9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 443X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellant and Ms.Shwetha Krishnappa, learned HCGP appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 - authorities for final disposal. So far as respondent No.3 is concerned, it is serve d through postal track report and none appears on his behalf. 3. We need not refer to the facts in detail but the following factual position are admitted: 1. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have to recover the amount from the mother of the petitioner who is Proprietor of the firm known as M/s.JSS Enterprises, Subrahmanya Nagar, Bangalore. 2. The petitioner is holding the general Power of Attorney of his mother and he used to represent M/s.JSS Enterprises in capacity as the power of attorney. 3. M/s.JSS Enterprises was required to pay the tax dues but it did not an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the petitioner and therefore, the learned Single Judge did not find any fault with the notice and ultimately dismissed the petition. Under the circumstances, the present appeal before this Court. 5. In our view, it was an admitted position that the petitioner represented M/s.JSS Enterprises in capacity as the power of attorney holder, as per the Contract Act and the capacity of the petitioner was as that of the agent and the principal was his mother who was the Proprietor of M/s.JSS Enterprises. In law, for the act of the agent, principal may be held responsible but for the liability of the principal, the agents cannot be ma de responsible unless there is specific condition so provided in the contract of agency. When it is an undispute ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not the fact situation in the present case, since no enquiry is held nor it is reported to this Court that any enquiry at any stage was held. 8. In view of the above, the order at Annexure 'G' dated 20.02.2015 issued by respondent Nos.1 and 2-authority cannot be sustained in the law and further any action taken by respondent No.3 pursuant to the said order of transferring the amount can also not be sustained in the eye of law. The resultant effect would be that respondent Nos.1 and 2 who are now holding the amount of Rs. 2,23,288/- will be required to ref und the amount to the appellant. Such refund shall be made within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment of this Court. 9. In view of the ab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
