9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (12) TMI 33X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... away. On his demise, differences arose between the surviving members of the family. Elliah Chettiar and the sons of Subramania Chettiar wanted to dissociate themselves from the business carried on by the company. At that time, the company had a fleet of 50 buses running on various routes. It was decided on September 14, 1961, that 18 vehicles to the value of Rs. 2,00,000 were to be allotted to Elliah Chettiar and six vehicles worth Rs. 50,000 to Subramania Chettiar's branch. The remaining 26 buses were to represent the shares of the branches of Chinnathambi Chettiar and Nanjappa Chettiar. There were two agreements entered into on that date. One was between Elliah Chettiar and the company with reference to transferring 18 buses. Another was between the company and the three sons of Subramania Chettiar, transferring six buses to them. There was a dispute with regard to the agreement and Elliah Chettiar filed a suit O. S. No. 137 of 1965 on the file of the Sub-Court, Coimbatore, for a declaration that he was the owner of the vehicles mentioned in the agreement and for a decree that the joint application filed before the Regional Transport Authority, Coimbatore, for transfer of the per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommissioner passed an order dated July 28, 1984, rejecting the revision petitions. It is that order which is challenged in this writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the reasoning of the Commissioner in the impugned order which relies upon the judgment of the Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, in O. S. No. 137 of 1965. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner's father, Nataraja Chettiar, was not a party at all to O. S. No. 137 of 1965 and he was also not a party to the agreement dated September 14, 1961, which was the subject-matter of the suit. Learned counsel has taken me through the judgment in that suit and submitted that the judgment nowhere refers to any agreement in favour of Nataraja Chettiar and that the entire judgment related only to the agreement in favour of Elliah Chettiar. No doubt, learned counsel is correct in saying that the Commissioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Sub-Court in the aforesaid suit. The Commissioner has observed as follows : " 8. The next issue raised is that the judgment of the Sub-Court of Coimbatore is not binding on the petitioner. I do not know how the assessee has come to this conclusion when the Sub- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the order of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, in O. S. No. 137 of 1965 on April 10, 1969, it was given effect to by the Road Transport Authority also by their order dated October 31, 1969, whereby the following routes were held to have been transferred to the different disputing parties : Shri A. K. Elliah Chettiar : Coimbatore Town Services 12 buses Coimbatore to Mettupalayam 1 bus Coimbatore to Ooty 1 bus Coimbatore to Kotagiri 1 bus Spare bus 2 in Coimbatore Town Service and one route bus. Shri G. S. Nataraja Chettiar and others : Mettupalayam to Gobi 3 buses Mettupalayam to Sathiamangalam 2 buses Spare 1 bus The rest of the routes remained with the appellant-company'. " Transfer of the aforesaid buses dated March 15, 1962, having been acceded to and the de facto ownership of the vehicles recognised and regularised with effect from the date of application for transfer on March 15, 1962, by the Road Transport Authorities, I am unable to subscribe any credence to the petitioner's claim in this respect." Learned senior counsel for the Income-tax Commissioner has invited my attention to the order dated March 16, 1978, passed by the Appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngs referred to above and got an order in its favour. Thereafter, it is not open to the directors of the company to contend otherwise and claim that individual assessment cannot also be made. There is no merit in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order only relies upon the civil suit and Nataraja Chettiar not being a party to the suit, the order is vitiated. I have already pointed out that the order of the appellate authority was not solely based on the civil suit, but in turn on the relevant records produced before them. When the matter came earlier before another learned judge of this court on April 6, 1994, he passed an order recording an undertaking given by the Government Pleader to produce the records of the Regional Transport Officer relating to the application for transfer of buses dated March 15, 1962. The Government Pleader has represented before me now that the Regional Transport Officer has sent a communication that no records are available with him in connection with the writ petition. It is also stated by him that no application for transfer of ownership in respect of permits of vehicles owned by the company is pending in his ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
