|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 203 Records
-
1981 (8) TMI 254
Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the application under the Payment of Wages Act.
2. Relationship of employer and employee between the Calcutta Dock Labour Board and the dock workers.
3. Limitation period for lodging the claim.
4. Classification of the Calcutta Dock Labour Board as a factory or industrial establishment under the Payment of Wages Act.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Maintainability of the Application under the Payment of Wages Act:
The Calcutta Dock Labour Board (the petitioner) filed an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the judgment and order dated April 29, 1981, passed by the authority under the Payment of Wages Act, West Bengal. The authority directed the petitioner Board to deposit arrears of wages and compensation to the dock workers. The petitioner contested the maintainability of the application on the grounds that the Payment of Wages Act does not apply to the Board, as it is not the employer of the dock workers. The court found that the authority acted improperly by disposing of the entire matter on its merits without giving the Board an opportunity to contest the claim on its merits. Therefore, the case must be re-adjudicated on merits if the application is held maintainable.
2. Relationship of Employer and Employee:
The petitioner argued that there is no employer-employee relationship between the Board and the dock workers, as the Board is not the employer. The authority under the Payment of Wages Act overruled this objection, holding that the Board is the employer based on the Calcutta Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Scheme, 1970. The authority noted that the Board pays wages, gratuity, provident fund, and leave salary to the workers, conducts disciplinary enquiries, and has the authority to terminate services. However, the court found that the Supreme Court's decision in Vizagapattam Dock Workers v. Stevedores Association, AIR 1970 SC 1627, which held that the Board cannot be considered the employer, was not properly distinguished by the authority. The court upheld the petitioner's objection, concluding that the Board is not the employer and, therefore, the application under section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act could not be entertained against the Board.
3. Limitation Period for Lodging the Claim:
The petitioner argued that the claim was barred by the 12-month limitation period prescribed by the Payment of Wages Act. The authority found the claim time-barred but overruled the objection, partly presuming that the Board was not serious about pressing the limitation objection and partly on the view that a public authority should not morally take up such a plea. The court agreed with the petitioner that the authority erred in not considering whether the applicants had made out a sufficient cause for condonation of the delay. The court emphasized that the plea of limitation is a statutory bar and must be considered irrespective of moral standards. Therefore, the matter should be reconsidered if the application is otherwise maintainable.
4. Classification of the Calcutta Dock Labour Board as a Factory or Industrial Establishment:
The authority held that the Board is a factory within the definition of section 2(k) of the Factories Act, as it employs more than 20 workers engaged in loading and unloading. The petitioner contended that the Board could not be classified as a factory or industrial establishment. The court found that the authority misread the definition of 'factory' and based its decision on a fundamental misconception that dock workers are employed by the Board in a manufacturing process. The court upheld the petitioner's contention that the Board is not a factory and, therefore, does not come within the purview of section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act.
Conclusion:
The court concluded that the application under the Payment of Wages Act was not maintainable in law. The impugned order was set aside, and the application for the claim was dismissed.
-
1981 (8) TMI 253
Issues Involved:
1. Termination of tenancy and ejectment.
2. Application for attachment before judgment.
3. Deposit of rent and damages under Section 20(4) of U.P. Act XIII of 1972.
4. Definition and significance of "first hearing" under Section 20(4) of U.P. Act XIII of 1972.
5. Waiver of the right to service of summons.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Termination of Tenancy and Ejectment:
A suit for the ejectment of the revisionist was filed by the opposite party on 22nd August 1978 after terminating his tenancy by means of a notice issued under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The court decreed the suit against the defendant, leading to this revision.
2. Application for Attachment Before Judgment:
Along with the filing of the suit, the plaintiff prayed for attachment before judgment of certain property belonging to the defendant. The court issued an interim attachment order and fixed 4th September 1978 for hearing the application. The defendant's counsel sought time to file objections, which were eventually filed on 11th September 1978.
3. Deposit of Rent and Damages Under Section 20(4) of U.P. Act XIII of 1972:
The defendant deposited a sum of Rupees 12,000/- on 24th October 1978, covering the entire dues payable to the plaintiff. The defendant contended that since he deposited the entire amount before the first date of hearing, he was entitled to protection under Section 20(4) of U.P. Act XIII of 1972. However, the court below did not accept this plea.
4. Definition and Significance of "First Hearing" Under Section 20(4) of U.P. Act XIII of 1972:
Section 20(4) states that if the tenant pays or deposits the entire amount of rent and damages at the first hearing, the court may relieve the tenant from eviction. The explanation added in 1976 defines "first hearing" as the first date for any step or proceeding mentioned in the summons served on the defendant. The court concluded that the order sheet dated 11th September 1978, where the defendant was present and the date for filing the written statement and final hearing was fixed, should be treated as the "first hearing."
5. Waiver of the Right to Service of Summons:
The defendant appeared in response to a notice on the application for attachment before judgment and sought time for filing objections. The court observed that the defendant never protested against the lack of service of summons and acted in a manner that indicated a waiver of this right. The court held that the defendant's conduct throughout the proceedings showed that he had waived his right to have a summons served on him.
Conclusion:
The court concluded that the date 11th September 1978, when the defendant was present, should be treated as the "first hearing" within the meaning of Section 20(4) read with its Explanation. Since the defendant did not deposit the rent within the required time frame, he could not avail of the protection under Section 20(4) and was liable for ejectment. The revision was dismissed, and the decision of the court below was upheld.
Final Order:
The revision is dismissed, and the parties are directed to bear their own costs.
-
1981 (8) TMI 252
Issues:
1. Eligibility for exemption under section 10(22) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Interpretation of "other educational institution existing solely for educational purposes" under section 10(22).
Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: Eligibility for exemption under section 10(22)
The appeal involved the Thiagarajar Educational Trust objecting to the Commissioner (Appeals) order denying exemption under section 10(22) for the assessment year 1975-76. The trust, constituted under an indenture, aimed to establish and maintain educational institutions for the public benefit. The trust had started various educational institutions, including a polytechnic and a school of management. The dispute arose when the Income Tax Officer (ITO) disallowed the exemption under section 10(22) due to the accumulation of income without prior permission. The Commissioner (Appeals) also held against the trust, stating that the educational institutions sponsored by the trust had separate identities. The trust contended that it qualified as an "other educational institution" under section 10(22) based on precedents and the nature of its activities.
Issue 2: Interpretation of "other educational institution existing solely for educational purposes"
The appellate tribunal analyzed the trust's eligibility for exemption under section 10(22) based on the definition of an educational institution. The tribunal referred to precedents where societies running educational institutions were considered educational institutions. The tribunal rejected the narrow interpretation that an educational institution must be limited to colleges or schools. It cited cases where entities like educational societies and boards were treated as educational institutions. The tribunal also referenced a circular stating that trusts with educational objects and profits used solely for educational purposes are exempt under section 10(22). Ultimately, the tribunal allowed the appeal, annulling the assessment and recognizing the trust as an educational institution eligible for exemption under section 10(22).
In conclusion, the appellate tribunal's judgment focused on the trust's activities and objectives to determine its eligibility for exemption under section 10(22). By considering precedents and the broad definition of an educational institution, the tribunal concluded that the trust qualified as an educational institution existing solely for educational purposes, thus allowing the appeal and annulling the assessment.
-
1981 (8) TMI 251
Issues:
1. Disputed property ownership and partition
2. Alleged fraud in lease document execution
3. Binding nature of lease document
4. Validity of admissions made in the case
5. Determination of property shares
Analysis:
Issue 1: Disputed property ownership and partition
The case involves a dispute over the ownership and partition of a property originally belonging to Abdul Sobhan Khan. The plaintiffs, descendants of Gopal Chandra Saha, claimed their share in the property after partition and migration to West Bengal. The defendant No. 1, as the Karta of the Hindu joint family, was accused of not complying with the demand for partition, leading to the lawsuit seeking a partition decree based on the plaintiffs' alleged 8 annas share in the property.
Issue 2: Alleged fraud in lease document execution
The plaintiffs alleged that defendant No. 1 committed fraud during the execution of a lease document, misrepresenting the shares of the parties involved. The plaintiffs contended that defendant No. 1 falsely claimed a 2/3rd share for himself and paid &8377; 5000 from his personal fund, which was actually sourced from joint property profits. This discrepancy led to the demand for partition.
Issue 3: Binding nature of lease document
The defendant argued that the lease document, Ext. 2, was binding on all parties, as it was executed with full knowledge and consent of the plaintiffs. However, the plaintiffs challenged this assertion, claiming that the document misrepresented their shares due to the minor status of plaintiff No. 1 and the illiteracy of plaintiff No. 2, necessitating a modification of the decree.
Issue 4: Validity of admissions made in the case
The court examined the probative value of admissions made by the parties, emphasizing that an admission is substantive evidence. The defendant's contention that the document of lease was genuine was upheld based on the evidence presented, including the involvement of a lawyer in drafting the documents.
Issue 5: Determination of property shares
After considering the evidence presented by both parties, including witness testimonies and legal arguments, the court ruled in favor of the defendant, declaring that the plaintiffs and defendant No. 1 had 1/3rd and 2/3rd shares, respectively, in the disputed property. The court also recognized defendant No. 2's right to residence and maintenance from the property income.
In conclusion, the High Court of Calcutta allowed the appeal, modifying the judgment to reflect the revised shares of the parties in the disputed property, while upholding defendant No. 2's rights as per the original arrangement. The judgment highlighted the importance of evidence, legal principles, and equitable considerations in resolving the complex property ownership and partition dispute.
-
1981 (8) TMI 250
Issues:
Jurisdictional dispute between Manjeri Court and Parappanangadi Court in a suit for partition of immovable property.
Analysis:
The Supreme Court heard an appeal against a judgment of the High Court of Kerala in a suit for partition of immovable property. The suit was initiated in 1938, and a preliminary decree for partition was passed in 1940 by the Court of Munsiff at Parappanangadi. However, due to a territorial jurisdiction redefinition by the High Court in 1956, the property in question fell under the jurisdiction of the Manjeri Court. In 1966, the plaintiff filed an application for a final decree in the Manjeri Court, which was contested by the defendants citing lack of jurisdiction. Despite objections, the Manjeri Court proceeded with the partition and passed a final decree in 1968. The matter was then taken to the District Judge, who upheld the jurisdiction of the Manjeri Court. Subsequently, the High Court ruled in favor of the objection, setting aside the final decree based on territorial jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court analyzed the jurisdictional issue in detail. It highlighted the provision of law in Section 21(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, emphasizing that an objection to the place of suing must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity and must result in a failure of justice to be entertained by appellate or revisional courts. While the conditions of raising the objection early were met in this case, the aspect of a consequent failure of justice was not substantiated. The Court noted that no material on record indicated any failure of justice due to the choice of the Manjeri Court as the place of suing. As a result, the District Court and the High Court were bound by the legal provision not to entertain the objection, regardless of its merit.
Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and remanded the case for a fresh decision on the appeal. The Court directed the High Court to decide the appeal promptly, within three months of receiving the case records from the Supreme Court. No costs were awarded in this matter.
-
1981 (8) TMI 249
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Khorposh deed.
2. Nature of the Nagaruntari estate (impartible or partible).
3. Applicability of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
4. Rights of the defendant as a co-sharer.
5. Proper remedy for the plaintiff.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of the Khorposh Deed:
The plaintiff argued that the Khorposh deed executed by Bhaiya Rudra Pratap Deo in favor of the defendant was void ab initio due to the lack of the Commissioner's sanction as required under Section 12A of the Chota Nagpur Encumbered Estates Act, 1876, and because the deed was neither stamped nor registered. The Court held that Section 12A would be attracted only when possession and enjoyment of the property is restored under specific circumstances, which the plaintiff failed to prove. Additionally, the Court noted that the Khorposh deed required registration under Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act, and its absence rendered it inadmissible for affecting immovable property but allowed its use for collateral purposes to ascertain the nature of possession.
2. Nature of the Nagaruntari Estate (Impartible or Partible):
The defendant contended that the Nagaruntari estate was a partible estate and not governed by the rule of lineal primogeniture. The Court, however, found overwhelming evidence supporting that the estate was impartible and governed by the rule of lineal primogeniture until the death of Bhaiya Rudra Pratap Deo in 1957. The Court referred to various precedents and legal principles affirming that an impartible estate, though ancestral and joint family property, is clothed with the incidents of self-acquired and separate property, with the right of survivorship being the only vesting incident of joint family property.
3. Applicability of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956:
The plaintiff's counsel argued that the rule of lineal primogeniture survived even after the enforcement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The Court examined Sections 4 and 6 of the Act and concluded that any custom or usage as part of Hindu law ceased to have effect with respect to matters provided for in the Act. The Court held that the rule of lineal primogeniture, being a customary rule, ceased to have effect after the Act's enforcement. The Court also rejected the argument that the rule was a statutory one protected by Section 5(ii) of the Act, clarifying that the Bengal Regulation 10 of 1800 did not declare any estate to descend to a single heir by its own force but merely recognized the custom.
4. Rights of the Defendant as a Co-sharer:
The Court found that the defendant, being a member of a joint Hindu family, was entitled to maintenance from the impartible estate holder. The Khorposh deed, though invalid for want of registration, could be used to ascertain the nature of the defendant's possession, which was as a maintenance holder and not as a trespasser. The Court emphasized that the proper remedy for the plaintiff was to file a suit for partition rather than a suit for possession and mesne profits.
5. Proper Remedy for the Plaintiff:
The Court held that the plaintiff's suit for possession and mesne profits was not the appropriate remedy. Instead, the plaintiff should have filed a regular suit for partition in respect of all the properties. The Court noted that the defendant's possession was as a co-sharer, and the equities of the parties would be better adjusted in a partition suit.
Judgment:
The first appeal filed by the plaintiff (No. 209 of 1970) was dismissed. The second appeal filed by the defendant (No. 2280 of 1970) was allowed, setting aside the High Court's decree and restoring the Trial Court's decree as affirmed by the first appellate court. The parties were directed to bear their own costs.
-
1981 (8) TMI 248
Issues Involved:
1. Locus Standi of Shareholder to Intervene
2. Validity of Proposed Terms of Settlement
3. Authority of Committee of Management
4. Jurisdiction of the Court
5. Fairness of Private Treaty Sale
6. Consent Requirement under Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Locus Standi of Shareholder to Intervene:
The primary issue addressed was whether Purna Investment Pvt. Ltd., a shareholder of Andhra Steel Corporation Ltd., had the locus standi to intervene in the settlement proceedings. The court referred to the Supreme Court decision in Mrs. Bacha F. Guzdar v. Commr. of Income-tax, Bombay, which established that a shareholder has no interest in the property of the company but only in the profits and surplus assets upon winding up. It was emphasized that the company is a separate legal entity from its shareholders. Therefore, the court concluded that Purna Investment Pvt. Ltd. did not have the locus standi to intervene in the suit or the application for recording the terms of settlement under Order 23 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).
2. Validity of Proposed Terms of Settlement:
The proposed terms of settlement involved the sale of the Dunkuni Unit of Andhra Steel Corporation Ltd. to Grand Steel Alloy Ltd., which was alleged to be a concern of Shiv Kumar Agarwalla, related to one of the defendants. The petitioner argued that this sale was detrimental to the interests of the company and its minority shareholders. However, the court did not delve into the validity of the proposed terms, as it had already determined that the petitioner lacked the locus standi to intervene.
3. Authority of Committee of Management:
The petitioner contended that the Committee of Management, constituted by an order of the Appeal Court, did not have the authority to approve the proposed terms of settlement. It was argued that the sale of a substantial part of the company's undertaking required the consent of the General Body of members under Section 293(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 1956. The court did not address this issue in detail due to the preliminary finding on locus standi.
4. Jurisdiction of the Court:
The petitioner argued that the court lacked jurisdiction to record the terms of settlement as it affected immovable properties outside its jurisdiction, specifically in Bangalore. The court did not address this issue in detail, as the petitioner's locus standi was not established.
5. Fairness of Private Treaty Sale:
The petitioner claimed that the sale of the Dunkuni Unit by private treaty without public auction was unfair and improper. The court did not examine this claim due to the preliminary finding on locus standi.
6. Consent Requirement under Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC:
It was alleged that not all defendants, including Mohan Lal Mittal, had agreed to the proposed terms of settlement, making the application under Order 23 Rule 3 of the CPC inapplicable. The court did not address this issue in detail, as the petitioner's locus standi was not established.
Conclusion:
The court concluded that Purna Investment Pvt. Ltd. had no locus standi to intervene in the settlement proceedings. The application was deemed an abuse of the court's process and was dismissed with costs. The court did not address the substantive issues raised by the petitioner, as the preliminary finding on locus standi was dispositive.
-
1981 (8) TMI 247
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 to writ appeals filed under Rule 2 of the Gauhati High Court Rules.
2. Whether the Gauhati High Court Rules constitute "special law" under Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act.
3. Whether the period of limitation prescribed by Rule 2 of the Gauhati High Court Rules is different from that prescribed by Article 117 of the Limitation Act.
4. Whether Rule 2 of the Gauhati High Court Rules forms a complete Code excluding the application of Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act.
5. Whether the delay in filing the writ appeal should be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Applicability of Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 to writ appeals filed under Rule 2 of the Gauhati High Court Rules:
The court examined whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies to writ appeals under Rule 2 of the Gauhati High Court Rules. The court concluded that the provisions of Section 5 are applicable to writ appeals under Rule 2. This conclusion was based on the interpretation that Rule 2 prescribes a special period of limitation for writ appeals, and the Limitation Act itself does not exclude the application of Section 5. The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. Ram Kanwar, which held that rules framed under the Letters Patent are special laws and Section 5 of the Limitation Act applies to such appeals.
2. Whether the Gauhati High Court Rules constitute "special law" under Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act:
The court determined that the Gauhati High Court Rules are a "special law" within the meaning of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act. The court noted that the rules were framed by the High Court under Article 225 of the Constitution and have the force of law. The court rejected the argument that the rules are akin to bye-laws and not legislative enactments. The court emphasized that the rules are statutory rules with the same binding force as an enactment of the legislature itself.
3. Whether the period of limitation prescribed by Rule 2 of the Gauhati High Court Rules is different from that prescribed by Article 117 of the Limitation Act:
The court held that the period of limitation prescribed by Rule 2 for writ appeals is different from that prescribed by Article 117 of the Limitation Act. The court reasoned that Article 117 does not apply to writ appeals, which were created for the first time by Rule 2. Therefore, the period of limitation for writ appeals prescribed by Rule 2 is different from that under Article 117, attracting the application of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act.
4. Whether Rule 2 of the Gauhati High Court Rules forms a complete Code excluding the application of Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act:
The court rejected the contention that Rule 2 forms a complete Code excluding the application of Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act. The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Mangu Ram v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, which held that mere provision of a period of limitation in peremptory language is not sufficient to displace the applicability of Section 5. The court concluded that Rule 2 does not expressly exclude the applicability of Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act.
5. Whether the delay in filing the writ appeal should be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act:
The court considered the facts and circumstances of the case to determine whether the delay in filing the writ appeal should be condoned. The court summarized the principles for extension of time under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, emphasizing that the party seeking relief must show sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the prescribed time. The court found that the delay was due to the misplacement of case records in the office of the Senior Government Advocate during a period of transition. The court held that the explanation for the delay was true and covered the entire period of delay. Therefore, the court concluded that the delay should be condoned and allowed the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Conclusion:
The court held that Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963, applies to writ appeals filed under Rule 2 of the Gauhati High Court Rules. The Gauhati High Court Rules constitute a "special law" under Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, and the period of limitation prescribed by Rule 2 is different from that prescribed by Article 117 of the Limitation Act. Rule 2 does not form a complete Code excluding the application of Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act. The delay in filing the writ appeal was condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
-
1981 (8) TMI 246
The High Court upheld the rejection of account-books for the assessment year 1972-73 due to technical reasons but accepted the disclosed turnover. The higher electricity consumption and decline in turnover were not considered valid grounds for rejection. The failure to maintain a stock register led to the rejection. The revision was partially allowed, and the assessee's turnover was accepted. Costs were assessed at Rs. 300.
-
1981 (8) TMI 245
The High Court of Allahabad rejected the account book of the assessee for the assessment year 1974-75, but upheld the turnover determined by the Tribunal. The Tribunal erred in accepting the accounts despite the assessee not maintaining a manufacturing account. The disclosed turnover of the assessee was deemed acceptable due to a technical defect. The revision was allowed, the tribunal's order was set aside, and the account book was rejected.
-
1981 (8) TMI 244
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 30 of the Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act, 1934.
2. Definition and scope of the term "debt" as per Section 7(1) of the Act.
3. Definition and scope of the term "debtor" as per Section 7(2) of the Act.
4. Calculation of the amount due to the plaintiff.
5. Entitlement to expenses and interest on expenses.
6. Refund of fire insurance premium.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Applicability of Section 30 of the Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act, 1934:
The primary issue is whether Section 30 of the Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act, 1934, as extended to Delhi, applies to the suit filed by the plaintiff, Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC). The LIC contended that Section 30 does not apply, claiming interest at 7-1/2% p.a. with half-yearly rests as per the mortgage deed. Conversely, the borrowers argued that Section 30 forbids the court from passing a decree for a sum larger than twice the amount actually advanced, less any amount already received by the creditor. The court emphasized that Section 30 codifies the ancient doctrine of damdupat, which protects borrowers from oppressive exactions by lenders.
2. Definition and Scope of the Term "Debt" as per Section 7(1) of the Act:
Section 7(1) defines "debt" as inclusive of all liabilities of a debtor in cash or kind, secured or unsecured, payable under a decree or order of a civil court or otherwise, whether mature or not. The court clarified that the term "debt" in Section 7(1) includes mortgage debts and is not limited by the narrower definition of "debtor" in Section 7(2). The court affirmed that the rule of damdupat applies to all debts as defined in Section 7(1), irrespective of the status of the debtor.
3. Definition and Scope of the Term "Debtor" as per Section 7(2) of the Act:
Section 7(2) defines "debtor" as a person who owes a debt and fulfills one of three additional qualifications related to agriculture or limited assets. The court concluded that the term "debtor" in Section 7(2) is a narrower definition intended for the purposes of Part IV of the Act, which deals with proceedings before Debt Conciliation Boards. This narrower definition does not restrict the application of Section 30, which is based on the broader definition of "debt" in Section 7(1).
4. Calculation of the Amount Due to the Plaintiff:
The court determined that the amount advanced by the LIC was Rs. 3,18,335.67. Applying the rule of damdupat, the court could only pass a decree for twice the amount actually advanced, less any amount already received by the LIC. After accounting for payments received, the amount due to the LIC was Rs. 94,917.14. This calculation was based on an agreed statement marked as Annexure 'A' on the file.
5. Entitlement to Expenses and Interest on Expenses:
The LIC incurred expenses amounting to Rs. 1,10,694.65 during the management of the property. The court agreed that the LIC was entitled to interest on these expenses at the rate of 7-1/2% p.a., as provided in the mortgage deed and under Order 34, Rule 4 read with Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code. The interest on expenses amounted to Rs. 97,000.00.
6. Refund of Fire Insurance Premium:
The defendants paid Rs. 1020 to the Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Ltd. for fire insurance premium, while the LIC also paid Rs. 476 for the same property. The court allowed the defendants to claim a refund of Rs. 1020 from the insurance company, as the LIC had no objection to this claim.
Judgment:
The court passed a preliminary decree for Rs. 94,917.14 on account of principal and interest till the date of judgment. The LIC was also entitled to Rs. 1,10,694.65 for expenses incurred and Rs. 97,000.00 as interest on these expenses. The defendants were given six months to pay the amount, with the LIC entitled to simple interest at 7-1/2% p.a. on the amounts of Rs. 94,917.14 and Rs. 1,10,694.65 till the date of payment. Additionally, Rs. 39,595.36 deposited with Grindlays Bank was to be paid to the LIC, and this amount was already accounted for in the calculations.
-
1981 (8) TMI 243
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the wireless message dated October 28, 1980.
2. Validity of the amendment to the Madhya Pradesh Foodstuffs (Distribution Control) Order, 1960.
3. Requirement of concurrence from the Central Government for the amendment.
4. Necessity of laying the amendment and scheme before Parliament.
5. Violation of principles of natural justice due to the amendment.
6. Validity of the scheme made pursuant to delegation of delegated powers.
7. Alleged unlawful creation of monopoly in favor of cooperative societies.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of the Wireless Message Dated October 28, 1980:
The petitioners contended that the wireless message was without any legal authority as the Madhya Pradesh Foodstuffs (Distribution Control) Order, 1960, had not been amended by that date. The Court found that no action was taken pursuant to the wireless message until after the Control Order was amended. Therefore, the premature issuance of the wireless message did not result in any harm.
2. Validity of the Amendment to the Madhya Pradesh Foodstuffs (Distribution Control) Order, 1960:
The amendment made on October 30, 1980, abolished the system of 'appointed retailers' and replaced it with 'fair price shops' run by agents appointed under the new scheme, with preference given to cooperative societies. The Court found that the amendment was valid and necessary to address the serious irregularities and abuses in the existing system of distribution.
3. Requirement of Concurrence from the Central Government for the Amendment:
The Court held that the concurrence of the Central Government was unnecessary for the amendment as the Control Order and its amendment did not relate to matters specified in Clause (a), (c), and (f) of Section 3(2) of the Essential Commodities Act. The notification in force at the time, GSR 800 dated June 9, 1978, did not require such concurrence for the matters covered by the amendment.
4. Necessity of Laying the Amendment and Scheme Before Parliament:
The Court clarified that the amendment was not an Ordinance and was not required to be placed before the Legislature within six months. Furthermore, only orders made by the Central Government or its officers under Section 3, Sub-section 6 of the Essential Commodities Act, needed to be laid before Parliament. The State Government's order, made under delegated powers, did not require such placement.
5. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice Due to the Amendment:
The petitioners argued that the amendment took away the rights of existing 'appointed retailers' without hearing them, violating principles of natural justice. The Court held that the amendment was a legislative function, and there was no requirement to afford an opportunity to those affected by it, citing the precedent in International Tourist Corporation Delhi and Ors. v. The State of Haryana and Ors.
6. Validity of the Scheme Made Pursuant to Delegation of Delegated Powers:
The petitioners argued that the scheme was invalid as it was made pursuant to the delegation of delegated powers. The Court found that the Madhya Pradesh Foodstuffs (Civil Supply Distribution) Scheme, 1981, was formulated in exercise of the State Government's executive power under Article 162 of the Constitution, and not under any power delegated by a delegate under the Essential Commodities Act. Therefore, the scheme was valid.
7. Alleged Unlawful Creation of Monopoly in Favor of Cooperative Societies:
The petitioners argued that the scheme was discriminatory as it gave preference to cooperative societies, creating a monopoly. The Court found that the preference to cooperative societies was a reasonable classification with a nexus to the objective of ensuring a fair and assured supply of rations to consumers. The fundamental right of traders to carry on business was not affected as they could still trade in foodstuffs, but not as agents of the Government running fair price shops. The Court distinguished this case from Mannalal Jain v. State of Assam, where the issue was the discriminatory administration of a licensing authority's order, not the validity of the order itself.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the Writ Petitions and Special Leave Petitions, upholding the validity of the wireless message, the amendment to the Madhya Pradesh Foodstuffs (Distribution Control) Order, 1960, and the Madhya Pradesh Foodstuffs (Civil Supply Distribution) Scheme, 1981. The Court found no substance in the petitioners' submissions regarding the necessity of Central Government concurrence, the requirement to lay the amendment before Parliament, the violation of natural justice principles, the delegation of delegated powers, and the alleged creation of a monopoly in favor of cooperative societies.
-
1981 (8) TMI 242
Issues Involved:
1. Whether there was a completed sale of shares on 5-2-1948.
2. Whether the sum of Rs. 3,59,559 was liable to be taxed as income of the assessed company.
Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: Completed Sale of Shares on 5-2-1948
Facts and Circumstances:
The assessed company, a dealer in shares, entered into transactions on 5-2-1948 for the sale of shares to Mrs. Rama Jain and Mr. R. Dalmia. The shares were not taken delivery of nor was the price paid at that time. A settlement in February 1952 led to the assessed company repurchasing the shares at the then-prevailing market value, resulting in payments from Mrs. Jain and Mr. Dalmia. The assessed company did not account for Rs. 3,59,559 in its books, which the Income Tax Officer proposed to add as profit.
Tribunal's Conclusion:
The Tribunal accepted the assessed company's plea that the sale was completed on 5-2-1948, characterizing the transaction as a credit sale. It held that the agreement terms indicated a completed sale, despite irregularities in accounting and the shares being shown in the assessed company's closing stock.
High Court's Analysis:
The High Court noted several facts indicating no completed sale:
- Shares never left the bank's custody.
- No delivery of shares to Mrs. Jain or Mr. Dalmia.
- No payment made for the shares until 1952.
- Assessed company continued to show shares in its closing stock.
Legal Principles:
The court referred to the Sale of Goods Act, specifically:
- Section 19: Property in goods is transferred at the time intended by the parties.
- Section 21: Property does not pass unless goods are in a deliverable state and the buyer has notice.
The court found that the shares were unascertained goods, as they were not identified by serial numbers, and thus, the property did not pass to the buyers as per Section 21.
Precedents:
The court cited previous cases, including:
- Seth R. Dalmia v. The Commissioner of Income Tax: Similar facts where no money was paid, and shares were not transferred, leading to the conclusion that equitable ownership did not pass without transfer forms or share scrips.
Conclusion:
The High Court held that there was no completed sale on 5-2-1948. The shares remained the property of the assessed company, and no equitable title passed to Mrs. Jain or Mr. Dalmia.
Issue 2: Taxability of Rs. 3,59,559 as Income
Income Tax Officer's Position:
The Income Tax Officer proposed to add Rs. 3,59,559 as profit, arguing that the assessed company failed to account for this amount in its books.
Appellate Assistant Commissioner's Position:
The Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld the Income Tax Officer's decision.
Tribunal's Position:
The Tribunal held that no profit arose in the previous year for the assessment year 1953-54, thus excluding the amount from taxable income.
High Court's Analysis:
The High Court disagreed with the Tribunal, emphasizing that:
- The shares continued to be shown as stock-in-trade of the assessed company.
- The price of the shares was never credited to the assessed's account in 1948.
- Entries were only made post the 1952 settlement.
Conclusion:
The High Court concluded that the sum of Rs. 3,59,559 was liable to be included in the income of the assessed and taxed as such. The Tribunal committed an illegality in holding otherwise.
Final Judgment:
The High Court answered the reference in the negative and in favor of the Revenue, holding that the Tribunal was wrong in law in concluding that there was a completed sale of shares on 5-2-1948 and that the sum of Rs. 3,59,559 was not liable to be taxed. The reference was answered accordingly.
-
1981 (8) TMI 241
Issues involved: Application for admission of an appeal from the order refusing to stay proceedings under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956.
Summary:
1. The appellant sought a stay on proceedings under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956, arguing that a suit had been filed prior to the company petition and the matters in controversy were essentially the same. The appellant contended that the Company Court did not have exclusive jurisdiction under Section 10 of the Civil P. C. due to the prior institution of the suit.
2. The Court noted that the causes of action in the two matters were different, with allegations of oppression and mismanagement by the Guhas in the company petition. It was observed that the controversy in both matters was not essentially the same.
3. Section 397 was considered a special code by itself, as established by previous court decisions. While the Allahabad High Court had a different view on civil court jurisdiction, it was emphasized that if relief could only be granted under Sections 397 and 398, it could not be circumvented by initiating proceedings in a civil court.
4. The Court found that the Trial Judge was correct in not granting a stay under Section 10 of the Civil P. C. The operation of the order was not stayed pending the appeal, except for admitting the memorandum of appeal.
5. Orders from specific dates were to be consolidated, and a single set of documents was to be filed within a month. Notice of appeal was waived, and the settlement of the index was dispensed with. Certified copies of orders were to be included in the Paper Book, with liberty granted for supplementary filing if necessary.
6. The costs of the application were to be considered costs in the appeal.
-
1981 (8) TMI 240
Issues:
1. Suit against a dissolved company.
2. Misdescription of the defendant in the cause-title.
3. Arbitration clause and repudiation of the claim.
Analysis:
Issue 1: Suit against a dissolved company
The appeal arose from an order dismissing a suit against a dissolved company, Ruby General Insurance Company Limited. The suit was filed in 1975, after the company was dissolved in 1974 under the National Insurance Company Limited (Merger) Scheme, 1973. The main contention was whether a suit against a dissolved company was incompetent. The court referred to precedents establishing that a dissolved company ceases to exist and cannot be a party to legal proceedings. The court cited various cases to support the principle that a suit against a dissolved company is null and void. The appellant argued for an amendment to the plaint, claiming misdescription, but the court held that the suit against the dissolved company was indeed incompetent.
Issue 2: Misdescription of the defendant in the cause-title
The appellant contended that the cause-title misdescribed the defendant as being under the management of the Government of India. However, the court rejected this argument, stating that the assets and liabilities of the dissolved company had vested in a different entity, a Government company, distinct from the Government of India. Therefore, the court held that the cause-title accurately described the defendant as the dissolved company, and the suit was rightly dismissed.
Issue 3: Arbitration clause and repudiation of the claim
The appellant also raised the issue of an arbitration clause in the agreement, claiming that the matter should have been subject to arbitration. However, the respondent had repudiated the claim, rendering it unsuitable for arbitration under the agreement. The court noted that the arbitration process had been initiated but later revoked by a court order. While the appellant argued that the claim was not barred by limitation, the court did not delve into this aspect due to the dismissal of the suit against the dissolved company. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal with costs.
In conclusion, the High Court of Calcutta upheld the dismissal of the suit against the dissolved company, emphasizing the legal principle that a dissolved company cannot be a party to legal proceedings. The court rejected arguments of misdescription and inapplicability of the arbitration clause, ultimately dismissing the appeal.
-
1981 (8) TMI 239
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for special leave based on the precedent set in Jai Singh Murari v. Sovani (P) Ltd., which stated that the transfer of a tenancy after it ceases to be contractual is not permissible under the Bombay Rent Act. The dissenting note in Damadilal v. Parashram was not considered as it did not pertain to the Bombay Act. The decision in Jai Singh's case remains binding.
-
1981 (8) TMI 238
Issues Involved:
1. Constitutional validity of Regulation 46(i)(c) of Air India Employees' Service Regulations.
2. Discrimination between Air Hostesses (AHs) and Assistant Flight Pursers (AFPs) under Article 14.
3. Discrimination based on sex under Articles 15(1) and 16.
4. Termination of AHs on grounds of pregnancy or marriage within four years.
5. Reasonableness of service conditions for AHs, including age of retirement and promotional opportunities.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Constitutional Validity of Regulation 46(i)(c):
Regulation 46(i)(c) mandates that an AH retire upon attaining the age of 35 years, or on marriage if it occurs within four years of service, or on first pregnancy, whichever occurs earlier. The Court found that the provision regarding termination on first pregnancy is "most unreasonable and arbitrary," and "shocks the conscience of the court." It was deemed "manifestly unreasonable and arbitrary" and violative of Article 14, thus struck down. The Court suggested amending the rule to terminate services on third pregnancy provided two children are alive.
2. Discrimination Between AHs and AFPs Under Article 14:
The Court held that AHs and AFPs form separate categories with different qualifications, grades, and promotional avenues. The initial recruitment requirements, starting salaries, and number of posts differ significantly between AHs and AFPs. The Court concluded that AHs form an "absolutely separate category" from AFPs, and hence, no discrimination under Article 14 occurs as they are not similarly circumstanced.
3. Discrimination Based on Sex Under Articles 15(1) and 16:
The Court ruled that the recruitment of AHs is sex-based but not solely based on sex, as other considerations are involved. The Central Government's declaration under the 1976 Act, stating that differences in pay and conditions of service are not based on sex, was accepted. The Court held that Articles 15(1) and 16(2) do not prohibit discrimination based on sex coupled with other considerations. Thus, the conditions of service for AHs were not found to be discriminatory based on sex alone.
4. Termination of AHs on Grounds of Pregnancy or Marriage Within Four Years:
The Court upheld the provision regarding termination if marriage occurs within four years of service, considering it reasonable and in the interest of family planning. However, it struck down the provision for termination on first pregnancy as "grossly unethical" and "an open insult to Indian womanhood." The Court suggested amendments to allow AHs to take maternity leave and resume service post-pregnancy.
5. Reasonableness of Service Conditions for AHs, Including Age of Retirement and Promotional Opportunities:
The Court found that the age of retirement for AHs at 35 years, extendable to 45 years, is not discriminatory. However, it criticized the discretion given to the Managing Director to extend the retirement age as "uncontrolled, unguided and absolute," thus violative of Article 14. The Court struck down the provision giving the Managing Director such discretion and mandated that AHs should be allowed to retire at 45 years unless suitable amendments are made.
Conclusion:
The Court partially allowed the writ petitions, striking down the provision related to termination on first pregnancy and the uncontrolled discretion of the Managing Director in extending the retirement age. The Court directed suitable amendments to the regulations to ensure fairness and reasonableness. The Transfer Case was disposed of accordingly, with no orders as to costs.
-
1981 (8) TMI 237
Issues:
1. Trading account addition of Rs. 14,000.
2. Non-allowance of deduction for interest paid under section 220(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: Trading account addition of Rs. 14,000
The appeal for the assessment year 1976-77 raised concerns regarding a trading account addition of Rs. 14,000. The Appellate Tribunal considered the claim of the assessee, who derived income from an Ice Factory and Cold Storage, and examined the relevant facts. The Tribunal noted that the Income Tax Officer (ITO) assessed the entire amount of interest received from the Government, whereas the assessee argued that only the net amount after deducting the interest paid should be assessed. The Tribunal analyzed the nature of the interest paid and received, ultimately concluding that only the net amount should be taxed to determine the real income accurately.
Issue 2: Non-allowance of deduction for interest paid under section 220(2)
Regarding the non-allowance of deduction for interest paid under section 220(2) of the Income-tax Act, the Tribunal delved into the legal arguments presented by both parties. The assessee contended that the interest paid should be deducted from the interest received to arrive at the real income. The revenue, on the other hand, argued against the deductibility of the interest paid, citing a decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. After considering the submissions and legal precedents, the Tribunal opined that the interest paid and received had the same character and should be assessed under the head "Income from other sources." Consequently, the Tribunal directed that the interest paid under section 220(2) be adjusted against the interest received under section 244, with only the net amount being subject to taxation.
In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment addressed the issues of trading account addition and non-allowance of deduction for interest paid under section 220(2) comprehensively, emphasizing the need to determine the real income accurately by considering the interplay between interest paid and received in the context of income taxation laws.
-
1981 (8) TMI 236
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the land in question was agricultural land on the date of its transfer.
2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in permitting the department to raise the additional ground regarding the registration of the instrument of transfer.
3. Whether the transfers in question were effected before March 1, 1970, as contemplated in section 47(viii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
4. Whether the Tribunal was justified in not accepting the assessee's contention that the transfer was effected on the dates of execution of the sale deeds.
5. Whether the interest deficit to the extent of Rs. 6,453 was deductible while determining the total income.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Whether the land in question was agricultural land on the date of its transfer:
The Tribunal had formed the opinion that the land was agricultural based on mixed questions of law and fact. However, the Tribunal's decision was challenged by the Revenue, which argued that the land was non-agricultural. The High Court applied the principles from CIT v. Sarifabibi Mohamed Ibrahim [1982] 136 ITR 621 and concluded that the land in question was non-agricultural. Factors considered included the land's location within municipal limits, its sale to a non-agriculturist for non-agricultural purposes, and the high sale price per square yard. The Court emphasized that the land's gross agricultural income was minimal, and the land was situated in an urban area with surrounding buildings, thus supporting the conclusion that it was non-agricultural.
2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in permitting the department to raise the additional ground regarding the registration of the instrument of transfer:
The Tribunal allowed the Revenue to raise an argument based on the amended law, which was not previously urged before the ITO or the AAC. The High Court upheld this decision, citing Rule 27 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, which permits the respondent to support the order appealed against on any grounds decided against him. The Court emphasized that the subject matter of the appeal remained the same, and the Tribunal was justified in permitting the Revenue to raise the additional ground.
3. Whether the transfers in question were effected before March 1, 1970, as contemplated in section 47(viii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
The Tribunal had held that the transfers were not effected before March 1, 1970, because the sale deeds were presented for registration after this date. However, the High Court disagreed, stating that the transaction of sale becomes effective from the date of execution of the document if it is subsequently registered. The Court held that the Tribunal was in error in holding that the transaction was not effected before March 1, 1970, thus ruling in favor of the assessee on this point.
4. Whether the Tribunal was justified in not accepting the assessee's contention that the transfer was effected on the dates of execution of the sale deeds:
The High Court concluded that the Tribunal was incorrect in not accepting the assessee's contention. It held that the transfer should be considered effective from the date of execution of the sale deeds, provided the documents were subsequently registered. This interpretation aligns with the provisions of section 47 of the Registration Act, which states that a registered document operates from the time it would have commenced to operate if no registration had been required or made.
5. Whether the interest deficit to the extent of Rs. 6,453 was deductible while determining the total income:
This issue was covered against the assessee by a decision of the High Court in Smt. Padmavati Jaykrishna v. CIT [1975] 101 ITR 153 (Guj). The Court held that the interest deficit was not deductible while determining the total income, thus ruling against the assessee.
Conclusion:
The High Court concluded that the land in question was non-agricultural, thus the gains arising from its transfer were exigible to tax as capital gains. The Tribunal was justified in permitting the department to raise the additional ground regarding the registration of the instrument of transfer. However, the Tribunal erred in holding that the transfers were not effected before March 1, 1970, and in not accepting the assessee's contention regarding the date of execution of the sale deeds. The interest deficit to the extent of Rs. 6,453 was not deductible while determining the total income. The reference was answered accordingly, with no order regarding costs.
-
1981 (8) TMI 235
Issues involved: Appeal against demotion from Superintendent of Police to Deputy Superintendent of Police u/s Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Issue 1: Challenge of reversion based on lack of reasons for supersession
The appellant challenged his reversion from Superintendent of Police to Deputy Superintendent of Police, arguing that the Selection Committee did not provide specific reasons for his supersession as required by regulation 5 of the India Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955. The High Court dismissed the petition, stating that the sufficiency of reasons is for the State Government and the Central Public Service Commission to determine, not the Court. The appellant reiterated this contention before the Supreme Court.
Issue 2: Examination of relevant regulations
Regulations 5 and 7 of the India Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 were examined. Regulation 5 mandates the Selection Committee to record reasons for supersession, while regulation 7 deals with the approval and maintenance of the Select List. The Court noted that the Select List can be reviewed as per the regulations.
Issue 3: Compliance with regulations and precedent
The Court referred to a previous case where the Selection Committee provided a similar vague reason for supersession. The Court emphasized the importance of recording specific reasons for supersession to ensure just and reasonable treatment of officers as per constitutional protections. It was held that the Selection Committee's failure to provide adequate reasons for supersession in the appellant's case violated the regulations.
Outcome:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, overturned the High Court's judgment, and annulled the Select List related to the appellant's case and his reversion. The appellant was granted all consequential benefits despite retirement. Each party was directed to bear their respective costs.
........
|
9911796707
