|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 6 of 6 Records
-
1957 (6) TMI 17
Issues Involved:
1. Whether two petitioners discharged from service by a single order could file one petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
2. Whether proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are civil proceedings within the meaning of the Civil Procedure Code.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Whether two petitioners discharged from service by a single order could file one petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India:
The petitioners, who were supervisors of the Market Committee, Guntur, were discharged from service by a single order following instructions from the Government of Andhra. They filed a joint petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the order terminating their services. The core issue was whether a single petition was maintainable or if separate petitions were required, which would affect the court-fee payable.
The court examined the applicability of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) to proceedings under Article 226. It was argued that the provisions of the CPC, specifically Order 1 Rule 1, allowed for a joint petition since the petitioners were challenging the validity of a single order. The Government Pleader contended that Article 226 proceedings were not civil proceedings and should follow English practice, where separate petitions would be required.
The court referred to several precedents, including decisions from the Madras High Court and the Andhra High Court, which treated Article 226 proceedings as civil proceedings. The court concluded that Section 141 CPC, which mandates that the procedure provided in the CPC for suits should be followed in all proceedings in any court of civil jurisdiction, applied to writ proceedings under Article 226. Consequently, the provisions of Order 1 Rule 1 and Order 2 Rule 3 CPC were applicable, allowing for the joinder of plaintiffs if the right to relief arose from the same act or transaction and there was a common question of law or fact.
The court also considered the principles laid down in previous judgments, such as Kumarayya J.'s decision in a similar case and Rajagopala Ayyengar J.'s ruling that similar orders affecting different individuals did not justify a single petition. However, the court distinguished these cases based on the facts that the petitioners in the present case were aggrieved by a single act of the Collector, and there was a common question of law and fact.
2. Whether proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are civil proceedings within the meaning of the Civil Procedure Code:
The court analyzed the nature of Article 226 proceedings, referencing Article 226 itself, which grants High Courts the power to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights and for any other purpose within their territorial jurisdiction. The court cited a Division Bench of the Madras High Court, which recognized the extensive and extraordinary jurisdiction conferred by Article 226, distinct from the jurisdiction under Article 225.
The court also referred to a Division Bench decision in Ryots of Garabandho v. Zamindar of Parlakimedi, which held that an order refusing a writ of certiorari was passed in the exercise of original civil jurisdiction. This view was supported by another Division Bench in Chenchanna v. P. S. Transport Ltd., which held that an order under Article 226 could be reviewed under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.
Despite the Government Pleader's reliance on a Full Bench decision of the Patna High Court, which held that Article 226 proceedings were not civil proceedings within the meaning of Article 133 of the Constitution, the court adhered to the consistent view of the Madras and Andhra High Courts that Article 226 proceedings are civil proceedings. This interpretation was deemed binding due to numerous unreported decisions following the same reasoning.
The court concluded that Article 226 proceedings are civil proceedings, and therefore, the procedure provided in the CPC, including Orders 1 and 2, should be followed as far as applicable. This allowed for the joinder of plaintiffs in a single petition if the right to relief arose from the same act or transaction and there was a common question of law or fact.
Summary:
The court held that a single petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was maintainable for the two petitioners discharged by a single order, as the right to relief arose from the same act of the Collector, and there was a common question of law and fact. The court also affirmed that proceedings under Article 226 are civil proceedings within the meaning of the Civil Procedure Code, thereby allowing the application of CPC provisions to such writ petitions.
-
1957 (6) TMI 16
Issues:
- Interpretation of whether the transfer of delivery orders amounts to the sale of "goods" under the Madras General Sales Tax Act.
- Assessment of sales tax on the turnover relating to the sale of delivery orders.
Analysis:
The judgment in question dealt with the issue of whether the transfer of delivery orders constitutes a sale of "goods" under the Madras General Sales Tax Act. The case involved two connected suits where the plaintiff sought to set aside orders of assessment for sales tax on the turnover related to the sale of delivery orders. The lower courts had ruled in favor of the plaintiff, holding that the sales were not of goods within the Act's definition. The key contention revolved around whether the endorsement of delivery orders to third parties constituted a sale of goods. The nature of the transactions involved the sale of gunny bags by jute mills through brokers, with delivery orders authorizing the transfer of goods upon payment. The central question was whether the property in the goods passed to the buyer at the time of receiving the delivery order. The Court analyzed relevant definitions under the Act, including "goods," "sale," and "dealer," to determine the tax liability on the turnover. The judgment emphasized the importance of ascertaining when the transfer of ownership in goods occurred, as governed by the Sale of Goods Act. It highlighted the significance of unconditional appropriation and expressed intention in passing property rights. The Court concluded that in the absence of a clear intention for immediate transfer upon receiving the delivery order, the property in the goods only passed when physically separated from the joint stock and delivered. Therefore, the endorsement of delivery orders did not constitute a sale of goods under the Act.
The judgment also referenced a previous Division Bench decision to distinguish the current case. In the prior case, the Court found two distinct sales involving ascertained goods and valid transfer of property rights. The judgment emphasized the completion of the original contract through subsequent delivery to third parties. However, in the present case, the facts did not align with the principles applied in the earlier decision. The Court highlighted the lack of passing property rights from the mills to the assessees and the absence of an agreement for future sale to third parties. Consequently, the previous judgment was deemed inapplicable to the current scenario. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the appeals, affirming that the transfer of delivery orders did not amount to a sale of goods under the Madras General Sales Tax Act.
-
1957 (6) TMI 15
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the notices issued under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act.
2. Whether the petitioner is a "dealer" under section 2(c) of the Sales Tax Act.
3. Whether betel leaf (pan) is a "vegetable" under item No. 6 of the schedule appended to the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Legality of the Notices:
The petitioner challenged the legality of three notices issued under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, which required the petitioner to produce certain books of accounts and documents and to show cause why a penalty should not be imposed under section 11(2) of the Act. The petitioner argued that these notices were invalid as they were based on the incorrect assumption that the petitioner was a dealer and that betel leaf was not exempt from taxation.
2. Definition of "Dealer":
The petitioner contended that he was not a dealer within the meaning of section 2(c) of the Sales Tax Act. The petitioner described his role as an Aratdar in the Howrah betel leaf market, where he facilitated transactions between cultivators and purchasers, guaranteed payment, and collected money from purchasers. The opposing affidavit described a slightly different system, where Aratdars played a more active role in the sale process. Due to these conflicting accounts, the court determined that it was not possible to resolve whether the petitioner was a dealer based solely on affidavits. The court decided to leave this issue open for determination by the Sales Tax Authorities upon taking evidence.
3. Classification of Betel Leaf as a "Vegetable":
The primary issue was whether betel leaf (pan) qualified as a "vegetable" under item No. 6 of the schedule appended to the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, which would exempt it from taxation. The petitioner argued that betel leaf should be considered a vegetable, relying on definitions from the Oxford English Dictionary and the broad interpretation of the term "vegetable" to include plants cultivated for food or used with food. The opposing counsel argued that the term "vegetable" should be interpreted narrowly, referring to the amendment in 1954 which defined "vegetable" as "Sabji, Tarkari and Sak," and emphasizing that the legislative intent was to restrict the meaning to food items.
The court referred to previous judgments from the Patna, Nagpur, and Allahabad High Courts, which had consistently held that betel leaf was not a vegetable within the meaning of similar sales tax statutes. The court also considered the scheme of the schedule, noting that items 1 to 8 were all food items, suggesting that "vegetable" should be limited to vegetables used for food. The court concluded that betel leaf did not fall within the meaning of "vegetable" as used in item 6 of the schedule, aligning with the restricted interpretation adopted by other High Courts.
Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petitions, holding that the notices issued under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act were valid, the issue of whether the petitioner was a dealer would be determined by the appropriate authorities, and betel leaf did not qualify as a vegetable under item 6 of the schedule. The rule was discharged, and there was no order as to costs. The operation of the order was stayed for four weeks from the date of the judgment.
Separate Judgments:
The judgments in C.R. No. 3904 of 1953 and C.R. Nos. 3890 to 3903 and C.R. No. 3905 of 1953 were governed by the findings in C.R. No. 3560 of 1953, leading to the dismissal of these petitions as well.
-
1957 (6) TMI 14
The petitioner, a tobacco dealer, was assessed for sales tax including excise duty collected from him. The court ruled that the excise duty paid was not by the petitioner to the Central Government, so it cannot be deducted from his taxable turnover. The petition was dismissed.
-
1957 (6) TMI 13
The High Court of Kerala allowed the application by Pulickal Estates to defer the dissolution of a company for six months from 8th February, 1957. The Registrar's objection on jurisdiction was overruled based on previous orders. No costs were awarded. (Case citation: 1957 (6) TMI 13 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA)
-
1957 (6) TMI 12
Issues Involved:
1. Public Policy
2. Interests of Shareholders and the General Public
3. Scope of Section 17(1)(a) and (b) of the Companies Act, 1956
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Public Policy:
The court addressed the issue of whether the proposed alteration allowing the company to make contributions to political parties is opposed to public policy. The court noted the warnings from eminent judges about the dangers of basing judicial decisions on public policy, which is a "slippery ground." The court referenced various authorities, including Lord Atkin and Lord Halsbury, to emphasize that public policy should only be invoked in clear cases where harm to the public is "substantially incontestable." The court concluded that while the power to make political contributions could be used for corrupt purposes, such as lobbying, the company's stated intention was to support political parties whose policies align with its interests, which is not inherently corrupt. The court imposed a condition that the company must separately show in its profit and loss account every year any contributions made to political parties to ensure transparency.
2. Interests of Shareholders and the General Public:
The court considered whether the proposed alteration is against the interests of shareholders and the general public. It was noted that the special resolution was passed without dissent among the shareholders, indicating their approval. The court pointed out that shareholders are generally the best judges of their own interests. The court also addressed concerns that political contributions might influence political parties to favor employers over labor, but concluded that such concerns are speculative and that it is the role of Parliament, not the judiciary, to regulate such matters. The court found no evidence that the proposed alteration was against the interests of the public.
3. Scope of Section 17(1)(a) and (b) of the Companies Act, 1956:
The court examined whether the proposed alteration falls within the scope of Section 17(1)(a) or (b) of the Companies Act, 1956. Section 17(1)(a) allows alterations to the memorandum of association to carry on the business more economically or efficiently, while Section 17(1)(b) allows alterations to attain the main purpose by new or improved means. The court held that the business of the company, in this context, is the manufacture and sale of iron and steel, and that the proposed alteration could enable the company to carry on its business more economically or efficiently by ensuring favorable government policies. The court emphasized that a liberal construction should be placed on Section 17(1)(a) and concluded that the proposed alteration falls within its scope.
Separate Judgments:
The judgment delivered by the High Court of Bombay included separate opinions by Chagla C.J. and Tendolkar J. Both judges expressed concerns about the potential dangers of allowing companies to make political contributions but ultimately concluded that the proposed alteration was lawful and within the scope of Section 17(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 1956. The court imposed a condition of transparency by requiring the company to publish details of political contributions in its annual profit and loss account and in leading newspapers. The appeal was dismissed, with the appellants ordered to bear their own costs.
|
9911796707
