9911796707
TMI Blog1955 (9) TMI 70X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of the Legislative Assembly of a State, if he is interested in any contract for the supply of goods or for the execution of any works for the Government of that State. Section 9(2) declares that if any such contract has been entered into by or on behalf of a Hindu undivided family, every member thereof shall be subject to the disqualification mentioned in section 7(d) but that if the contract has been entered into by a member of an undivided family carrying on a separate business in the course of such business, other members of the family having no share or interest in that business shall not be disqualified under Section 7(d). 3. The contract in the present case was for felling trees in a Government forest and transporting them for de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... joint Hindu family of which the respondent is a member ? 5. On issue 3, the Tribunal found that Krishnaswami Karayalar was the real contracting party, and that Kuppuswami was a benamidar for him, and on issue 2, that the contract was entered into on behalf of the joint family, of which the appellant was a member. On these findings, it held that the appellant was disqualified under section 7(d) read with section 9(2), and declared his election void. The appellant questions the correctness of this order firstly on the ground that the finding that Kuppuswami is a benamidar for Krishnaswami Karayalar is not warranted by the evidence, and secondly on the ground that the finding that Krishnaswami entered into the contract on behalf of the j ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... new business started by him, and held on the above authorities that the joint family of the respondent is the owner of the right and benefit of the present contract . 8. The appellant contends that the statement of law by the Tribunal that there is a presumption that a new business started by the father is joint family business is erroneous, and that its finding that the joint family of which the appellant was a member had an interest in the contract of Krishnaswami could not be supported, as it was based solely on the view which it took of the law. This criticism is, in our opinion, well founded. Under the Hindu Law, there is no presumption that a business standing in the name of any member is a joint family one even when that member i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... question, the Tribunal did not discuss the evidence bearing on this point or record a finding thereon. It is therefore necessary that there should be a remittal of the case for a consideration of this question on the evidence. 10. The appellant contends that there is only the evidence of the respondent in support of the plea that the contract was entered into by Krishnaswami on behalf of the joint family, and that this Court could itself record a finding thereon. But it is argued by the respondent that there are in the judgment of the Tribunal several observations which would support the conclusion that the contract was entered into on behalf of the joint family. Thus, it is pointed out that in para 5 of the judgment the Tribunal obs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
