9911796707
TMI Blog1969 (12) TMI 23X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e death of the deceased - amount of Rs. 50,111 was not correctly included in the estate of the deceased as property deemed to pass on his death under section 9 X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs. 25,000 and another for Rs. 25,111 in favour of the Deputy Commissioner of Chitaldurg. The said cheques were issued towards the balance amount promised by him for the construction of the general hospital building. The Deputy Commissioner, for reasons best known to him, delayed the encashment of the cheques ; one cheque was encashed on 16th August, 1956, and the other was encashed on 10th Septe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unts no gift had been made. In our judgment, the view taken by the Central Board of Revenue on the facts of the case is erroneous. Murigappa Chigateri had promised to make a donation of Rs. 1,00,000 in consideration of the Government naming the hospital after the donor. Pursuant to the promise of a donation, if the Government or any other body undertakes any work, it cannot be said that the perso ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed but having been cashed, the payment related back to the dates of the receipt of the cheques and in law the dates of pay ments were the dates of the delivery of the cheques ". The above statement of the law was reiterated by the Supreme Court in Jiwanlal Achariya v. Rameshwarlal Agarwalla, wherein it has been stated that where that payment is cheque and is unconditional and it is honoured, the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
