciplinary proceedings. The court assumed that the Commissioner was performing quasi-judicial functions but held that the Government was entitled to institute disciplinary proceedings if there was prima facie material showing recklessness or misconduct on the part of the appellant in the discharge of his official duty. The court concluded that the charges against the appellant were valid and that the Government could proceed with the inquiry.
3. Validity of the Disciplinary Proceedings Initiation:
The appellant contended that there was no formal order of the Government for instituting disciplinary proceedings. The court referred to the order of the Government, Ex.P-1, which indicated that disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against the appellant. The court held that there was no formal order necessary to initiate disciplinary proceedings under Rule 4(1) of the Rules and that the order of the State Government under Ex. P-1 must be deemed to be an order under Rule 4(1) of the Rules initiating disciplinary proceedings.
4. Validity of the Suspension Order:
The appellant argued that the order of suspension dated March 8, 1963, was not in compliance with Rule 7 of the Rules, which states that the Government may place a member of the Service under suspension "having regard to the nature of the charge/charges and the circumstances in any case." The appellant contended that no order of suspension could be passed before the charges were framed under Rule 5(2). The court held that the word "charges" in Rule 7(1) should be given a wider meaning as denoting the accusations or imputations against the member of the Service. The court concluded that the order of suspension was valid and in compliance with Rule 7 of the Rules.
Conclusion:
The court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant had made out no case for the grant of a writ of prohibition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The majority judgment of the High Court of Kerala was upheld, and no order as to costs was made.
-
1967 (2) TMI 99
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the State Government's notification under S.114(2) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946.
2. Binding nature of the agreement and award on the appellant.
3. Appellant's liability to pay bonus as per the award.
4. Delay and acquiescence in seeking the writ.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of the State Government's Notification under S.114(2) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946:
The appellant contested the validity of the notification issued by the Government of Bombay on July 31, 1956, under S.114(2) of the Act, which extended the terms of an award regarding bonus payment to certain cotton textile mills, including the appellant's mill. The Supreme Court referred to its earlier decision in Prakash Cotton Mills (Private), Ltd., and others v. State of Bombay 1962 (1) LLJ 108, where it was held that the notification was ultra vires the powers conferred on the State Government under S.114(2). The Court reiterated that the notification was beyond the powers of the State Government because:
- It was limited by the subject-matter of the agreement or award.
- It had to conform to the industrial law laid down by the industrial court or the Supreme Court.
- The State Government's power was co-terminus with that of an adjudicator, and it could not do what an adjudicator could not do under the Act.
2. Binding Nature of the Agreement and Award on the Appellant:
The appellant was not a party to the agreement dated March 1, 1956, and thus was not bound by it. The Government's notification attempted to bind the appellant to the award, which the Supreme Court found to be illegal. The Court emphasized that an agreement of this nature could not be enforced by industrial adjudication against the will of any party, as established in New Maneckchowk Spinning and Weaving Company, Ltd., and others v. Textile Labour Association, Ahmedabad 1961 (1) LLJ 521.
3. Appellant's Liability to Pay Bonus as per the Award:
The dispute over the bonus for the years 1955 and 1956 was referred to arbitration, resulting in an award by Sri M. D. Bhat on April 25, 1958. The appellant failed to comply, leading to a labour court order on August 4, 1959, directing the appellant to pay the bonus. This order was upheld by the industrial court on October 24, 1959. However, the Supreme Court found that the award itself was illegal and ultra vires, as it was based on the invalid notification. Consequently, the orders of the labour court and industrial court were quashed.
4. Delay and Acquiescence in Seeking the Writ:
The respondents argued that the appellant was guilty of delay and acquiescence, having acted on the bonus agreement and not promptly contesting the jurisdiction. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, noting that the appellant contested the award soon after it was issued and pursued legal remedies promptly. The Court held that there was no negligence or laches on the appellant's part that would disentitle it to the writ. The principle of laches, as stated in Lindsay Petroleum Company v. Prosper Armstrong Hurd, was applied, emphasizing that delay must be substantial and cause prejudice to the other party.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the Bombay High Court dated February 6, 1962, and granted a writ of certiorari quashing the orders of the industrial court dated October 24, 1959, and the labour court dated August 4, 1959. The decision clarified that it would not prejudice any pending or future references regarding bonus disputes for the years 1955 and 1956, which should be decided according to law. The appeal was allowed without any order as to costs.
-
1967 (2) TMI 98
Issues Involved:
1. Constitutional validity of the Andhra Pradesh Land Revenue (Additional Assessment) and Cess Revision Act, 1962, as amended by the Andhra Pradesh Land Revenue (Additional Assessment) and Cess Revision (Amendment) Act, 1962.
2. Classification and assessment methodology for dry and wet lands.
3. Procedural aspects and machinery for assessment under the Act.
4. Compliance with Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Constitutional Validity of the Act:
The appellants challenged the constitutional validity of the Andhra Pradesh Land Revenue (Additional Assessment) and Cess Revision Act, 1962, as amended, arguing that the Act violated Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution. The High Court found the Act unconstitutional for three reasons:
(i) lack of reasonable classification for dry lands,
(ii) no rational relation between the quality of the land and the ayacut for wet lands, and
(iii) arbitrary and uncontrolled procedure for assessment.
2. Classification and Assessment Methodology:
The Act introduced a new scheme for land revenue assessment:
- Dry Lands: An additional assessment at the rate of 75% of the earlier assessment was imposed, with a minimum assessment of 50 naye paise per acre per fasli year, irrespective of the soil quality and productivity.
- Wet Lands: The Act classified wet lands based on the extent of the ayacut, divided into four classes with different maximum and minimum rates of assessment. The classification was criticized for lacking a reasonable relation to the quality or productivity of the soil and the duration of water supply.
3. Procedural Aspects and Machinery for Assessment:
The Act was found deficient in providing a clear procedure for assessment:
- Section 6: Treated the additional assessment as land revenue but did not incorporate the detailed procedure for assessment as provided in the Standing Orders of the Board of Revenue.
- Section 8: Only specified the Government sources of irrigation falling under different classes but did not relate to the assessment procedure.
The Act lacked provisions for notice, opportunity for the assessee to question the assessment, and a clear procedure for assessment, leaving the process arbitrary and unregulated.
4. Compliance with Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution:
The Supreme Court reiterated the principles of Article 14, emphasizing that a statute should not create unreasonable discrimination and must have a rational relation to its objectives. The Act was found to violate these principles because:
- Dry Lands: The flat minimum rate had no relation to the soil's fertility, leading to unreasonable classification.
- Wet Lands: The classification based on ayacut did not correspond to the water supply duration or soil quality, making it arbitrary.
- Procedural Arbitrary: The lack of a clear assessment procedure and the arbitrary power conferred on officers led to potential discrimination and lack of fairness.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, declaring the impugned provisions of the Act unconstitutional for violating Article 14. The appeals were dismissed with costs, emphasizing the need for reasonable classification and a clear, fair procedure in taxation statutes.
-
1967 (2) TMI 97
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the assessment method based on flat rate per 100 sq. ft. of floor area.
2. Compliance with the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, and its rules.
3. Inclusion of plant and machinery in the rateable value.
4. Delegation of quasi-judicial powers to the Deputy Municipal Commissioner.
5. Violation of fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, and 31 of the Constitution.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of the Assessment Method Based on Flat Rate per 100 sq. ft. of Floor Area:
The petitioners challenged the method adopted by the Municipal Corporation of Ahmedabad for determining the annual rental value of properties, arguing that it was based on a flat rate per 100 sq. ft. of floor area, irrespective of the locality, quality, age, and nature of the property. The Court found that this method was not a recognized method of valuation under the Law of Rating and was not permissible in law. The Court referenced the Lokmanya Mills v. The Barsi Borough Municipality case, which held that valuation based on floor area without considering actual or hypothetical rental value was arbitrary and not sanctioned by the Act. The Court concluded that the method adopted by the Municipal Corporation was arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
2. Compliance with the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, and Its Rules:
The Court examined the relevant provisions of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, and the rules made thereunder. It was found that the Municipal Corporation failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of the Act and the rules, particularly Rule 9(b), which required the determination of the rateable value of each building and land. The Court held that the assessment book for the years 1964-65, 1965-66, and 1966-67 was not prepared in accordance with the law and was therefore invalid.
3. Inclusion of Plant and Machinery in the Rateable Value:
The petitioners argued that the inclusion of plant and machinery in the rateable value was beyond the legislative competence of the State Legislature under Entry 49 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. The Court agreed, stating that plant and machinery could not be considered part of the land or building for the purpose of taxation. The Court also found that Rule 7(2) and (3) of the Taxation Rules, which allowed the inclusion of plant and machinery, were ultra vires the Constitution and involved excessive delegation of powers.
4. Delegation of Quasi-Judicial Powers to the Deputy Municipal Commissioner:
The petitioners contended that the delegation of quasi-judicial powers by the Municipal Commissioner to the Deputy Municipal Commissioner was invalid. The Court did not find it necessary to express an opinion on this issue, given its findings on the other issues.
5. Violation of Fundamental Rights under Articles 14, 19, and 31 of the Constitution:
The petitioners argued that the method of assessment and the inclusion of plant and machinery violated their fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, and 31 of the Constitution. The Court found that the arbitrary method of assessment and the inclusion of plant and machinery without proper classification and guidelines were indeed violative of Article 14, which guarantees equality before the law.
Conclusion:
The petitions were allowed. The Court issued a writ of mandamus directing the Municipal Corporation to treat the relevant entries in the assessment book for the years 1964-65, 1965-66, and 1966-67 as invalid and canceled. The Municipal Corporation was directed to prepare fresh assessment lists for the said years relating to the textile mills and other properties dealt with in the special property section. The petitioners were entitled to costs of the applications.
-
1967 (2) TMI 96
Issues Involved:
1. Disputed questions of fact in a writ petition.
2. Nature of the order refixing the age of the respondent.
3. Compliance with Article 311 of the Constitution.
4. Adherence to principles of natural justice and fair play.
5. Validity of the administrative order involving civil consequences.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Disputed Questions of Fact in a Writ Petition:
The State contended that the High Court should not have decided disputed questions of fact in a writ petition. The Supreme Court held that under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court is not precluded from deciding questions of fact. The discretion lies with the High Court to determine whether to enter upon such an enquiry. In this case, the High Court found that the question of whether the State acted arbitrarily did not involve complicated issues of fact, thus justifying its decision to proceed.
2. Nature of the Order Refixing the Age of the Respondent:
The State argued that the order refixing the respondent's age was administrative, and the High Court had no authority to review it. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that even administrative orders must comply with the principles of natural justice. The High Court was correct in reviewing the order as it involved civil consequences for the respondent.
3. Compliance with Article 311 of the Constitution:
The State claimed that Article 311, which provides protection against dismissal or removal without a reasonable opportunity to be heard, did not apply as the respondent was not dismissed or removed but merely superannuated. The Supreme Court noted that compulsory retirement under the guise of superannuation without following due process amounts to removal under Article 311. Since no proper enquiry was conducted, the High Court rightly held the order invalid.
4. Adherence to Principles of Natural Justice and Fair Play:
The Supreme Court emphasized that any order prejudicial to a person's vested rights must be made in accordance with natural justice and fair play. The respondent was not given a fair opportunity to contest the evidence or present her case. The enquiry was deemed irregular as the respondent was not informed of all the evidence against her, nor was she given a chance to explain discrepancies in the records.
5. Validity of the Administrative Order Involving Civil Consequences:
The Supreme Court reiterated that even administrative orders involving civil consequences must adhere to natural justice. The respondent was not informed of the case against her nor given a chance to respond adequately. The enquiry and subsequent decision were thus contrary to basic justice principles, rendering the order invalid. The High Court's decision to set aside the State's order was upheld.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's judgment that the order of retirement was invalid due to non-compliance with principles of natural justice and Article 311 of the Constitution. The respondent was entitled to continue in service until April 10, 1968, as originally recorded. The appeal was dismissed with costs.
-
1967 (2) TMI 95
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 includes the power to amend fundamental rights.
2. Whether the term "law" in Article 13(2) includes constitutional amendments.
3. Whether there are implied limitations on the power of constitutional amendment.
4. Whether the Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act, 1964, is valid.
5. Whether the principle of stare decisis applies to constitutional amendments.
6. Whether the doctrine of prospective overruling is applicable in this context.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Power to Amend the Constitution under Article 368:
The judgment addressed whether Article 368 of the Constitution confers the power to amend all provisions, including fundamental rights. It was argued that Article 368 provides both the power and procedure for amendment. The court held that the expression "amendment of this Constitution" in Article 368 plainly and unambiguously means amendment of all the provisions of the Constitution. The judgment emphasized that the power to amend is not derived from Article 248 or any legislative powers but is a constituent power under Article 368.
2. Interpretation of "Law" in Article 13(2):
The issue was whether the term "law" in Article 13(2) includes constitutional amendments. The court concluded that the term "law" in Article 13(2) refers to ordinary laws made by the legislature and does not include constitutional amendments. The court reasoned that constitutional amendments are not subject to Article 13(2) as they are enacted through a special procedure under Article 368, which is distinct from ordinary legislative processes.
3. Implied Limitations on Amending Power:
It was argued that there are implied limitations on the power to amend the Constitution, particularly concerning fundamental rights and basic features of the Constitution. The court, however, rejected the notion of implied limitations, stating that if the framers intended certain provisions to be unamendable, they would have explicitly stated so in Article 368. The judgment emphasized that the Constitution is a dynamic document, and its provisions, including fundamental rights, can be amended to meet changing needs.
4. Validity of the Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act, 1964:
The court upheld the validity of the Seventeenth Amendment, which added certain laws to the Ninth Schedule, thereby protecting them from being challenged as violative of fundamental rights. The judgment reasoned that the amendment was validly enacted under Article 368 and did not require ratification by the States as it did not directly amend any of the provisions listed in the proviso to Article 368.
5. Application of Stare Decisis:
The court discussed the principle of stare decisis, emphasizing its importance in maintaining legal certainty and stability. It was argued that the decisions in Sankari Prasad and Sajjan Singh, which upheld the power to amend fundamental rights, should not be overturned lightly. The judgment highlighted that many laws and constitutional amendments have been enacted based on these decisions, and overturning them could lead to chaos and uncertainty.
6. Doctrine of Prospective Overruling:
The court considered the doctrine of prospective overruling, which allows a court to apply a new rule only to future cases, thus preserving past transactions and decisions. However, the court was reluctant to apply this doctrine in the context of constitutional amendments, emphasizing that constitutional provisions and amendments should have uniform application unless expressly stated otherwise.
In conclusion, the court upheld the validity of the Seventeenth Amendment and reaffirmed the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution, including fundamental rights, under Article 368. The judgment emphasized that the Constitution is a living document, capable of adaptation to meet the evolving needs of society.
-
1967 (2) TMI 94
Issues Involved:
1. Taxability of turnover under the Central Sales Tax Act.
2. Rectification of assessment orders under Rule 38 of the Mysore Sales Tax Rules.
3. Delay in filing writ petitions and its impact on seeking relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.
4. Applicability of Supreme Court decisions to rectification and quashing of assessment orders.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Taxability of Turnover under the Central Sales Tax Act:
The principal contention was that the turnover subjected to tax under the Central Sales Tax Act could not have been rightly so subjected. The petitioners argued this based on precedents set by the Mysore High Court and the Supreme Court in cases such as Yaddalam Lakshminarasimhiah Setty & Sons v. State of Mysore, Mysore Silk House v. State of Mysore, and Karnatak Coffee Company v. Commercial Tax Officer, Davangere. The turnover in question pertained to articles like raw wool, cardamom, sikai, coffee, and areca, which were subjected to a single point levy of sales tax under the State Act at the purchase point, except for coffee, which was at the sale point. Consequently, the petitioners argued that they were not liable for tax under the Central Act either.
2. Rectification of Assessment Orders under Rule 38 of the Mysore Sales Tax Rules:
The petitioners, except those in Writ Petitions Nos. 1607 to 1614 of 1965, had moved the assessing authority to rectify the assessment orders under Rule 38 of the Mysore Sales Tax Rules in light of the aforementioned decisions. All applications for rectification were rejected. In cases where the rectification applications were filed within the five-year limitation period, the Court held that the assessing authority was bound to rectify the orders, resulting in quashing the assessment orders and directing refunds.
3. Delay in Filing Writ Petitions and Its Impact on Seeking Relief under Article 226 of the Constitution:
The Court examined whether the petitioners were guilty of inordinate delay in approaching the Court under Article 226. The petitioners argued that the delay was not unreasonable based on the principles stated by the Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bhailal Bhai and The State of Kerala v. Aluminium Industries Ltd. The Court noted that the delay could not be ignored in deciding the merits of the prayer for writs to quash the assessment orders. However, in cases where the petitioners had approached the Court within five years from the date of the assessment orders, the delay was not considered culpable.
4. Applicability of Supreme Court Decisions to Rectification and Quashing of Assessment Orders:
The petitioners argued that the Supreme Court's decisions in the aforementioned cases justified rectification of the assessment orders under Rule 38. The Court agreed, noting that where no further investigation of facts was required and the principle of law declared by the Supreme Court could be straightaway applied, it constituted a mistake apparent on the face of the record, amenable to rectification. The Court rejected the department's argument that subsequent decisions do not reopen concluded matters, emphasizing that the law declared by the Supreme Court under Article 141 of the Constitution is binding on all courts.
Specific Cases:
- Writ Petitions Nos. 1256, 1257, 1258, 2121 to 2127 of 1966: The Court quashed the assessment orders and directed refunds as the rectification applications were filed within the limitation period.
- Writ Petitions Nos. 1607, 1611, and 1614 of 1965: These petitions were dismissed as more than five years had elapsed from the date of the assessment orders, and no rectification applications were made.
- Writ Petitions Nos. 1608, 1609, 1612, and 1613 of 1965: The Court quashed the assessment orders and directed refunds, despite no rectification applications being made, as the petitions were filed within five years.
- Writ Petitions Nos. 2724 and 2727 of 1966: These petitions were rejected as more than five years had elapsed from the date of the assessment orders.
- Writ Petitions Nos. 2728, 2729, and 2730 of 1966: The petitions were admitted for further consideration as the exact date of the assessment orders was unclear.
- Writ Petitions Nos. 2731, 2732, and 2733 of 1966: These petitions were admitted as the rectification applications were within the limitation period.
Adjourned Cases:
- Writ Petitions Nos. 1606 and 1610 of 1965 and 1417 and 1418 of 1966: These were not dealt with as they involved other points and were adjourned to a later date.
Conclusion:
The Court's judgment primarily focused on the applicability of Supreme Court decisions to rectify and quash assessment orders under the Central Sales Tax Act, the impact of delay in filing writ petitions, and the conditions under which rectification applications could be considered valid. The Court provided relief to petitioners who had filed within the prescribed limitation period and adhered to the principles established by the Supreme Court.
|
9911796707
