9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (12) TMI 16X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... same court, amounting to Rs. 1,75,000. Shortly stated, the facts in TC Nos. 77 to 79 of 1977 are these The deceased, A. V. Srinivasalu Naidu, was a partner in a firm called R. G. C. Naidu Company, Coimbatore, which were the managing agents of Messrs. Coimbatore Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd., a public limited company. In respect of certain misappropriations committed by the managing agents, the managed company filed OS No. 232 of 1961, above referred to, claiming damages in a sum of Rs. 8,27,449. That suit was decreed for a sum of Rs. 5,83,493 in so far as the firm was concerned. The deceased had one-third share in the partnership firm and his liability was determined at Rs. 1,99,465. However, the accountable person claimed the entire ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate Duty rejected this claim also on the ground that there is no evidence to show as to how the said amount of Rs. 1,75,000 was arrived at and whether it was reasonable. On an appeal preferred by the accountable person, the Appellate Controller of Estate Duty, however, held that the facts established that there was absolutely no defence for the defendant, that a compromise was more advantageous and that the decree against the deceased was a real and bona fide one. In that view, he allowed the deduction of that money also. The appeal preferred by the Revenue to the Tribunal having failed, at the instance of the Revenue, the second question in TC Nos. 77 to 79 of 1977 has been referred. The two questions that are referred to this court in T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the money and, therefore, the accountable person may not be able to claim any contribution at all from the other partners. Both these extreme contentions are not acceptable. We have to find out the rights and liabilities of the deceased on the date of his death. It is not possible for us to consider as to what will happen later. It may be, the estate of the deceased may not be able to satisfy the decree or, it may be, the decree-holder may not proceed against the estate of the deceased. It is also possible that even if the deceased paid the entire amount, he might be able to recover the contributions from the other debtors or he might not be able. to recover anything. But these are all questions which cannot arise at all while considering ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enue and it is accordingly answered. In TC Nos. 77 to 79 of 1977, the accountable person will be entitled to her costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 500 (Rupees five hundred only) one set. In TC No. 76 of 1977, the respondent is M/s A. V. S. Private Ltd., Coimbatore. The deceased, his wife, and two others are the only shareholders of the company. There is no dispute that it is a controlled company within the meaning of section 17 of the Estate Duty Act. The sum of Rs. 1,75,000 paid towards discharge of the decree debt in OS No. 254 of 1956 was stated to have come from that company. It is in these circumstances that no separate question is referred to this court in TC No. 76 of 1977 and the respondent in this case is only interested in the answer r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
