|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 611 Records
-
1963 (9) TMI 71
Issues Involved:
1. Legitimacy of the appellate order of acquittal under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
2. Interpretation of wrongful restraint under Section 341 IPC.
3. Defect in the framing of the charge.
4. Assessment of whether the alleged wrongful restraint was prejudicial to the accused.
5. Examination of the evidence and findings of the trial court and appellate court.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Legitimacy of the appellate order of acquittal under Section 341 IPC:
The appellate order of acquittal passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge of Midnapore was challenged. The trial Magistrate had convicted the accused under Section 341 IPC and sentenced them to pay a fine of Rs. 25/- each, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two weeks. The appellate court set aside this conviction, leading to the present Rule being issued.
2. Interpretation of wrongful restraint under Section 341 IPC:
The prosecution alleged that the accused wrongfully restrained a bus and its passengers. The trial Magistrate held that restraining a bus, which is meant to convey passengers, constitutes wrongful restraint under Section 341 IPC. The appellate court, however, disagreed, stating that restraining a motor-bus does not equate to restraining a person as stipulated in Section 339 IPC. The appellate court's interpretation was challenged, arguing that obstructing a vehicle in which persons are traveling amounts to wrongful restraint of those persons.
3. Defect in the framing of the charge:
The appellate court found the charge defective, stating it was likely to cause prejudice to the accused. The charge mentioned restraining the bus rather than the passengers. The trial court, however, found no defect in the charge, as the true implication was understood, and the accused were not misled or prejudiced. The argument was made that even if there was a defect, it did not result in a failure of justice, as per Section 537 Clause (b) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
4. Assessment of whether the alleged wrongful restraint was prejudicial to the accused:
The appellate court held that the charge's defect caused prejudice to the accused, leading to their acquittal. The prosecution argued that the accused were not misled or prejudiced, as they understood the charge and defended themselves accordingly. The trial court's findings were based on clear evidence, and the accused's actions amounted to wrongful restraint of the passengers and crew of the bus.
5. Examination of the evidence and findings of the trial court and appellate court:
The trial court believed the prosecution's version and disbelieved the defense's version. The trial court found no case against some accused but convicted Nalini Manna and Kalipada Kulavi under Section 341 IPC. The appellate court did not disturb the trial court's findings of fact but held that the charge's defect and the interpretation of wrongful restraint warranted acquittal. The prosecution argued that the appellate court's reasons were erroneous and based on a misunderstanding of the law and evidence.
Conclusion:
The appellate court's acquittal was based on errors of law and imperfect application of evidence. The trial court's conviction was justified based on the evidence and interpretation of wrongful restraint. However, the order of acquittal was not set aside, as it did not result in a grave failure of justice. The Rule was discharged, and the appellate order of acquittal stood, despite being legally erroneous.
-
1963 (9) TMI 70
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the proportionate profits on the sale proceeds were received by or on behalf of the assessee-company in British India.
2. Determination of the place of receipt of cheques and hundis.
3. The role of the post office as an agent for the debtor or creditor.
4. The applicability of the Supreme Court's decision in Ogale Glass Works case.
5. The distinction between payment by cheque and payment by hundi.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Whether the proportionate profits on the sale proceeds were received by or on behalf of the assessee-company in British India:
The primary issue was whether the profits from the sale proceeds aggregating Rs. 9,53,304 for the assessment year 1941-42 and Rs. 6,04,588 for the assessment year 1942-43 were received by the assessee in British India. The Tribunal initially held that the amounts due on the cheques and hundis were collected by British Indian banks on behalf of the assessee and thus received in British India. However, the High Court later remanded the case to the Tribunal to determine where the cheques and hundis were actually received by the assessee.
2. Determination of the place of receipt of cheques and hundis:
The High Court emphasized that the real question was whether the cheques and hundis were received by the assessee in Petlad or British India. The Tribunal, after remand, found that there was an implied request by the assessee to British Indian buyers to remit the sale proceeds by cheques and hundis by post, thus constituting the post office as the agent of the assessee. This implied that the disputed amounts were received by the assessee in British India where the cheques and hundis were posted.
3. The role of the post office as an agent for the debtor or creditor:
The High Court referred to the Supreme Court's decisions in Ogale Glass Works Ltd., Patney and Co., and Shri Jagdish Mills Ltd. to determine the role of the post office. If the post office acted as the agent of the assessee, the cheques and hundis were received in British India. If it acted as the agent of the British Indian buyers, the cheques and hundis were received in Petlad. The Tribunal's supplemental statement indicated that the post office was the assessee's agent, leading to the conclusion that the amounts were received in British India.
4. The applicability of the Supreme Court's decision in Ogale Glass Works case:
The Supreme Court in Ogale Glass Works case held that if cheques are received as conditional payment and are not dishonoured, the payment relates back to the date of receipt of the cheques. This principle was applied to determine that the cheques and hundis received by the assessee constituted payment received at the time of their receipt, irrespective of their subsequent encashment.
5. The distinction between payment by cheque and payment by hundi:
The Advocate-General argued that the principle in Ogale Glass Works case did not apply to hundis. However, the High Court rejected this distinction, stating that both cheques and hundis are negotiable instruments and the same principle applies to both. Payment is deemed received when the negotiable instrument is delivered, whether it is a cheque or a hundi.
Conclusion:
The High Court concluded that the payments received by the assessee, whether by cheques or hundis, were received at the time of their delivery to the assessee and not when they were encashed. The contention that there was an implied request by the assessee to British Indian buyers to remit the sale proceeds by cheques and hundis through post was not supported by sufficient evidence. Therefore, the question referred to the High Court was answered in the negative, and the Commissioner was directed to pay the costs of the reference to the assessee.
-
1963 (9) TMI 69
Issues Involved:
1. Allegations of Mismanagement and Fraud by Directors and Managing Agent.
2. Financial Health and Solvency of the Company.
3. Validity and Motivation Behind the Winding Up Petition.
4. Role and Conduct of the Petitioner.
5. Just and Equitable Grounds for Winding Up.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Allegations of Mismanagement and Fraud by Directors and Managing Agent:
The petitioner alleged various instances of mismanagement, fraud, and misappropriation by the Directors and the Managing Agent. Specific charges included manipulation of accounts, wrongful acts, fraudulent means of taking money, and mismanagement leading to reduced profits. The petitioner argued that the Directors were under the complete control of the Managing Agent, who was involved in fraudulent activities. However, the court found that many of these charges were not substantiated with specific particulars, making them vague and insufficient to justify a winding-up order. The court noted that the petitioner, being a Director himself, had approved several resolutions and reports, which contradicted his allegations of mismanagement and fraud.
2. Financial Health and Solvency of the Company:
The petitioner contended that the company was commercially insolvent, citing unpaid income tax and dishonored cheques. The court examined the financial records and found that the company had been consistently profitable, with increasing sales and dividends paid to shareholders. The court also noted that the company had paid its income tax liabilities and had no significant debts or decrees against it. The court concluded that the company's financial health was robust, and there was no evidence of insolvency.
3. Validity and Motivation Behind the Winding Up Petition:
The court scrutinized the motivation behind the winding-up petition, noting that it was presented after a dispute regarding the company's publicity business. The petitioner was accused of using the winding-up petition as a means to pressure the company into giving him a larger share of the publicity business. The court found that the petition was not presented in good faith and was an abuse of the process of the court. The court emphasized that the petitioner's conduct, including his role in approving various resolutions and reports, demonstrated that the petition was filed for ulterior motives rather than genuine concerns about the company's management.
4. Role and Conduct of the Petitioner:
The court examined the petitioner's role and conduct as a Director. It was noted that the petitioner had been an active member of the Board, attending almost all meetings and approving various resolutions. The court found that the petitioner had played a significant role in shaping the company's policies and management decisions. His sudden allegations of mismanagement and fraud were inconsistent with his previous conduct and approvals. The court concluded that the petitioner could not be allowed to rely on charges that he had previously denied or approved.
5. Just and Equitable Grounds for Winding Up:
The court considered whether the circumstances justified a winding-up order on just and equitable grounds. The court emphasized that mere allegations of misconduct and mismanagement, without substantial evidence, were insufficient to warrant a winding-up order. The court also noted that the majority of shareholders supported the continuation of the company, as evidenced by the resolution passed at the extraordinary general meeting. The court concluded that the winding-up petition was not justified on just and equitable grounds, given the company's financial health, the petitioner's conduct, and the support of the majority of shareholders.
Conclusion:
The court held that the winding-up petition presented by the petitioner was a scandalous abuse of the process of the court. The petition was not presented in good faith and was motivated by ulterior purposes. The court ordered a stay of all further proceedings on the winding-up petition, including the publication of advertisements. Each party was directed to bear its own costs.
-
1963 (9) TMI 68
Issues Involved:
1. Whether loss incurred by a registered firm in speculative business is liable to be apportioned amongst the partners.
2. Whether a registered firm is entitled to carry forward speculative business losses and set them off against profits in subsequent years.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Apportionment of Speculative Business Losses:
The primary legal question was whether the loss incurred by a registered firm in speculative business should be apportioned among the partners or if the firm is entitled to carry it forward and set it off against future speculative profits. The court examined the interpretation of section 24 of the Income-tax Act, particularly focusing on the first and second provisos to section 24(1).
The court referred to the decision of the Bombay High Court in Keshavlal Premchand v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1957] 31 ITR 7, which held that speculative losses should not be taken into account except to the extent of profits from other speculative businesses. This interpretation was supported by other High Courts, including Madhya Pradesh, Punjab, Madras, Andhra Pradesh, and Calcutta.
The court concluded that speculative losses are not included in the total income of the firm for the purpose of apportionment among partners. Therefore, speculative losses cannot be apportioned among the partners under the second proviso to section 24(1).
2. Carry Forward and Set-Off of Speculative Losses:
The court analyzed whether the registered firm could carry forward speculative losses and set them off against future speculative profits. The court examined section 24(2) of the Income-tax Act, which allows for the carry forward of losses under certain conditions.
The court noted that section 24(2) applies to speculative losses, allowing them to be carried forward and set off against future speculative profits. This interpretation was consistent with the legislative amendments made to section 24(2) over time, which included speculative losses within its scope.
The court rejected the contention that speculative losses should be apportioned among partners under the second proviso to section 24(1), as this would contradict the main enactment of section 24(1) and the purpose of section 24(2).
Conclusion:
The court held that speculative losses incurred by a registered firm are not liable to be apportioned among the partners. Instead, the firm is entitled to carry forward these losses and set them off against future speculative profits. The court's interpretation harmonized the provisions of section 24(1) and section 24(2), ensuring that speculative losses are appropriately accounted for in the computation of taxable income. The court's decision was in line with the established legal principles and supported by precedents from various High Courts.
-
1963 (9) TMI 67
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty's notice for payment of estate duty.
2. Impact of the Salar Jung Estate (Administration) Regulation on the rights of heirs.
3. Applicability of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, to the estate of the late Nawab.
4. Whether the estate vested in the Salar Jung Estate Committee extinguished the heirs' rights.
5. Interpretation of relevant sections of the Estate Duty Act.
6. Analysis of precedents and their applicability to the present case.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty's Notice for Payment of Estate Duty:
The appellants challenged the notice issued by the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty for payment of estate duty on the estate of the late Nawab Salar Jung III. The court examined the applicability of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, and the relevant sections to determine the validity of the notice.
2. Impact of the Salar Jung Estate (Administration) Regulation on the Rights of Heirs:
The court analyzed the Salar Jung Estate (Administration) Regulation, which was promulgated to manage the estate of the late Nawab due to multiple claims by alleged heirs. The regulation vested the estate in the Salar Jung Estate Committee for administration and management. The court noted that the regulation aimed to preserve the estate for those ultimately entitled to it, rather than extinguishing the rights of the heirs.
3. Applicability of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, to the Estate of the Late Nawab:
The Estate Duty Act, 1953, imposes a duty on the principal value of all property passing on the death of a person. Section 6 of the Act states that property which the deceased was competent to dispose of shall be deemed to pass on their death. The court emphasized that the estate of the late Nawab, managed by the Salar Jung Estate Committee, still fell under the purview of the Estate Duty Act.
4. Whether the Estate Vested in the Salar Jung Estate Committee Extinguished the Heirs' Rights:
The appellants argued that the vesting of the estate in the committee extinguished the heirs' rights. The court, however, disagreed, stating that the vesting was for administrative purposes and did not defeat the heirs' rights. The committee's role was to manage the estate pending the determination of the rightful heirs, and the beneficial interest remained with the heirs.
5. Interpretation of Relevant Sections of the Estate Duty Act:
The court examined sections 5, 6, 3(1), and 2(16) of the Estate Duty Act. Section 5 imposes estate duty on property passing on death, section 6 deems property the deceased was competent to dispose of as passing on death, section 3(1) defines competence to dispose of property, and section 2(16) includes property passing after any interval. The court concluded that the estate of the late Nawab passed to the heirs upon their death, making it subject to estate duty.
6. Analysis of Precedents and Their Applicability to the Present Case:
The court reviewed several precedents, including In re Munster, Bank voor Handel en Scheepvaart v. Administration of Hungarian Property, and Clifton v. Strauss. These cases discussed the concept of beneficial ownership and the impact of statutory provisions on property rights. The court found that the principles from these cases supported the view that the heirs' rights were not extinguished but merely suspended during the committee's administration. The heirs could claim the estate once their rights were established.
Conclusion:
The court held that the department could validly assess the estate for estate duty, as the rights of the heirs were not extinguished by the regulation. The appeals were dismissed, and the judgment of the learned brother, which upheld the department's right to assess the estate for estate duty, was affirmed. The appellants were ordered to pay costs in W.A. No. 39 of 1961, with an advocate's fee of Rs. 250. Appeals dismissed.
-
1963 (9) TMI 66
Issues: Valuation of immovable properties for wealth tax assessment
Comprehensive Analysis:
1. Valuation Dispute:
The case involves a dispute over the valuation of immovable properties owned by an individual for wealth tax assessment. The assessee valued the properties at Rs. 51,270 based on an estimate by a retired municipal engineer, while the Wealth-tax Officer valued them at Rs. 81,620 by multiplying the net annual letting value by twenty times. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal upheld the department's valuation for consecutive assessment years.
2. Legal Perspective on Valuation:
The central issue revolves around the correct legal perspective for determining the market value of assets for wealth tax assessment. Section 7(1) of the Wealth-tax Act mandates that the value of any asset, other than cash, should be estimated based on the price it would fetch if sold in the open market on the valuation date. The duty of the Wealth-tax Officer is to determine the market value of the asset or property accurately, considering various factors such as nature, size, locality, and prevailing prices for similar assets.
3. Central Board Circular and Discretion:
The Central Board Circular provides guidelines for valuation, allowing the capital value to be determined by multiplying the reasonable annual value by a multiple, such as twenty times, only when other methods fail to ascertain the true market value. However, this method should be the last resort, not the primary approach. The department's misconception of blindly applying the twenty times rule without assessing the actual market value was highlighted as a flaw in the valuation process.
4. Judicial Approach to Valuation:
Courts emphasize that valuation is an art, not an exact science, and the estimate should reasonably approximate the market value. The assessing authority must make a genuine effort to determine the true net value assessable, without overvaluing the asset. The Tribunal's role is crucial in ensuring a fair valuation process, especially when the valuation is disputed by the assessee.
5. Tribunal's Discretion and Arbitration:
The Tribunal's discretion in referring valuation disputes to arbitration under section 24(6) was discussed. While the Tribunal must refer the question of valuation to two valuers if requested by the appellant, the existing provision lacks enforceability if the appellant fails to cooperate. The Tribunal was advised to ensure a proper determination of market price or direct further inquiry by the Wealth-tax Officer if necessary.
6. Conclusion:
The High Court ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that there was no proper determination of the net value of the properties in accordance with the Wealth-tax Act. The Tribunal was directed to either refer the matter to arbitration or remit it to the Wealth-tax Officer for a proper valuation. The judgment highlighted the importance of a judicial approach to valuation and adherence to statutory provisions in determining wealth tax assessments.
-
1963 (9) TMI 65
Issues:
1. Reliance on untested evidence in assessment proceedings.
2. Validity of adding undisclosed income based on untested evidence.
Analysis:
Issue 1: Reliance on untested evidence in assessment proceedings
The case involved the reassessment of an assessee under the Indian Income-tax Act based on information that the assessee had acquired properties in Ceylon during the accounting year but failed to disclose it. The key question was whether the Tribunal was entitled to use the statement of Solomon Nadar, a partner of the assessee, as material for adverse findings when the assessee was not given an opportunity to cross-examine him. The Tribunal initially remanded the proceedings to allow cross-examination but Solomon Nadar, a resident of Ceylon, did not appear despite multiple attempts. The Tribunal ultimately accepted Solomon Nadar's statement as true, leading to the addition of Rs. 24,000 to the assessee's income.
Issue 2: Validity of adding undisclosed income based on untested evidence
The Tribunal considered Solomon Nadar's statement as reliable, reasoning that it was against his own interest and therefore likely truthful. The court held that the Income-tax Officer, while not bound by the rules of evidence, must act in accordance with natural justice principles. The court emphasized that the assessee should be informed of any material against them to have an opportunity to refute it. In this case, the reassessment was primarily based on Solomon Nadar's statement, with no other supporting evidence. The court concluded that it was within the department's jurisdiction to accept Solomon Nadar's statement as proper material for assessment, and the court could not interfere with that decision.
In conclusion, the court answered the first question in favor of the department, allowing reliance on Solomon Nadar's untested statement, and the second question in the negative, upholding the addition of Rs. 24,000 to the assessee's income. The court highlighted the importance of natural justice in assessment proceedings and affirmed the department's discretion in evaluating evidence for tax assessments.
-
1963 (9) TMI 64
Issues Involved:
1. Claim for exemption under Section 4(3)(vi) of the Income-tax Act.
2. Claim for deduction under Section 7(2)(iii) of the Income-tax Act.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Claim for Exemption under Section 4(3)(vi):
The assessee, a chartered accountant residing in Ahmedabad, was appointed as a part-time professor of accountancy at M.J. College of Commerce, Bhavnagar. He incurred travel expenses amounting to Rs. 1,434 for commuting between Ahmedabad and Bhavnagar during the assessment year 1958-59. The assessee claimed this amount as an exemption under Section 4(3)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, which exempts any special allowance or benefit, not being in the nature of an entertainment allowance or other perquisite, specifically granted to meet expenses wholly and necessarily incurred in the performance of the duties of an office or employment of profit.
The court examined the conditions under Section 4(3)(vi) and concluded that no special allowance or benefit was specifically granted to the assessee to meet his travel expenses. The notification appointing the assessee mentioned a salary of Rs. 400 per month, inclusive of travelling and other allowances, but did not specify any amount for travelling allowance. The court interpreted this to mean that the salary was inclusive of all allowances and did not entitle the assessee to claim any separate travelling allowance. Therefore, the court held that the assessee could not rely on Section 4(3)(vi) for exemption.
Additionally, the court noted that the travel expenses were not incurred wholly and necessarily in the performance of the duties of the office. The duties of the part-time professor commenced when he started giving lectures at the college and ended upon their completion. The travel expenses were incurred because the assessee chose to live and practice in Ahmedabad and had to travel to Bhavnagar to perform his duties. Thus, the expenses were incurred partly before and partly after performing his duties, and could not be considered as expenses incurred in the performance of his duties.
The court supported its view by referring to the House of Lords' decision in Ricketts v. Colquhoun, which held that travel expenses incurred by a barrister for commuting between his residence and place of office could not be deducted as they were not incurred in the course of performing the duties of the office.
2. Claim for Deduction under Section 7(2)(iii):
The assessee alternatively claimed the travel expenses as a deduction under Section 7(2)(iii) of the Income-tax Act. This section allows for the deduction of any sum expended by the assessee, which he is required to incur by the conditions of his service, wholly, necessarily, and exclusively in the performance of his duties.
The court observed that Section 7(2)(iii) is a counterpart of Section 4(3)(vi) for cases where the income is assessable under the head "salary". Both sections require that the expenses must be wholly and necessarily incurred in the performance of the duties of the office. Additionally, Section 7(2)(iii) requires that the expenses must be incurred exclusively and be obligatory by the conditions of service.
The court found that the travel expenses did not satisfy either of these tests. Firstly, as previously discussed, the expenses were not incurred wholly and necessarily in the performance of the duties of the office. Secondly, the conditions of the assessee's service did not obligate him to incur these travel expenses. The expenses were incurred due to the assessee's choice to live and practice in Ahmedabad. If he had chosen to reside in Bhavnagar, he would not have incurred these expenses. Therefore, the expenses were not obligatory by the conditions of his service.
Conclusion:
The court answered the question in the negative, holding that the assessee's claims for exemption under Section 4(3)(vi) and deduction under Section 7(2)(iii) were not valid. The assessee was ordered to pay the costs of the reference to the Commissioner.
-
1963 (9) TMI 63
Issues Involved:
1. Whether a statutory tenant has the power to sub-let the premises.
2. The interpretation of Section 13(1)(e) and Section 14 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947.
3. The applicability of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act regarding lis pendens.
4. The effect of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control (Amendment) Ordinance, 1959 on sub-letting by statutory tenants.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Whether a statutory tenant has the power to sub-let the premises:
The court examined whether a statutory tenant, who remains in possession after the expiry of the lease, has the authority to sub-let the premises. The landlords contended that a statutory tenant has no interest in the premises and thus cannot sub-let. However, the court found that the Act contemplates a statutory tenant having the power to sub-let, as indicated by Section 13(1)(e). The term "tenant" in the Act includes both statutory and contractual tenants unless the context otherwise requires. The court noted that the Act creates rights in the tenant, such as the right to maintain an action for trespass, which implies an interest in the property sufficient to allow sub-letting.
2. Interpretation of Section 13(1)(e) and Section 14:
Section 13(1)(e) of the Act states that a landlord can recover possession if the tenant has unlawfully sub-let the premises. The court interpreted this section to include statutory tenants within its scope. The court rejected the landlords' argument that "tenant" in this section only refers to contractual tenants. The court also examined Section 14, which provides that a sub-tenant to whom the premises were lawfully sub-let before the commencement of the 1959 Ordinance shall be deemed to become the tenant of the landlord upon the determination of the interest of the original tenant. The court concluded that the sub-letting to the appellant was lawful under Section 14, as the sub-letting occurred before the 1959 Ordinance.
3. Applicability of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act:
The landlords argued that the sub-letting was affected by the principle of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. The court clarified that Section 52 does not make any transfer of property illegal but merely ensures that the rights of the decree-holder under the decree are not affected by the transfer. The court held that the sub-letting to the appellant was not unlawful or invalid under Section 52, as the appellant, being a lawful sub-tenant, was not bound by the decree obtained by the landlords against the original tenant.
4. Effect of the 1959 Ordinance on sub-letting by statutory tenants:
The court examined the impact of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control (Amendment) Ordinance, 1959, which amended Section 15 of the Act. The court found that the Ordinance validated certain sub-lettings by contractual tenants despite any prohibition in the original contract or the Act. However, the court concluded that the Ordinance did not affect the appellant's status as a lawful sub-tenant, as the sub-letting occurred before the Ordinance's commencement.
Conclusion:
The court allowed the appeal, holding that the appellant, as a lawful sub-tenant, became the direct tenant of the landlords under Section 14 of the Act. The statutory tenant had the power to sub-let the premises, and the sub-letting was not affected by the principle of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. The 1959 Ordinance did not invalidate the sub-letting to the appellant.
-
1963 (9) TMI 62
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act to applications for special leave to appeal under Section 417(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. Interpretation of Section 417(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure as a 'special law.'
3. Conflict of opinions among various High Courts regarding the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act:
The primary issue in this case was whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act, which allows for the condonation of delay, applies to applications for special leave to appeal from an order of acquittal under Section 417(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The appellant filed the application for special leave to appeal after the prescribed period of 60 days, arguing that the delay should be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. However, the High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply to such applications because Section 417(4) of the Code constitutes a 'special law' within the meaning of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act.
2. Interpretation of Section 417(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure:
The Supreme Court examined whether Section 417(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which prescribes a 60-day limitation period for filing an application for special leave to appeal, is a 'special law.' The Court concluded that Section 417(4) is indeed a 'special law' because it specifically lays down a period of limitation for a particular class of cases, distinguishing it from the general law of limitation. The Court noted that the Limitation Act is a general law, while Section 417(4) is a special provision within the Code that mandates a strict 60-day limitation period for filing such applications. Therefore, Section 5 of the Limitation Act, which allows for the extension of the limitation period, does not apply to applications under Section 417(3) of the Code.
3. Conflict of Opinions Among Various High Courts:
The judgment acknowledged the conflicting opinions among different High Courts on this issue. The Allahabad High Court, in the case of Mohammad Ibrahim v. Gopi Lal, had initially held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act did not apply to applications under Section 417(3) of the Code. However, this view was later overruled by a Full Bench of the same court in Rajjan Lal v. State, which held that the Code was not a special law and that Section 5 of the Limitation Act was applicable. Similarly, the High Courts of Andhra Pradesh and Madras had also taken the view that Section 5 of the Limitation Act applied to such applications. On the contrary, the Bombay High Court, in Anjanabai v. Yeshwantrao Daulatrao Dudhe, held that Section 417(4) of the Code was a 'special law' and that Section 5 of the Limitation Act did not apply.
The Supreme Court agreed with the view taken by the Bombay High Court and held that the provisions of Section 417(4) are a 'special law' within the meaning of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act. Consequently, Section 5 of the Limitation Act is inapplicable to applications for special leave to appeal under Section 417(3) of the Code.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Punjab High Court, concluding that Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply to applications for special leave to appeal under Section 417(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
-
1963 (9) TMI 61
Issues Involved:
1. Proper interpretation of clause 3 of the managing agency agreement dated August 2, 1950.
2. Whether the assessees were right in claiming the sum of Rs. 2,32,234 as depreciation for deducting that amount from the profits of the managed company while calculating the commission due to the assessees under the said managing agency agreement.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Interpretation of Clause 3 of the Managing Agency Agreement:
The court examined the proper interpretation of clause 3 of the managing agency agreement dated August 2, 1950, between the assessees and the Baroda Spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd. The clause stated that the company would pay the agents a commission of 4% on the sales of yarn and piece goods manufactured and sold by the company and 10% on the net profits from cotton ginning or any other work. It further provided that if the company could not distribute Rs. 58,390 as dividends in any year, the agents would accept a reduced commission up to one-third to cover the deficit.
The assessees argued that the minimum dividend guaranteed under clause 3 was for ordinary shares only, and the Tribunal erred in considering it for both ordinary and preference shares. They contended that the managed company should deduct Rs. 26,275 as dividend for preference shares before calculating the commission. The court rejected this argument, stating that the clause intended the Rs. 58,390 as a total minimum for both types of shares. The court emphasized that the managed company consistently aimed to pay at least 10% on its paid-up capital, and the agreement did not distinguish between ordinary and preference shares regarding the minimum dividend.
2. Claim of Rs. 2,32,234 as Depreciation:
The assessees claimed that the managed company was entitled to deduct Rs. 2,32,234 as depreciation from its profits for computing the commission payable under clause 3. The Tribunal allowed only Rs. 1,86,143, representing normal depreciation, rejecting the inclusion of initial and additional depreciation. The court held that the Tribunal erred by not distinguishing between depreciation for tax purposes and commercial depreciation. It stated that commercial depreciation, as shown in the balance sheet, should be considered for calculating divisible profits, not the statutory depreciation under the Income-tax Act.
However, the assessees did not provide the commercial depreciation figure from the balance sheet. The court concluded that without this information, it could not interfere with the Tribunal's allowance of Rs. 1,86,143 as depreciation.
Additional Contentions:
The assessees argued that their real income was Rs. 2,95,651, the amount actually received and debited by the managed company, and only this amount should be taxed. They cited the case of H.M. Kashiparekh and Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, where the court considered the real income after a bona fide surrender of commission. The court distinguished the present case, noting that the assessees consistently claimed they were entitled to Rs. 2,95,651 under the agreement, not that they surrendered a part of the commission for commercial expediency.
The assessees also contended that accepting Rs. 2,95,651 resulted in a modification of clause 3, amounting to novation. The court rejected this argument, stating that no consideration for such modification was pleaded or proved, and the case of novation was not put forward at any stage of the proceedings.
Conclusion:
The court answered the referred question in the affirmative, holding that the assessees were liable to be assessed on an additional amount of Rs. 56,784, in addition to the remuneration of Rs. 2,95,651. The assessees were ordered to pay the costs of the reference to the Commissioner.
-
1963 (9) TMI 60
Issues Involved:
1. Assessment of rent income under section 9 vs. section 10 of the Income-tax Act.
2. Allowance of depreciation on buildings.
3. Allowance of managing agents' remuneration under section 9.
4. Disallowance of interest payable to Greaves Cotton & Co. Ltd. under section 9(1)(iv).
5. Disallowance of interest paid to Karamchand Thapar & Bros. Ltd. under section 10(2)(iii).
Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: Assessment of Rent Income
The primary issue was whether the rent income of the company should be assessed under section 9 or section 10 of the Income-tax Act. The court concluded that the income from properties should be assessed under section 9, not section 10, as the buildings were not shown as stock-in-trade but under "Fixed Capital Expenditure." The court emphasized that income from property is a specific head of charge and must be taxed under section 9, which deals with the annual value of property. The court cited the principle that income specifically chargeable under one head cannot be taxed under another head, referencing the Supreme Court decision in United Commercial Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax.
Issue 2: Allowance of Depreciation
Given the decision on Issue 1, the court held that since the income from rents of house property is assessed under section 9, no depreciation allowance under section 10(2)(vi) could be granted. The court affirmed that the buildings were not used for business purposes but were fixed capital assets, thus no depreciation under section 10 was permissible.
Issue 3: Managing Agents' Remuneration
The court addressed whether the managing agents' remuneration should be allowed under section 9. The Income-tax Officer had disallowed the proportionate commission attributed to property income. The court upheld this, noting that the managing agents rendered services related to property management, and thus, the remuneration related to property income should be considered under section 9. The court affirmed that there is no provision under section 9 for deducting such remuneration, making it non-deductible.
Issue 4: Interest Payable to Greaves Cotton & Co. Ltd.
For the assessment years 1953-54 and 1954-55, the court examined the disallowance of interest payable to Greaves Cotton & Co. Ltd. The interest was paid on borrowed capital used for constructing a building whose income was exempt under section 4(3)(xii). The court held that the interest related to exempted property could not be deducted from the income of another property or the total income under the head "property." The court cited the principle that deductions must relate to the property generating the income, affirming the Tribunal's decision to disallow the interest deduction.
Issue 5: Interest Paid to Karamchand Thapar & Bros. Ltd.
In the assessment year 1955-56, the court considered the disallowance of interest paid to Karamchand Thapar & Bros. Ltd. The interest was on capital borrowed for buildings under construction, which had no income. The court found that part of the borrowed funds was used for business purposes, making the interest on that portion deductible under section 10(2)(iii). However, the interest on the portion used for property construction was not deductible. The Tribunal's decision to allow interest on Rs. 3,00,000 used for business and disallow interest on Rs. 13,00,000 used for property was upheld.
Conclusion:
1. Question 1: Yes, the rent income should be assessed under section 9, not section 10.
2. Question 2: Yes, no depreciation allowance is permissible under section 10.
3. Question 3: Yes, managing agents' remuneration related to property is not deductible under section 9.
4. Question 4: Yes, the interest payable to Greaves Cotton & Co. Ltd. is disallowed under section 9(1)(iv).
5. Question 5: Yes, the interest paid to Karamchand Thapar & Bros. Ltd. is justifiably disallowed under section 10(2)(iii).
The applicant was ordered to pay the costs to the respondent.
-
1963 (9) TMI 59
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the orders recalling the appellant from leave, placing him under suspension, and initiating an inquiry.
2. Allegation of mala fides by the Chief Minister in passing the impugned orders.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Legality of the Orders:
The appellant challenged the legality of three orders passed by the State Government:
- Recalling from Leave: The appellant argued that recalling him from leave was illegal as per the Service Rules. However, Rule 8.15 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules states, "Leave cannot be claimed as of right. When the exigencies of the public services so require, discretion to refuse or revoke leave of any description is reserved to the authority empowered to grant it." This indicates that the authority had the discretion to revoke leave.
- Placing Under Suspension: The appellant contended that a government servant on leave preparatory to retirement cannot be suspended. However, the Court held that a government servant remains in service until formally retired, and suspension is valid even if the officer is on leave.
- Initiating an Inquiry: The appellant argued that no formal charges were framed before the suspension. The Court clarified that suspension can precede formal charges and is valid if the government deems it necessary to investigate allegations of misconduct.
2. Allegation of Mala Fides:
The appellant alleged that the orders were passed due to personal hostility from the Chief Minister. The Court examined several incidents to determine if mala fides were established:
- Operation on the Chief Minister's Son: The appellant claimed he performed an operation on the Chief Minister's son, which was denied by the son. Tape-recorded conversations suggested an operation occurred, but the Court found no direct evidence linking the Chief Minister's hostility to this incident.
- Requests for Favours: The appellant presented documents showing recommendations from the Chief Minister and his family. The Court found no evidence that these requests were improper or that the appellant's refusal led to hostility.
- Supply of Medicines and Sewing Machines: The appellant provided postal receipts and tape-recorded conversations indicating he supplied medicines and sewing machines to the Chief Minister's family. The Court found this established a friendly relationship but did not prove subsequent hostility.
- Other Allegations: The appellant cited several other incidents, including the Chief Minister's dissatisfaction with his handling of a murder case and the Chief Minister's alleged demands for favours. The Court found these allegations insufficient to prove mala fides.
Conclusion:
The Court held that the orders recalling the appellant from leave, placing him under suspension, and initiating an inquiry were within the legal powers of the State Government. However, the Court found that the impugned orders were motivated by an improper purpose, i.e., personal vendetta by the Chief Minister, and thus were vitiated by mala fides. Consequently, the orders were set aside. The appeal was allowed, but no costs were awarded.
-
1963 (9) TMI 58
Issues Involved:
1. Allocation of cost for different assets.
2. Chargeability of surplus as revenue profit.
3. Valuation of trading assets and its impact on business income.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Allocation of Cost for Different Assets:
The primary issue was whether the Income-tax Officer was justified in making a fair and reasonable allocation of the cost of different assets for the purpose of ascertaining capital and revenue profit from the purchase transaction. The assessee, a limited company, purchased a factory as a going concern for Rs. 2,00,000, which was divided into two agreements: one for fixed assets and the other for sundry debts and liabilities. The Income-tax Officer treated the two agreements as a single transaction and allocated the total purchase price proportionately between fixed and trading assets based on their book values. This allocation was challenged by the assessee, who argued that the entire surplus resulting from the purchase should be regarded as capital profit, not revenue profit.
2. Chargeability of Surplus as Revenue Profit:
The second issue was whether the surplus resulting from the purchase of the factory could be considered revenue profit and thus chargeable to tax. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's contention that the surplus was capital profit and should be carried to the capital reserve account, not treated as revenue profit. The Tribunal held that no part of the surplus could be regarded as revenue profit, and therefore, the revenue authorities had no justification for making an artificial allocation of the price between fixed and trading assets.
3. Valuation of Trading Assets and Its Impact on Business Income:
The third issue was whether the business income shown by the assessee from the Ahmedabad factory for the year 1955-56 should be increased by the excess of the book value of stock-in-trade and work-in-progress over the cost actually paid by the assessee for them. The Income-tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner both disallowed portions of the value debited to the trading account, arguing that the trading assets forming part of the opening stock had been overvalued. The Tribunal, however, did not consider this aspect and focused instead on whether the surplus was revenue profit.
Judgment Summary:
The court concluded that the revenue was entitled to examine whether the opening stock was correctly valued and could apportion the price paid for the factory between capital assets and trading assets. However, the Tribunal had not considered this issue, and the question referred to the court was limited to whether the surplus was assessable as revenue profit. The court reframed the question to clarify that the difference between the book value of the assets and the price paid could not be regarded as revenue profit. The court's answer to the reframed question was in the negative, meaning that the difference was not assessable as revenue profit. The Commissioner was ordered to pay the costs of the reference to the assessee.
-
1963 (9) TMI 57
Issues:
Income-tax assessment under the proviso to section 13 of the Income-tax Act for the assessment years 1956-57 and 1957-58.
Detailed Analysis:
The case involved the income-tax assessment of a company for the assessment years 1956-57 and 1957-58, focusing on the profits from its cotton ginning mills. The Income-tax Officer added amounts to the profits, alleging discrepancies in the accounts. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld the additions due to the absence of a production register and doubts about the accuracy of the accounts. The Appellate Tribunal reduced the additions but dismissed the appeals. The company then approached the High Court under section 66(2) for consideration of the question framed regarding the legality of the assessment under the proviso to section 13.
The key issue revolved around the yield of ginned cotton per maund of raw cotton, which the Income-tax Officer found suspicious, leading to the additions in profits. The company argued that its accounts were regularly maintained and audited, and similar accounts were accepted in previous years. The court analyzed various precedents to determine the applicability of the proviso to section 13, emphasizing the need for a proper method of accounting for accurate profit computation. The court referred to cases like Pioneer Sports Ltd. and Pandit Bros. to establish the criteria for invoking the proviso based on defects in accounting methods.
The court highlighted that the absence of a production register detailing daily operations was a significant flaw, rendering the accounts unreliable. The judges cited Commissioner of Income-tax v. Sarangpur Cotton Manufacturing Co. Ltd. to emphasize the duty of the Income-tax Officer to ensure accurate income computation based on the method of accounting employed. Additionally, the court referenced the decision in S.N. Namasivayam Chettiar v. Commissioner of Income-tax to support the authorities' discretion in applying the proviso based on available evidence.
Ultimately, the court upheld the Income-tax Officer's decision to invoke the proviso to section 13, considering the discrepancies in the yield of ginned cotton and the absence of essential records. The judgment affirmed the additions to the profits made by the authorities, concluding that there was sufficient material to support the application of the proviso. Both judges concurred with the decision, answering the question in the affirmative and awarding costs to the Commissioner.
In conclusion, the judgment delved into the nuances of income-tax assessment under the proviso to section 13, emphasizing the importance of accurate accounting methods and the need for supporting records to validate profits. The court's detailed analysis of precedents and the specific circumstances of the case provided a comprehensive understanding of the legal principles applied in resolving the issues raised during the assessment process.
-
1963 (9) TMI 56
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 14(1) of the Limitation Act.
2. Exclusion of time for pendency of infructuous civil proceedings.
3. Interpretation of "prosecuting with due diligence" under Section 14(1).
4. Relevance of preparatory steps in computation of limitation period.
5. Judicial precedents and their applicability to the current case.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Applicability of Section 14(1) of the Limitation Act:
The primary issue was whether the consistent view that only the pendency of the infructuous revision should be excluded under Section 14(1) of the Limitation Act requires reconsideration. The court examined the history and purpose of Section 14, which allows for the exclusion of time spent in prosecuting another civil proceeding with due diligence in a court that is unable to entertain it due to jurisdictional defects or similar reasons.
2. Exclusion of Time for Pendency of Infructuous Civil Proceedings:
The court analyzed whether the entire period from the date of the adverse order to the date of disposal of the infructuous revision should be excluded. The defendants argued that only the period between the filing and disposal of the civil revision petition should be deducted. The court noted that judicial precedents, including those from the Calcutta High Court and the Privy Council, supported the exclusion of the entire period occupied by the litigation, including the time taken for preparatory steps.
3. Interpretation of "Prosecuting with Due Diligence" under Section 14(1):
The court emphasized that Section 14(1) intends to exclude the time during which the plaintiff has been prosecuting another civil proceeding with due diligence. The term "prosecuting" was interpreted broadly to include not just the actual pendency in court but also the time spent taking necessary steps to initiate the proceedings. The court held that the legislature used comprehensive words to cover the entire period of prosecution, including preparatory steps.
4. Relevance of Preparatory Steps in Computation of Limitation Period:
The court rejected the narrow interpretation that only the period of actual pendency in court should be excluded. It held that the time spent taking indispensable and necessary steps preparatory to initiating proceedings in court should also be regarded as time during which the plaintiff has been prosecuting the civil proceeding. This broader interpretation avoids anomalies and ensures that the time necessary for initiating proceedings is not unfairly included in the limitation period.
5. Judicial Precedents and Their Applicability to the Current Case:
The court reviewed various judicial precedents, including decisions from the Calcutta High Court, the Privy Council, and the Supreme Court, which supported the broader interpretation of Section 14. The court also examined earlier decisions from the Madras High Court, which had adopted a narrower view due to the absence of a fixed period for filing revision petitions. However, with the introduction of Rule 41-A(2) prescribing a 90-day period for civil revision petitions, the court found no justification for limiting the exclusion to the period of pendency alone.
Conclusion:
The court concluded that both on authority and on the language of Section 14, there is no scope for limiting its ambit to the pendency of infructuous proceedings in a court of law. The time taken for taking indispensable and preparatory steps to institute proceedings, which ultimately prove to be fruitless, should also be excluded. The question was answered accordingly, and the second appeal was referred back to the division bench for final disposal.
-
1963 (9) TMI 55
Issues Involved:
1. Justification of detention under Section 3(1) of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950.
2. Validity of detention order passed while the petitioner was already in jail custody.
3. Allegations of mala fide intention and vagueness of grounds for detention.
4. Right to make an effective representation against the detention order.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Justification of Detention under Section 3(1) of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950:
The main question raised was whether the order of detention served on the petitioner while he was in jail custody was justified under Section 3(1) of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950. The court noted that the District Magistrate, Burdwan, passed the detention order on February 9, 1963, to prevent the petitioner from acting in a manner prejudicial to public order. The grounds for detention included the petitioner's involvement in anti-social activities and disturbing public order. The court emphasized that the Act authorizes preventive detention without trial, thus its provisions must be strictly construed and all safeguards liberally interpreted. The court observed that the satisfaction of the detaining authority under Section 3(1)(a) is subjective and not justiciable in court. However, if the grounds for detention are irrelevant or vague, the detention order can be challenged.
2. Validity of Detention Order Passed While the Petitioner was Already in Jail Custody:
The court addressed whether a person already in jail custody can be served with a detention order. The court reasoned that the authority must be satisfied that the person would act in a prejudicial manner if not detained, which presupposes the person's freedom of action. The court found it irrational to conclude that a person in jail custody could act prejudicially, thus invalidating the detention order. The court distinguished between cases where the detention order is served just before the person's release from short-term imprisonment and cases where the person is serving a long-term sentence, emphasizing the need for proximity in time and rational connection between past conduct and the detention order.
3. Allegations of Mala Fide Intention and Vagueness of Grounds for Detention:
The petitioner's counsel argued that the detention order was mala fide, based on imaginary and non-existent grounds, and some grounds were vague and irrelevant. The court acknowledged that if the grounds for detention are irrelevant or vague, it could introduce a serious infirmity in the order. The court held that the satisfaction of the detaining authority, although subjective, could be challenged on grounds of mala fides if the grounds served on the detenu do not rationally support the conclusion drawn by the detaining authority.
4. Right to Make an Effective Representation Against the Detention Order:
The petitioner contended that he was denied the opportunity to make an effective representation to the Advisory Board, introducing an infirmity in the detention order. The court did not delve into this argument as it found the first contention regarding the justification of detention under Section 3(1) well-founded. The court emphasized that the detenu must be given a fair opportunity to make a representation against the detention order, and any defect in the communication of grounds could affect this right.
Conclusion:
The court concluded that the detention of the petitioner was not justified under Section 3(1)(a) of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, as the petitioner was already in jail custody and could not act in a prejudicial manner. The District Magistrate, Burdwan, acted outside his powers conferred by the Act. The court set aside the detention order and directed the petitioner's immediate release. The petition was allowed.
-
1963 (9) TMI 54
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of bye-law No. 3 and other relevant bye-laws framed by the Municipal Board of Tanda.
2. Whether the bye-laws are ultra vires the United Provinces Municipalities Act, 1916.
3. Consistency of the bye-laws with Section 241 of the Act.
4. The High Court's decision to convict the appellant under Section 299(1) of the Act.
5. Allegations of mala fide intentions behind the bye-laws.
6. Validity of the fee prescribed by bye-law 16.
7. Procedural issues regarding the publication and resolution of the bye-laws.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of bye-law No. 3 and other relevant bye-laws:
The appellant contended that the bye-laws, including bye-law 3(a), were invalid as they were outside the authority conferred on the Municipal Board by Section 298 of the Act. The Supreme Court examined the scheme of the bye-laws and noted that they were framed under Section 298 A(a), (b), (c), and (d) of the Act. The Court found that the bye-laws were sanctioned by the Commissioner as required by Section 301(2) of the Act. The Court held that the bye-laws, including the requirement for a licence to run a market, were valid and within the powers conferred by the Act.
2. Whether the bye-laws are ultra vires the United Provinces Municipalities Act, 1916:
The Supreme Court analyzed the relevant sections of the Act, particularly Sections 241 and 298. It concluded that the bye-laws were not ultra vires. The Court stated that Section 298(2)-F(d) and (dd) empowered the Board to make bye-laws for the establishment, regulation, and inspection of markets, including grain markets. The Court also noted that the general power conferred by Section 298(1) further supported the validity of the bye-laws.
3. Consistency of the bye-laws with Section 241 of the Act:
The appellant argued that the bye-laws were inconsistent with Section 241(1) of the Act. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that Section 241(1) did not apply to the appellant's market as it was not a market for the sale of fruits, vegetables, animals, meat, or fish intended for human food. The Court further held that even if Section 241(1) were applicable, the bye-laws would still be valid under Section 298(2)-F(d) and (dd).
4. The High Court's decision to convict the appellant under Section 299(1) of the Act:
The High Court had set aside the Tehsildar's order of acquittal and convicted the appellant under Section 299(1) of the Act for failing to obtain a licence for running a market. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, stating that the appellant's shops constituted a market within the meaning of bye-law 3(a) and that the appellant was obligated to obtain a licence.
5. Allegations of mala fide intentions behind the bye-laws:
The appellant claimed that the bye-laws were passed mala fide to target him specifically. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, noting that the appellant had not made appropriate allegations or provided evidence to prove mala fides during the trial. The Court emphasized that such a plea could not be raised for the first time on appeal.
6. Validity of the fee prescribed by bye-law 16:
The appellant argued that the fee of up to Rs. 1,000 prescribed by bye-law 16 was unreasonable. The Supreme Court dismissed this argument as premature, noting that no fee had yet been imposed on the appellant. The Court also highlighted that the fee would depend on the services rendered by the Board, making it impossible to assess its reasonableness in the abstract.
7. Procedural issues regarding the publication and resolution of the bye-laws:
The appellant contended that the bye-laws had not been published in the local paper as required by Section 94(3) of the Act and had not been made by a special resolution as required by Section 298(1). The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court that these were factual issues that should have been raised at the trial stage. The Court found no justification for allowing these pleas to be raised for the first time on appeal.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the validity of the bye-laws and the High Court's decision to convict the appellant. The Court found no merit in the appellant's arguments regarding the ultra vires nature of the bye-laws, their inconsistency with Section 241, allegations of mala fides, the reasonableness of the fee, and procedural issues. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the High Court's judgment.
-
1963 (9) TMI 53
Issues:
1. Whether the income of minor children of the assessee in a partnership-firm should be included in the assessee's individual capacity under section 64(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961?
Analysis:
The Supreme Court heard appeals arising from the Punjab and Haryana High Court's judgment on the inclusion of income of minor children in the assessee's individual capacity under section 64(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75. The assessee, a partner in a partnership-firm as the karta of a Hindu undivided family, objected to the Income-tax Officer's attempt to include the minor children's income in his. The Tribunal sided with the assessee, leading the Revenue to seek a reference under section 256(1), which was rejected. The High Court also denied the request, citing precedents from the Andhra Pradesh High Court and its own decisions. The Supreme Court referred to the decision in L. Hirday Narain v. ITO, which concluded that income of minors from a partnership-firm cannot be included in the father's income assessed as a Hindu undivided family. Given the conflicting High Court opinions and the unaltered law since 1976, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the decision in L. Hirday Narain. No costs were awarded.
In another appeal under section 64(1)(i), the Supreme Court dismissed the case following the same reasoning as in the previous appeals. Similarly, in an appeal under section 64(1)(ii) for the assessment years 1965-66 to 1967-68, where the father was a partner in the partnership-firm as the karta of the Hindu undivided family, the income of minors could not be included in the father's income. These appeals were also dismissed with no costs.
Additionally, a matter under section 64(1)(i) for the assessment years 1973-74 and 1975-76 found that the husband was a partner in the partnership-firm as the karta of the Hindu undivided family. Consistent with previous decisions, these appeals were dismissed without costs. Another appeal was listed for orders on a later date. The Supreme Court maintained a consistent stance across these appeals, emphasizing the principle that income of minors from a partnership-firm cannot be included in the father's income assessed as a Hindu undivided family, based on the decision in L. Hirday Narain v. ITO and the lack of compelling reasons to deviate from that precedent.
-
1963 (9) TMI 52
Notification made by the Government of Punjab on October 31, 1957 "de-confirming" the petitioners from permanent posts of Tahsildars and according to them the rank of officiating Tehsildars challenged
Held that:- We have already held that the respondents could not be validly confirmed as Tahsildars by the Financial Commissioner of PEPSU. Therefore, even though upon their allocation to the State of Punjab as from November 1, 1956, they were shown as confirmed Tahsildars, they could not in law be regarded as holding that status. Legally their status was only that of officiating Tahsildars. The notification in question in effect recognises only this as their status and cannot be said to have the effect of reducing them in rank by reason merely of correcting an earlier error. Article 311(2) does not, therefore, come into the picture at all.
As found in s. 116 of the States Re-organization Act, 1956, sub-section (1) thereof deals with the continuance of an officer in the same post. Sub-section (2), however, provides that nothing in the section shall be deemed to prevent a competent authority after the appointed day from passing in relation to any such person any order affecting his continuance in such post or office. This provision is thus wide enough to empower the successor Government, which would be the competent authority under the Act, to make the kind of notification with which we are concerned in this case. For all these reasons we hold that the high Court was in error in granting the writ petition to the respondents. Appeal allowed.
............
|
9911796707
