|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 221 to 240 of 281 Records
-
1951 (3) TMI 27
Issues:
1. Validity of the will made by the first defendant in favor of the second defendant.
2. Suit for declaration of will being null and void.
3. Contestation of adoption and limitation.
4. Locus standi of plaintiff to contest the will.
5. Admission of additional evidence under Order XLI, rule 27.
6. Reversal of decision by the District Judge based on additional evidence.
7. High Court's decision on the genuineness of the additional evidence.
8. Interpretation of the custom governing alienation of property.
9. Justification of admitting additional evidence.
10. Consideration of inherent infirmities in the entries of settlement registers.
11. Second appeal grounds under section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code.
Analysis:
The case involved a dispute over the validity of a will made by the first defendant in favor of the second defendant, contested by the plaintiff claiming reversionary rights. The plaintiff argued that under customary law, a sonless proprietor cannot will ancestral property when collaterals exist. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the District Judge allowed additional evidence under Order XLI, rule 27, leading to a reversal of the decision in favor of the plaintiff based on the relinquishment of ancestral property by a third son, Pohlo.
The High Court, however, found the additional evidence inadmissible, highlighting discrepancies indicating forgery. It emphasized that the property in question was non-ancestral, and the suit should have been dismissed under section 7 of Act II of 1920, barring contests of alienation of non-ancestral property. The High Court's decision was appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that the District Judge's admission of additional evidence was unjustified and failed to consider the inherent infirmities in the settlement registers. The Court agreed with the High Court's observations on the suspicious nature of the entries, rendering the findings based on the additional evidence inconclusive.
Ultimately, without the additional evidence, the plaintiff's claim lacked merit as there was no proof of the property's ancestral nature. The District Judge's decree in favor of the plaintiff was deemed erroneous, and the interpretation of the custom governing property alienation was found contrary to Punjab Act II of 1920. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the High Court's decision, and costs were awarded to the respondents.
-
1951 (3) TMI 26
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the prosecution without government sanction.
2. Timing of the Magistrate's cognizance of the offence.
3. Validity of the arrest and subsequent proceedings.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Legality of the Prosecution Without Government Sanction:
The appellant argued that the prosecution under sections 161 and 165 of the Indian Penal Code was illegal due to the absence of government sanction under section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code and section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947). The appellant contended that the initiation of proceedings without prior government sanction rendered the prosecution void. However, the court clarified that the sanction from the Provincial Government was granted on December 6, 1948, and by the Central Government on January 31, 1949. Therefore, the prosecution was not initiated without the required government sanction, and the appeal on these grounds was dismissed.
2. Timing of the Magistrate's Cognizance of the Offence:
The appellant argued that the Magistrate took cognizance of the offence on October 22, 1947, when the arrest warrant was issued, making the initiation of proceedings illegal without prior government sanction. The court examined section 190 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which outlines the conditions under which a Magistrate may take cognizance of an offence: upon receiving a complaint, a police report, or information from any person. The court determined that the issuance of an arrest warrant during the investigation does not equate to taking cognizance of the offence. Cognizance is taken when the Magistrate applies his mind to the offence for the purpose of proceeding under the subsequent provisions of the chapter, such as issuing a notice under section 190. The court found that the Magistrate took cognizance on March 25, 1949, when a notice was issued under section 190, after the government sanction had been obtained.
3. Validity of the Arrest and Subsequent Proceedings:
The appellant contended that the arrest and subsequent proceedings were invalid because they were initiated without the Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence. The court clarified that under section 3 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, offences under sections 161 and 165 of the Indian Penal Code are deemed cognizable, allowing the police to arrest without a Magistrate's order, provided certain conditions are met. The court noted that the warrant issued by the Magistrate was during the investigation and not after taking cognizance of the offence. Therefore, the arrest and subsequent proceedings were valid and in accordance with the law. The court also referenced previous judgments to support its interpretation of "cognizance" and concluded that the Magistrate's actions were consistent with legal requirements.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the prosecution was legal and valid as the required government sanctions were obtained before the Magistrate took cognizance of the offence. The arrest and subsequent proceedings were also deemed valid as they complied with the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Criminal Procedure Code. The court's detailed analysis clarified the legal interpretation of cognizance and the procedural requirements for prosecuting public servants under corruption charges.
-
1951 (3) TMI 25
Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of "substantial question of law" under Article 133 of the Constitution of India.
2. Whether the decision on the admissibility of documents constitutes a substantial question of law.
3. Criteria for granting leave to appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 133.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Interpretation of "substantial question of law" under Article 133 of the Constitution of India:
The primary issue addressed in the judgment is the interpretation of the term "substantial question of law" as it appears in Article 133 of the Constitution of India. The court sought to clarify whether this term refers to any question of law affecting the rights of parties or only to important or difficult questions of law. The court noted that the term "substantial" qualifies "question of law" and not the subject matter of the appeal. The court emphasized that a substantial question of law must be one of importance and difficulty or one in which there is reasonable doubt or difference of opinion. The court referenced the Judicial Committee's decision in Raghunath Prasad Singh v. Deputy Commr. of Partabgarh, which held that a substantial question of law does not mean a question of general importance but rather a substantial question of law between the parties.
2. Whether the decision on the admissibility of documents constitutes a substantial question of law:
The court examined the ruling in Mahadeva Royal v. Chikka Royal, where it was held that the non-admissibility of documents could be considered a substantial question of law if it substantially affects the rights of the parties. The court disagreed with this interpretation, stating that if this were correct, any question of law affecting the rights of the parties would automatically be deemed substantial, which is not the intended meaning under Article 133. The court reiterated that the term "substantial" implies that the question must have some substance, worth, or merit, and not merely affect the rights of the parties.
3. Criteria for granting leave to appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 133:
The court discussed the historical context and judicial interpretations of what constitutes a substantial question of law for granting leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. The court referenced several cases, including Moran v. Mittu Bibee and Gruran Duta v. Bam Ditta, to illustrate that a substantial question of law need not be of general importance but must be substantial between the parties involved. The court also noted that a question of law that is fairly arguable, one where there is room for difference of opinion, or one that requires detailed discussion, would qualify as a substantial question of law. Conversely, if the legal principles are well settled and the question merely involves their application to specific facts, it would not be considered substantial.
Conclusion:
The court concluded that any question of law affecting the rights of parties does not by itself constitute a substantial question of law. An important or difficult question would be substantial, but even if a question is not important or difficult, it would still be substantial if there is room for reasonable doubt or difference of opinion. The court dismissed the application, stating that the questions raised did not meet the criteria for a substantial question of law as defined.
Final Order:
The application was dismissed with costs, as the court found that the questions raised did not constitute substantial questions of law within the meaning of Article 133 of the Constitution of India.
-
1951 (3) TMI 24
Issues Involved:
1. Whether mens rea is necessary to constitute an offence under section 81 of the Defence of India Rules.
2. Liability of the appellant for the acts committed by his employees.
3. Interpretation of relevant clauses of the Motor Spirit Rationing Order, 1941.
Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Whether mens rea is necessary to constitute an offence under section 81 of the Defence of India Rules:
The core question in this appeal is whether mens rea (guilty mind) is necessary to constitute an offence under section 81 of the Defence of India Rules. The lower courts held that mens rea was not relevant to the offences with which the appellant was charged. They followed the view that if any breach of the rules is committed by either the proprietor or his servant, both are guilty irrespective of their knowledge of the breach. This view was challenged, and reference was made to the Privy Council's decision in Srinivas Mall Bairolia v. King Emperor, which stated that offences against the Defence of India Rules are not within the limited and exceptional class of offences that can be committed without a guilty mind. The Supreme Court agreed with this view, emphasizing that unless the statute clearly or by necessary implication rules out mens rea as a constituent part of a crime, a defendant should not be found guilty of an offence unless he has a guilty mind.
2. Liability of the appellant for the acts committed by his employees:
The appellant argued that he could not be held liable for the transgressions committed by his employees as he had issued strict instructions to them not to deviate from the rules. The lower courts, however, held him liable, stating that both the proprietor and his servant are guilty whether they had knowledge of the breach or not. The Supreme Court, referring to the Privy Council's decision, disagreed with this view. The Court held that the language of clause 22 of the Motor Spirit Rationing Order does not support the contention that an innocent master will be criminally liable for the acts of his servant. Therefore, the appellant could not be held guilty of the offence under clause 22 read with clause 5 of the Motor Spirit Rationing Order, 1941, as the clause is general in its language and is aimed at the individual person who contravenes the provision.
3. Interpretation of relevant clauses of the Motor Spirit Rationing Order, 1941:
The relevant clauses of the Motor Spirit Rationing Order, 1941, including clauses 5, 22, 27, and 27A, were analyzed. Clause 5 requires motor spirit to be furnished or acquired only against the surrender of valid coupons. Clause 22 prohibits furnishing or acquiring motor spirit otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the Order. Clause 27 prohibits the surrender or acceptance of coupons at a time other than when the supply of motor spirit is furnished. Clause 27A mandates that the supplier must endorse the registration or other identifying mark of the vehicle on the coupons. The Supreme Court held that the language of these clauses does not impose criminal liability on an innocent master for the acts of his servants. However, the Court upheld the conviction of the appellant for the third charge in the second case, which related to the infringement of clause 27A. The Court reasoned that clause 27A specifically throws the responsibility for making the necessary endorsements on the supplier, and if this clause is contravened, the supplier must be held guilty of the contravention.
Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed in part. The Supreme Court quashed the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant on the first charge in both cases, as mens rea was deemed necessary for these offences. However, the conviction and sentence on the third charge in the second case were affirmed, as the responsibility for making necessary endorsements under clause 27A falls directly on the supplier.
-
1951 (3) TMI 23
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the Government's order dated 5th December 1947.
2. Interpretation of Section 3 of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946.
3. Validity of the seizure order under Section 3(2)(j) of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946.
4. Whether obstruction of the execution of the order constitutes an offence under Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Legality of the Government's order dated 5th December 1947:
The appellant, General Manager of the Jagdishpur Zamindary Company, was prosecuted for obstructing officials in executing an order dated 5th December 1947, which directed the seizure of 5,000 maunds of sugar. The appellant contended that the order was illegal and void, arguing that the government lacked the authority under Section 3 of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946, to issue such an order. The court rejected this contention, holding that the order was valid and within the powers conferred by the Act.
2. Interpretation of Section 3 of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946:
The appellant argued that Section 3(1) of the Act only allowed for general rules or regulations and did not authorize ad hoc or special orders for specific individuals or entities. The court disagreed, stating that the term "notified order" is broad enough to include both general and special orders. The court emphasized that the power to regulate or prohibit production, distribution, and supply includes issuing specific directions to particular producers or dealers.
3. Validity of the seizure order under Section 3(2)(j) of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946:
The appellant argued that the seizure order was invalid because it did not meet the conditions specified in Section 3(2)(j), which requires a belief that a contravention of the order is about to occur. The court held that Section 3(2) is illustrative and not restrictive, meaning that the power to seize is inherent in Section 3(1). Therefore, the seizure order was valid even if the specific conditions of Section 3(2)(j) were not met.
4. Whether obstruction of the execution of the order constitutes an offence under Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code:
The appellant contended that since the order was illegal, obstructing its execution could not constitute an offence under Section 186 of the IPC. The court did not find it necessary to decide whether the act obstructed must be lawful for an offence under Section 186 to occur. Instead, it held that the seizure order was lawful, making the appellant's obstruction an offence under Section 186, even under the stricter interpretation of the provision by the Calcutta High Court.
The court's decision was supported by a precedent from the Privy Council in Sibnath Banerjee's case, which clarified that illustrative provisions in a statute do not restrict the general powers conferred by the main section.
Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed, affirming the conviction and sentence of the appellant for obstructing public officials in the execution of a lawful order. The appellant was ordered to surrender, and his bail bond was canceled.
-
1951 (3) TMI 22
Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 4A(a)(ii) of the Indian Income-tax Act regarding the definition of a resident in British India based on the maintenance of a dwelling place.
Analysis:
The case involved an assessee who was a businessman in Ceylon and usually resided there, but visited British India where his parents lived in a house owned by his mother. The dispute centered around whether the assessee could be considered a resident in British India based on the maintenance of a dwelling place in the Tinnevelly District. The Appellate Tribunal held that the assessee was a resident in British India, contrary to the decision of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.
The statutory provision under Section 4A(a)(ii) defines a resident in British India as an individual who maintains or has maintained a dwelling place in British India for a specified period. The Tribunal found that the assessee did not maintain a dwelling place as he had no legal right to occupy the house in Sathankulam, which belonged exclusively to his mother. However, the question arose whether the assessee had a dwelling place maintained for him at Sathankulam.
The court analyzed the concept of "has maintained for him" and concluded that it would cover a scenario where the assessee has a right to occupy a dwelling place during his stay in British India, even if the expenses are not met by him. The court distinguished between actual ownership or tenancy of a house and the right to occupy a place due to familial relationships. It cited examples of undivided Hindu families where a dwelling place is maintained for the members by the family manager.
The court considered precedents such as Loewenstein v. De Salis and Pickles v. Foulsham to understand the factors determining residence, emphasizing that the question is one of fact and degree. It noted the cultural differences in family arrangements between England and India, particularly in joint Hindu families and among Muslims. The court highlighted that the statutory definition of residence under Section 4A(a)(ii) must guide the determination of residency status.
Ultimately, the court held that the dwelling place in Sathankulam was maintained for the parents of the assessee, not for the assessee himself. The sporadic visits of the assessee and the absence of an establishment maintained for him led to the conclusion that the house did not constitute a dwelling place maintained for the assessee. Therefore, the court answered the question in the negative, ruling against the Commissioner of Income-tax and awarding costs to the assessee.
In conclusion, the judgment clarifies the interpretation of Section 4A(a)(ii) regarding the maintenance of a dwelling place for determining residency status in British India, emphasizing legal rights to occupy a place and familial arrangements as crucial factors in the analysis. The decision underscores the importance of statutory definitions and factual considerations in assessing residency for income tax purposes.
-
1951 (3) TMI 21
Issues:
Assessment of sales tax under Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1944 for the period from 1st April, 1945, to 31st March, 1946. Dismissal of appeal for default without deciding the question raised by the appellant. Interpretation of Sections 20 and 21(3) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act. Compliance with procedural rules under the Act.
Analysis:
The judgment by the High Court of Patna involved a case under Section 21(3) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act regarding the assessment of sales tax on an entity for a specific period. The appellant, dissatisfied with the dismissal of their appeal for default without addressing the raised question, moved the High Court for a decision on the legality of the dismissal. The key question referred was whether the dismissal of the appeal for default without deciding the raised question was in accordance with the law. The appellant argued that the Commissioner did not follow the prescribed rules under the Act in dismissing the appeal, as the appeal was not summarily rejected, but a date for hearing was fixed. The appellant contended that the Commissioner should have decided the appeal on its merits and provided reasons for confirming the assessment. The court referred to a similar case under the Income-tax Act and emphasized that a dismissal for default should involve a decision on the merits of the case, not just an order of dismissal. The court held that the Commissioner acted illegally by dismissing the appeal for default and confirming the assessment without providing reasons, thereby answering the referred question in the negative.
The judgment highlighted the importance of procedural compliance and the necessity for authorities to provide reasoned decisions, especially when dismissing appeals for default. It emphasized that a dismissal for default should entail a determination on the merits of the case, in line with the provisions of the relevant tax legislation. The court's interpretation of the term "determination" in Section 20(2) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act underscored the requirement for a substantive decision rather than a mere dismissal. The judgment serves as a precedent for ensuring fair treatment of appellants and upholding procedural fairness in tax assessment matters. Both judges, Ramaswami and Sarjoo Prosad, concurred on the decision, emphasizing the need for authorities to adhere to procedural rules and provide reasoned decisions in tax assessment appeals.
-
1951 (3) TMI 20
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the assessee was a dealer within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1944.
2. Whether the assessee was liable to pay sales tax for the quarters ending 31st December 1944 and 31st March 1945.
3. Whether the assessee was liable to pay any penalty.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Dealer Definition under Section 2(c):
The primary question was whether the assessee qualified as a dealer under Section 2(c) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1944. The assessee argued that the production of dehydrated meat was managed by a separate entity under a deed of partnership dated 23rd March 1944. However, the court found that this arrangement was merely administrative and did not alter the assessee's responsibility under the contract with the Government of India. The contract was signed by Messrs. Amin Brothers, who remained accountable for the supply of dehydrated meat. Thus, the court concluded that the assessee was indeed a dealer within the meaning of Section 2(c).
2. Liability to Pay Sales Tax:
The assessee contended that they were a labor contractor and not engaged in the sale of goods as defined under Section 2(g) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act. The Board of Revenue found that the assessee paid for the dressed meat and received payment from the Government of India for the dehydrated meat, indicating a sale transaction. The court agreed, noting that there was a transfer of property for valuable consideration, thus constituting a sale under Section 2(g). Furthermore, the court addressed the applicability of Section 4(2), which the assessee claimed exempted them from tax for the quarters in question. The court clarified that the liability arose under Section 4(1), which imposed tax on dealers with a gross turnover exceeding Rs. 5,000 in the preceding year. The assessee had been conducting business in Bihar prior to the period in question, making them liable under Section 4(1).
3. Penalty Imposition:
The assessee argued against the penalty, citing a bona fide belief that sales to the Government were exempt from tax, supported by correspondence between the Government of India and Bihar Government. The court found merit in this argument, noting that the assessee applied for registration promptly after being informed of the Bihar Government's decision. Additionally, a letter from the Sales Tax Officer indicated that meat was exempt from sales tax, further supporting the assessee's claim of no wilful default. Consequently, the court ruled that the penalty should not have been imposed.
Conclusion:
The court held that the assessee was a dealer under Section 2(c) and was liable to pay sales tax for the specified quarters. However, the imposition of a penalty was deemed unjustified due to the assessee's bona fide belief and prompt action upon clarification. The court ordered the assessee to pay costs for the reference, with a hearing fee of Rs. 250.
-
1951 (3) TMI 19
Issues Involved:
1. Legality and propriety of the method adopted by the Sales Tax Officer for determining the assessee's turnover for the quarter ending 30th September, 1945.
2. Legal justification for the finding that the average sale of the assessee was Rs. 8,000 per day.
Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Legality and Propriety of the Method Adopted by the Sales Tax Officer:
The first issue revolves around whether the Sales Tax Officer's method for determining the assessee's turnover was legal and proper. The Sales Tax Officer assessed the assessee under Section 10(2) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1944, on a total taxable turnover of Rs. 5,88,000 for the quarter ending 30th September, 1945. The assessee's appeal was rejected by the Commissioner of Sales Tax and subsequently by the Board of Revenue. The High Court was asked to determine the legality of the method used by the Sales Tax Officer.
The court noted that the Sales Tax Officer had jurisdiction under Section 10(3) of the Act, given his finding that the accounts produced by the assessee were not genuine. Section 13(2)(a) and (b) of the Act allows the Commissioner to require the presence of a registered dealer or the production of evidence if not satisfied with the returns. If the dealer fails to comply, Section 13(3) permits the Commissioner to assess the tax to the best of his judgment.
The court found that the Sales Tax Officer had exercised his discretion appropriately, given that the assessee had withheld genuine books of accounts and sought time to prepare a fresh set of incorrect accounts. The court emphasized that it was not within its purview to question the adequacy of the reasons given by the Sales Tax Officer for rejecting the returns. The Sales Tax Officer's decision was also affirmed by the Commissioner and the Board of Revenue, reinforcing the conclusion that the assessment was made to the best of his judgment, as mandated by the Act.
2. Legal Justification for the Finding of Average Sales of Rs. 8,000 per Day:
The second issue concerns whether there were legal materials to justify the finding that the average sale of the assessee was Rs. 8,000 per day. The Sales Tax Officer based his estimate on several observations, including his frequent visits to the dealer's shop, the shop's location, customer traffic, and stock levels. He also considered an estimate made by the Assistant Commissioner for the previous quarters.
The court noted that the determination of the quantity of sales is a question of fact, not law. The Sales Tax Officer's estimate, made to the best of his judgment, was deemed reasonable by both the court of appeal and the court of first revision. The court highlighted that an assessment under Section 10(3) is inherently arbitrary to some extent, as it is based on inadequate material. However, if made bona fide and to the best of the officer's judgment, the assessee has no grounds for complaint.
The court also addressed an argument by the assessee regarding the lack of notice under Section 10(2) of the Act. However, this issue was not part of the questions formulated for reference by the High Court, and no statement of the case was made by the Board of Revenue on this point. The court, therefore, declined to examine this argument, noting that the High Court's jurisdiction under Section 21 of the Act is limited to the questions of law duly raised in the statement of the case.
Conclusion:
The High Court answered both questions in the affirmative, upholding the method adopted by the Sales Tax Officer and the finding of average sales of Rs. 8,000 per day. The assessee was ordered to pay the costs of the reference, with a hearing fee of Rs. 250.
-
1951 (3) TMI 18
Issues:
1. Validity of the order of the Chief Commissioner to levy sales tax.
2. Legality of changes introduced in Schedule II of exemptions.
Analysis:
Validity of Chief Commissioner's Order:
The judgment addresses the legality of the Chief Commissioner's order to levy sales tax in Vindhya Pradesh. The applicants argued that the law under which the Chief Commissioner acted was not in operation on January 1, 1950. However, the court found that the Vindhya Pradesh Ordinance No. II, in force since January 10, 1949, continued to be law even after the state became a Part C State. The Ordinance required an administrative order for its operation, which the Chief Commissioner was authorized to issue. The judgment emphasized that the law coming into force does not necessarily mean it is operational, and the Chief Commissioner had the constitutional competence to enforce the Sales Tax Ordinance.
Legality of Changes in Schedule II:
The judgment also delves into the amendments made by the Sales Tax Commissioner to Schedule II of exemptions without following the prescribed procedure. The State Government, under Section 6(2), was required to notify proposed amendments in the Gazette and allow for public scrutiny before making changes. The court found that the amendments were made without proper notice and reconsideration, rendering them invalid under Section 6(2). Consequently, the court directed the opposite party to adhere to the original Schedule II and disregard the unauthorized amendments.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, the court upheld the enforcement of the sales tax but issued a mandamus to the opposite party to revert to the original Schedule II. The applicants' claims were largely dismissed, and they were ordered to pay costs to the opposite party. Application No.55 was summarily dismissed as per the judgment.
-
1951 (3) TMI 17
Issues:
Validity of tax assessment; Jurisdiction of criminal court to examine tax assessment; Interpretation of relevant sections of Mysore Sales Tax Act.
Analysis:
The judgment involves three Criminal Revision Petitions challenging tax assessments under the Mysore Sales Tax Act. The petitioners were assessed to taxes on their business turnovers and failed to pay, leading to their prosecution under Section 20(b) of the Act. The main issue was whether a criminal court can examine the validity of the tax assessments. The prosecution argued that civil courts are precluded from questioning assessments, and the same applies to criminal courts. The Magistrates in all cases convicted the petitioners, imposing fines and directing tax recovery as a fine.
The legal framework of the Mysore Sales Tax Act was analyzed. Sections 5 to 9 deal with licenses and exemptions, while Sections 10 and 11 cover dealer registration and tax collection. Section 12 outlines the assessment procedure, with provision for appeals and revisions under Sections 14 and 15. The Act provides for High Court references on legal questions under Section 16. Section 20 addresses offenses and penalties, with clause (b) imposing fines for failure to pay assessed taxes.
The judgment highlighted Section 22, barring civil courts from questioning assessments. Section 25 empowers the government to make rules, including provisional tax assessments under Rule 30. The court noted that the Assessing Officers followed due process in these cases, establishing a prima facie case for tax levies. The petitioners had avenues for challenging assessments through appeals or revisions but failed to do so, making the tax assessments final and enforceable.
The court referenced previous decisions, emphasizing that civil courts cannot question assessments, and by extension, neither can criminal courts. The judgment distinguished between "tax due" and "tax assessed," clarifying that the latter is the relevant term under the Mysore Act. It also addressed amendments to the Act and confirmed that criminal courts lack jurisdiction to question tax assessments. The court upheld the convictions but reduced the fine in one case, ultimately dismissing all petitions.
In conclusion, the judgment reaffirmed that criminal courts cannot delve into the validity of tax assessments under the Mysore Sales Tax Act. The petitioners' failure to challenge assessments through proper channels rendered the taxes payable, leading to convictions and fines. The court's decision underscored the statutory obligation to pay taxes and the limited scope of criminal court jurisdiction in tax matters.
-
1951 (3) TMI 16
Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement of promoters to special benefits under Article 100 in the absence of a declared dividend.
2. Claim of special benefits by promoters who have sold their shares.
3. Entitlement of legal representatives or assignees of deceased promoters to special benefits.
4. Procedure for dealing with shareholders whose whereabouts are unknown or who are deceased without legal representatives claiming their shares.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Entitlement of Promoters to Special Benefits Under Article 100:
The court examined whether promoters could claim special benefits under Article 100 of the company's articles of association without a declared dividend. The court below had held that promoters were entitled to these benefits even though the profits were from the sale of the entire estate, not from regular business operations. The High Court, however, found that the price realized from the sale of the estate could not be considered "profits" within the meaning of the articles and memorandum of association. The court noted that the articles of association did not provide for the distribution of assets post-liquidation, which meant the rules applied only while the company was functioning. Therefore, the promoters were not entitled to special benefits from the sale proceeds, which were considered capital, not profits.
2. Claim of Special Benefits by Promoters Who Have Sold Their Shares:
The court addressed whether promoters who had sold their shares could claim special benefits. The lower court had affirmed this entitlement. However, the High Court emphasized that the articles of association did not extend special benefits to promoters who no longer held shares at the time of claiming such benefits. The court ruled that the special benefits were tied to shareholding status, and once shares were sold, the entitlement to special benefits ceased.
3. Entitlement of Legal Representatives or Assignees of Deceased Promoters:
The question was whether legal representatives or assignees of deceased promoters could claim the same benefits. The lower court had answered affirmatively. The High Court supported this view, acknowledging that legal representatives or assignees could step into the shoes of the deceased promoters and claim any benefits that would have been due to the deceased, provided the benefits were valid under the articles of association.
4. Procedure for Dealing with Shareholders Whose Whereabouts Are Unknown or Who Are Deceased:
The court examined the procedure for handling cases involving shareholders whose whereabouts were unknown or who were deceased without their legal representatives coming forward. The lower court had directed that such amounts be deposited in the Anchal Savings Bank. The High Court modified this directive, stating that the liquidator should deposit unclaimed amounts in the court below to the credit of Company Petition No. 6 of 1120. These funds would then be remitted to the treasury as a Civil Court Deposit, allowing shareholders or their legal representatives to claim the amounts by applying to the court.
Conclusion:
The High Court allowed the appeals of the liquidator and the ordinary shareholder, ruling that the promoters were not entitled to special benefits from the sale proceeds, which were considered capital. The court directed that unclaimed funds be deposited in the court below and remitted to the treasury, ensuring that shareholders or their legal representatives could claim the amounts in due course. All parties were awarded costs from the assets in the hands of the liquidator.
-
1951 (3) TMI 13
Issues:
1. Adjournment of annual general meeting of a company.
2. Power of the Court to adjourn a meeting.
3. Interpretation of provisions of the Indian Companies Act regarding shareholder rights.
4. Effect of company's articles of association on shareholder voting rights.
5. Appeal against the order for adjournment and subsequent review application.
Detailed Analysis:
1. The judgment concerns the adjournment of the annual general meeting of a company, Hindustan Investment and Financial Trust Ltd, Madras, originally scheduled for 31st December, 1950. The appellant, a shareholder, filed an application seeking the appointment of an independent chairman for the meeting. The Court adjourned the meeting to 28th January, 1951, to accommodate this request. Subsequently, the managing director sought further adjournment due to a contempt application against the appellant's son, which was partially granted by the Court. However, the Court emphasized the importance of informing shareholders about the appointment of an independent chairman by issuing fresh notice.
2. The issue of the Court's power to adjourn the meeting was raised by the appellant, arguing that the Court had no authority to do so. The Court overruled this objection, stating that it was necessary to ensure shareholders were properly informed about the appointment of an independent chairman. The Court's decision to adjourn the meeting was based on the need for transparency and fair participation by all shareholders, as highlighted by the provisions of the Indian Companies Act.
3. The interpretation of section 79(1)(e) of the Indian Companies Act was a crucial aspect of the judgment. The Court held that this provision supersedes any conflicting clauses in the company's articles of association, emphasizing the equal rights of shareholders to participate and vote in meetings. The Court rejected the argument that the two-month registration requirement in the company's articles should override the statutory rights granted by the Act.
4. The judgment delved into the effect of the company's articles of association, particularly Article 48, on shareholder voting rights. The Court determined that shareholders listed on the register as of a specific date should be entitled to vote, regardless of subsequent adjournments. This decision aimed to prevent prejudice to shareholders and ensure that all eligible parties could exercise their voting rights at the adjourned meeting.
5. The appellant filed an appeal against the Court's decision to adjourn the meeting and subsequent review application. The Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the earlier order and adjourning the meeting to 1st April, 1951. The Court directed that only shareholders listed on the register as of 17th December, 1950, would be permitted to participate and vote at the rescheduled meeting. This decision aimed to uphold shareholder rights and prevent unfair treatment based on adjournments or procedural delays.
-
1951 (3) TMI 12
Issues Involved:
1. Transfer of Suit No. 56 of 1951 to the High Court.
2. Issuance of a temporary injunction against the defendants.
3. Allegations of fraud and conspiracy by the defendants.
4. Legality and validity of the proposed scheme under company law.
5. Bona fide nature of the plaintiff's litigation.
6. Impact of the proposed scheme on depositors and shareholders.
7. Internal management and jurisdiction of the Court.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Transfer of Suit No. 56 of 1951 to the High Court:
The plaintiff petitioned for the transfer of Suit No. 56 of 1951 from the Subordinate Judge's Court to the High Court. Both parties agreed that this was appropriate, and thus the Court ordered the transfer. The record was already present in the High Court, so it did not need to be sent back.
2. Issuance of a Temporary Injunction:
The plaintiff sought a temporary injunction to prevent the defendants from proceeding with the scheme pending the decision of the suit. The Court initially issued an ad interim injunction but later discharged it after hearing arguments. The Court imposed conditions on the discharge, including the requirement that the scheme be approved by the shareholders and the Reserve Bank, and that depositors should not be coerced.
3. Allegations of Fraud and Conspiracy:
The plaintiff alleged that Seth Ramkrishen Dalmia, in conspiracy with Mr. Yodh Raj, acquired control of the Punjab National Bank and planned to transfer valuable assets from the Bharat Bank to the Punjab National Bank at undervalued rates, thereby defrauding minority shareholders. However, the Court found no satisfactory evidence to prove that Dalmia had control over the Punjab National Bank or that the scheme was fraudulent. Affidavits from Dalmia and Yodh Raj denied these allegations, and the plaintiff's evidence was deemed insufficient.
4. Legality and Validity of the Proposed Scheme:
The plaintiff argued that the proposed scheme was ultra vires of the company and violated the memorandum and articles of association. The Court examined relevant clauses and sections, including Clause 3(r) of the memorandum of association, Article 135(19) of the articles of association, and Section 86H of the Indian Companies Act. The Court concluded that the scheme was not ultra vires and could be ratified by the shareholders. The Court cited precedents, including Dominion Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. v. George E. Amyot and Burland v. Earle, to support its decision.
5. Bona Fide Nature of the Plaintiff's Litigation:
The Court questioned the bona fide nature of the plaintiff's litigation, noting that the plaintiff was a resident of West Bengal with only twenty fully paid-up preference shares in the Bharat Bank. The litigation was being conducted by his attorney, Harbhagwan, and another brother, Shadi Lal, who was an ex-employee of the Bharat Bank. The Court suggested that the litigation might be motivated by personal vengeance or the interests of the Employees' Association, rather than genuine concern for the shareholders.
6. Impact of the Proposed Scheme on Depositors and Shareholders:
The Court considered the impact of the proposed scheme on depositors and shareholders. It noted that the relationship between a banker and a customer is that of debtor and creditor, not fiduciary. The Court found that the scheme, which involved transferring assets to the Punjab National Bank in exchange for assuming deposit liabilities, was not harmful to depositors and might benefit them. The Court also noted that the Bharat Bank was suffering losses and that the scheme was the best solution under the circumstances.
7. Internal Management and Jurisdiction of the Court:
The defendants argued that the matter was one of internal management and beyond the Court's jurisdiction. The Court acknowledged the principle that it should not interfere with the internal management of companies acting within their powers. However, it did not give a final opinion on this point, as it found that the intended scheme was not ultra vires or fraudulent and could be ratified by the shareholders.
Conclusion:
The Court discharged the temporary injunction subject to specific conditions, including shareholder approval and compliance with the Reserve Bank's directives. The case was transferred to the High Court for trial. The Court found no evidence of fraud, ruled that the scheme was not ultra vires, and questioned the bona fide nature of the plaintiff's litigation. The decision emphasized the importance of shareholder approval and the potential benefits of the scheme for depositors and shareholders.
-
1951 (2) TMI 27
Issues:
- Interpretation of Section 11(1)(a) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947.
- Jurisdiction of the House Controller in ordering eviction based on non-payment of rent.
- Applicability of the decision of the Controller and its challenge in a civil court.
Analysis:
1. The case involved an appeal from a judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Patna regarding the eviction of tenants by the appellants. The respondents, monthly tenants, had remitted rent that was in arrears, but the appellants claimed non-payment of rent, leading to eviction proceedings under Section 11(1)(a) of the Bihar Buildings Control Act, 1947.
2. The respondents deposited rent up to June after the appellants returned their initial payment. Despite this, the House Controller ordered eviction, upheld by the Commissioner. The respondents then filed a suit challenging the eviction order, which was initially dismissed but later decreed by the High Court, leading to the current appeal.
3. The main contention was whether there was actual non-payment of rent as required by the Act. The appellants argued that the rent was not paid when due, justifying eviction. The lower courts upheld the Controller's decision, stating that his jurisdiction was final and not subject to civil court review.
4. The High Court disagreed, emphasizing the Act's aim to prevent unjust evictions. It questioned the interpretation of non-payment of rent and the Controller's authority. It concluded that the Controller's decision could be challenged in a civil court, contrary to the lower courts' view.
5. The Supreme Court held that Section 11 was self-contained, empowering the Controller to decide on eviction conditions. Citing legal principles, it stated that if the Controller had jurisdiction to determine non-payment of rent, his decision could not be questioned in a civil court. The Court rejected the High Court's interpretation and reinstated the lower courts' decree in favor of the appellants.
-
1951 (2) TMI 26
Issues Involved:
1. Contempt of Court by publication.
2. Jurisdiction of Panchayati Adalat under U.P. Panchayat Raj Act.
3. Powers of High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Contempt of Court by Publication:
The judgment addresses an application for contempt against the opposite parties for publishing an article that allegedly interfered with the due course of justice. The article, published in the weekly paper 'Gramwasi,' contained statements about the applicant Sukhdeo, which were deemed to prejudice the fair trial of his case pending before the Panchayati Adalat. The court found that the publication of the article was calculated to incite prejudice against Sukhdeo, thus interfering with the due course of justice. The court cited several precedents, including Rex v. Parke and Rex v. Davies, to emphasize that publications which tend to prejudice the fair trial of a case amount to contempt of court. The court held that the publication of the article in 'Gramwasi' was similar to those publications found to be contemptuous in the cited cases.
2. Jurisdiction of Panchayati Adalat under U.P. Panchayat Raj Act:
The court examined the jurisdiction of the Panchayati Adalat under the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. It was noted that Panchayati Adalats have exclusive jurisdiction to try certain criminal cases, civil suits, and cases under the Land Revenue Act. However, the court found that the Panchayati Adalat had erroneously assumed jurisdiction over the complaints against Sukhdeo under Section 290 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.), which pertains to public nuisance. The court clarified that not issuing receipts to tenants does not amount to committing a public nuisance and that the Panchayati Adalat had no jurisdiction to try the case under Section 290, I.P.C. The court also noted that the Panchayati Adalat could not have jurisdiction over offences punishable under Section 239 of the United Provinces Tenancy Act, 1939, as it was not mentioned among the offences within its jurisdiction.
3. Powers of High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution:
The court discussed its powers of superintendence over subordinate courts under Article 227 of the Constitution. It was emphasized that the High Court has the authority to check the assumption or excess of jurisdiction by subordinate courts, including Panchayati Adalats. The court traced the historical development of the power of superintendence from English law and its application in India. The court concluded that Panchayati Adalats are judicially subordinate to the High Court and that the High Court has the power to ensure that they do not exceed their jurisdiction. The court also noted that the power of superintendence includes the authority to interfere with judicial orders of subordinate courts in cases of assumption or excess of jurisdiction.
Conclusion:
The court accepted the apologies tendered by the opposite parties and decided not to take severe action against them. The main responsibility was placed on the editor of 'Gramwasi,' who was ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the fee of the Government Advocate. The court found Brij Bhushan Misra guilty of contempt of court but, in view of his apology, passed no further order against him except for the payment of costs.
Judgment:
The court accepted the apologies of J. N. Wilson and Kedar Nath Tiwari and canceled the notice issued against them. Brij Bhushan Misra was found guilty of contempt of court but was only ordered to pay the costs of the applicant and the Government Advocate's fee.
-
1951 (2) TMI 25
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the declaration of evacuee property.
2. Validity of the declaration of intending evacuees.
3. Compliance with procedural requirements under the Ordinance.
4. Constitutionality of the Ordinance under Articles 14, 15, 19, and 31 of the Constitution.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of the Declaration of Evacuee Property:
The application was filed under Article 226(1) of the Constitution to issue a writ of certiorari to quash the orders passed by the Assistant Custodian of Evacuee Property, Madras. The Assistant Custodian declared M.E. Namazi an evacuee under Section 2(d)(i) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Ordinance (XXVII of 1949) and his one-fourth share in Messrs. Gani & Sons as evacuee property under Section 2(f) of the same Ordinance. The declaration was based on the fact that M.E. Namazi had migrated to Pakistan after 1-3-1947. The Court accepted the findings of the Assistant Custodian and found no error of law in his conclusions, affirming that the circumstances justified the declaration.
2. Validity of the Declaration of Intending Evacuees:
The Assistant Custodian declared Gani Namazi, M.B. Namazi, and M.I. Namazi as intending evacuees under Section 19 of the Ordinance. The declaration was based on the transfer of assets to Pakistan and the acquisition of property in Pakistan (Keale & Co.). The Court upheld the finding that the alleged dissolution of the partnership was a sham and that the assets of the partnership had been transferred to Pakistan, thus justifying the declaration of intending evacuees.
3. Compliance with Procedural Requirements under the Ordinance:
The applicant raised technical objections regarding the non-publication of the order in the Gazette and the repeal of the Ordinance by Act XXXI of 1950. The Court found that the declaration by the custodian was the important factor, and the non-publication did not affect the validity of the order. Section 58 of Act XXXI of 1950 ensured that actions taken under the repealed Ordinance remained valid.
4. Constitutionality of the Ordinance under Articles 14, 15, 19, and 31 of the Constitution:
The applicant contended that the Ordinance was void as it violated Articles 14, 15, 19, and 31 of the Constitution. The Court analyzed the provisions separately for evacuees and intending evacuees:
- Article 14 (Equality Before Law): The Court held that the provisions did not violate Article 14 as they were intended to safeguard the rights and interests of evacuees and did not amount to unjust discrimination.
- Article 15 (Prohibition of Discrimination): The Court found no discrimination based on religion as the Ordinance applied equally to all persons falling within its definitions, regardless of religion.
- Article 19 (Right to Property): The Court found that the restrictions imposed by Sections 20 and 21 of the Ordinance were reasonable in the interests of the general public. However, Section 20, which required the Custodian's approval for any transfer of property by intending evacuees, was deemed an unreasonable restriction on the right to dispose of property.
- Article 31 (Right to Property): The Court held that the Ordinance did not deprive evacuees of their property but rather provided for its administration and management. The Custodian acted as a statutory agent, and there was no violation of Article 31.
Conclusion:
The application was dismissed as the declarations of evacuee and intending evacuees were found to be valid and in compliance with the Ordinance. The Court granted a certificate under Article 132(1) of the Constitution, acknowledging that the case involved a question of law regarding the interpretation of the Constitution.
-
1951 (2) TMI 24
Issues:
Application under Section 45 of the Specific Relief Act and Constitution of India for writs in the nature of mandamus, prohibition, and certiorari to cancel notice of demand under Section 29 of the Indian Income-tax Act.
Analysis:
The petitioners, operating a business in co-partnership as Ladhuram Taparia, filed a petition seeking relief from the notice of demand issued by the respondent under the Indian Income-tax Act. The respondent assessed the firm for the year 1945-46 as an unregistered firm, adding income from other firms to the total income. The petitioners appealed against the assessment and the refusal to renew registration under Section 26A. The petitioners requested an extension of time for payment, which was denied by the respondent, leading to the petition to the court for relief.
The crux of the matter lies in the interpretation of Section 45 of the Indian Income-tax Act, which mandates payment specified in a notice of demand within the stipulated time. The petitioners argued that filing an appeal under Section 30 reopens the assessment, granting the appellate authority the power to make a new assessment. They cited English Income-tax Act provisions and relevant case law to support their contention that the Income-tax Officer's discretion under Section 45 should be exercised reasonably and judiciously, potentially becoming a duty under certain circumstances.
The court considered the substantial disparity between the assessed amount and the return filed by the petitioners, raising questions of fact and law regarding the constitution of the firms involved. The protective assessments made by the Income-tax Officer aimed to safeguard revenue interests. The court acknowledged the potential adverse impact of the heavy tax demand on the petitioners' business and the lack of definitiveness in the appeal's outcome. Consequently, the court found a duty on the respondent to refrain from enforcing tax payment and grant an extension until the appeal's disposal.
The Advocate-General contended that the discretionary power vested in public officers cannot be converted into a duty, emphasizing the need for interference only in cases of malafide exercise of discretion. However, the court found that in this instance, the discretion had become coupled with a duty due to the circumstances. Additionally, the court rejected the respondent's argument that there was no distinct demand to treat the petitioners as defaulters, highlighting the respondent's failure to respond to the petitioners' request for an extension of time, thereby denying justice to the petitioners.
In conclusion, the court allowed the petition in part, directing the respondent to refrain from enforcing the notice of demand until the appeal's resolution. The petitioners were awarded costs for the proceedings.
Judgment:
The petition was allowed, and the Rule was made absolute to the extent of directing the respondent to forbear from enforcing the notice of demand until the appeal's disposal. The petitioners were granted costs for the proceedings.
-
1951 (2) TMI 23
Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 28 of the Assam Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1939.
2. Application under Section 27 to set aside assessment order.
3. Refusal to state the case to the High Court.
4. Applicability of Privy Council's interpretation to Assam Agricultural Income-tax Act.
5. Rejection of the petition with costs.
Detailed Analysis:
1. The judgment involves an application under Section 28 of the Assam Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1939, challenging an order of the Member, Assam Board of Agricultural Income-tax, declining to state the case to the High Court. The petitioner sought to set aside the assessment order for the year 1943-44 under Section 27 of the Act, which was declined by the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, Assam. The Member of the Board also refused to state the case to the High Court, stating that no point of law arose from the Commissioner's order and it was not prejudicial to the petitioner as per Section 28(2) of the Act.
2. The judgment references the Privy Council's decision in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Tribune Trust, highlighting the interpretation of the term "prejudicial to the assessee." The court found the Privy Council's interpretation applicable to the Assam Agricultural Income-tax Act, emphasizing that an order must worsen the assessee's position to be considered prejudicial. The judgment notes the statutory effect of this interpretation in the Indian Income-tax Act and rejects the contention that the absence of a similar proviso in the Assam Act alters the interpretation under Section 28(2).
3. The court concluded that the refusal to interfere with the assessment order did not enhance the assessment or prejudice the petitioner, aligning with the Privy Council's interpretation. Therefore, the court declined to order the Assam Board of Agricultural Income-tax to state the case to the High Court. The petition was rejected, and costs were awarded. Justice Ram Labhaya concurred with the decision.
In summary, the judgment delves into the interpretation of Section 28 of the Assam Agricultural Income-tax Act, drawing parallels with the Privy Council's interpretation under the Indian Income-tax Act. It elucidates the criteria for an order to be considered prejudicial to the assessee and concludes by rejecting the petition and awarding costs.
-
1951 (2) TMI 22
Issues Involved:
1. Termination of tenancy and possession claim.
2. Oral agreement and mulgeni lease.
3. Applicability of Section 53-A, Transfer of Property Act (T.P. Act).
4. Supersession of document Ex. 18 by Ex. 19.
5. Definition and scope of "immovable property" under Section 53-A, T.P. Act.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Termination of Tenancy and Possession Claim:
The plaintiff claimed that the defendant was a chalgeni tenant and had terminated the tenancy on 20-12-1942, thereby entitling him to possession of the suit property and arrears of rent and costs. The lower courts dismissed the plaintiff's suit, and this dismissal was upheld through subsequent appeals.
2. Oral Agreement and Mulgeni Lease:
The defendant argued that there was an oral agreement between his deceased brother and the plaintiff to lease the suit properties at mulgeni, and that a written mulgeni agreement was executed on 22-2-1915. The courts found no evidence of such an oral agreement or that the defendant's brother migrated to cultivate the suit properties based on it. This finding of fact was confirmed by the appellate court.
3. Applicability of Section 53-A, Transfer of Property Act (T.P. Act):
The court of first instance held that the document Ex. 18 constituted a mulgeni lease of both bagayat and paddy lands, and the defendant was entitled to the benefit of the doctrine of part-performance under Section 53-A, T.P. Act. This was confirmed by the appellate courts. The primary contention was whether a lease, being a transfer of a partial right (right to enjoy the property), could be considered a transfer of property under Section 53-A. The court concluded that a lease is indeed a transfer of immovable property within the meaning of Section 53-A, T.P. Act, as it involves transferring an interest in the property.
4. Supersession of Document Ex. 18 by Ex. 19:
The appellant argued that document Ex. 18 was superseded by Ex. 19, executed on 23-2-1915, and thus there was no binding agreement regarding the paddy lands. The court found no evidence of any novation or new agreement that nullified Ex. 18. The court held that Ex. 18 continued to be operative in regard to the paddy lands, and possession taken under it could be used to plead part-performance under Section 53-A, T.P. Act.
5. Definition and Scope of "Immovable Property" under Section 53-A, T.P. Act:
The court examined the definition of "immovable property" under the T.P. Act and the General Clauses Act, concluding that it includes land and benefits arising out of land. It was determined that a lease, defined as a transfer of a right to enjoy property, is a transfer of an interest in immovable property. This interpretation was supported by various sections of the T.P. Act, which recognize the lessee's interest as an interest in the property. The court rejected the argument that Section 53-A does not apply to leases, citing precedents and legal commentaries that support the inclusion of leases within the scope of Section 53-A.
Conclusion:
The court upheld the decisions of the lower courts, confirming that the lease constituted a transfer of immovable property under Section 53-A, T.P. Act, and dismissed the Letters Patent appeal with costs.
....
|
9911796707
