|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 361 to 380 of 611 Records
-
1963 (5) TMI 10
Whether the court would have been within its right to direct his name to be included in the register, even if the company was impleaded in the suit filed by, Sir Padampat against Reddy?
Held that:- We are however unable to grant the relief to the plaintiff in view of our finding that Reddy could not be compelled as constructive trustee to buy new shares in his own name for the cestui que trust and further in view of our finding that even if he could be compelled to acquire those shares in his own name for the cestui que trust he could not be said to have defaulted in his duty in carrying out the directions of the cestui que trust as in this case no proper and valid requisition was made by the cestui que trust on the trustee for the acquisition of those shares. The plaintiffs in the two suits are therefore not entitled to any relief.
For the reasons given above, we allow Reddy's appeal and dismiss the cross appeal of Sir Padampat as well as the receiver's appeal and dismiss both the suits, but in the circumstances of this case we will make no order as to costs in both the suits throughout.
-
1963 (5) TMI 2
Whether any proceedings for recovery of tax, lay against the successor to the assessee receivers, in the absence of any assessment on the owners of the firm?
Held that:- Bibhuti Bhusan Sen as one of the receivers was an assessee on whom assessment was made with respect to the income of the firm for the years 1945-46, 1950-51, 1951-52 and 1952-53. These are the assessments in respect of which the appellant now wishes to take proceedings for recovery of tax. As Bibhuti Bhusan Sen was an assessee on whom the assessments had been made, no question of any substitution of a receiver subsequently appointed arises now and it is unnecessary to consider the effect of sub-section (2) of section 41 of the Indian Income-tax Act. We accordingly allow the appeals and grant permission to the appellant to proceed against Bibhuti Bhusan Sen as receiver of the assets of the firm, Messrs. Sen Brothers and Co.
-
1963 (5) TMI 1
Issues:
Imposition of penalty under Rule 9 of Central Excise Rules, 1944 and duty on surreptitious removal of mustard oil from petitioner firm's mill.
Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the imposition of a penalty and excise duty on a petitioner firm for the alleged surreptitious removal of mustard oil from their mill. The Central Excise Department received information regarding incorrect accounts and unauthorized removal of dutiable oil. A search was conducted, resulting in the seizure of incriminating documents, including two Press Books. Discrepancies between the two Press Books led to the discovery of excess production of 77,620 Kgs of mustard oil, indicating clandestine removal without payment of duty.
The petitioner denied the charges and argued that the seized records were not authentic. During the hearing, the petitioner's lawyer contended that dismissed employees fabricated the incriminating Press Book to frame the firm. However, the Assistant Collector rejected the defense and imposed the duty and penalty.
The petitioner challenged the order in the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking relief through a writ of Certiorari. The petitioner's counsel raised three main points in support of the challenge. Firstly, they argued that the penalty was based on inference from the existence of two Press Books, which was unjustified. Secondly, they contended that the failure to produce witnesses who provided the initial information violated natural justice. Lastly, they claimed that the petitioner was denied the opportunity to cross-examine relevant individuals.
The Court analyzed the arguments sequentially. While acknowledging the lack of direct evidence, the Court upheld the inference drawn from the incriminating documents found in possession of the petitioner. The Court also noted that the penalty was not solely based on the initial information but on the materials discovered during the search. Regarding the denial of cross-examination, the Court observed that the petitioner withdrew the request during the hearing, negating the claim of a procedural violation.
Ultimately, the Court found no merit in the petitioner's challenge and dismissed the Rule with costs, emphasizing that the evidence from the seized documents justified the penalty and duty imposed on the petitioner firm.
-
1963 (4) TMI 109
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of the Kanpur Act to the acquisition process.
2. Necessity of compliance with Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act before issuing a notification under Section 6.
3. Validity of invoking Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act in conjunction with Section 17(1-A) for taking possession of land other than waste or arable land.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Applicability of the Kanpur Act to the Acquisition Process:
The appellant argued that the acquisition for Scheme No. XX should have been conducted under the Kanpur Act, specifically under Section 114, which modifies the Land Acquisition Act for acquisitions by the Board. The Supreme Court analyzed Sections 71, 108, 109, and 114 of the Kanpur Act and concluded that these sections apply when the Board itself decides to acquire land with the State Government's sanction. The Court stated, "It is only when the Board proceeds to acquire land by virtue of its powers under s. 71 that s. 114 comes into play." The acquisition in this case was by the Government for public purposes, thus the Kanpur Act did not apply. The Court held, "The contention therefore on behalf of the appellants that the Kanpur Act has not been complied with and therefore the proceedings for acquisition of land are bad has no force and must be rejected."
2. Necessity of Compliance with Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act Before Issuing a Notification Under Section 6:
The appellant contended that the Government could not issue a notification under Section 6 without first complying with Section 5-A, which provides the right to object to the acquisition. The Supreme Court examined the scheme of the Land Acquisition Act and emphasized the importance of Section 5-A, stating, "The right to file objections under s. 5-A is a substantial right when a person's property is being threatened with acquisition." The Court noted that Section 17(4) allows the Government to bypass Section 5-A only in cases of urgency involving waste or arable land. Since the land in question was not waste or arable, the invocation of Section 17(4) was invalid. Consequently, the notification under Section 6 issued without compliance with Section 5-A was deemed invalid. The Court concluded, "In consequence the notification under s. 6 also as it was issued without taking action under s. 5-A must fall."
3. Validity of Invoking Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act in Conjunction with Section 17(1-A) for Taking Possession of Land Other Than Waste or Arable Land:
The appellant argued that Section 17(4) could not apply to land other than waste or arable land, even though Section 17(1-A) (introduced by the U.P. Amendment Act) allows for taking possession of such land for planned development. The Supreme Court agreed with this argument, stating, "There has been no change by the U.P. Act in sub-s. (1) and therefore when sub-s. (4) speaks of any land to which sub-s. (1) applies it still refers only to waste or arable land and no other." The Court clarified that Section 17(1-A) accelerates possession-taking for non-waste or non-arable land but does not extend the applicability of Section 17(4) to such land. The Court held, "It cannot be said that power was conferred on the State Government to apply sub-s. (4) also to a case falling under sub-s. (1-A), simply by the introduction of sub-s. (1-A) in the form in which it was introduced in s. 17."
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the notification under Section 6 and the part of the notification under Section 4 that invoked Section 17(4). The Court stated, "The appeals must therefore be allowed and the notification under s. 6 and that part of the notification under s. 4, which says that the Governor was pleased to direct that under sub-s. (4) of s. 17, the provisions of s. 5-A shall not apply, are bad and are hereby set aside." The Court provided the appellants an opportunity to file objections under Section 5-A, and the Government could proceed with the acquisition following proper procedure. The appellants were awarded costs.
-
1963 (4) TMI 108
Issues Involved:
1. Validity and interpretation of Order 36 and Section 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).
2. Requirement for stating facts and specifying documents under Order 36, Rule 1(2) CPC.
3. Procedure for hearing and determination of a special case under Order 36, Rule 5 CPC.
4. Misunderstanding and misapplication of the relevant rules by the District Judge.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity and interpretation of Order 36 and Section 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC):
The appeal challenges the judgment and decree dated 21st March 1960 by the District Judge, Bangalore, in Original Suit No. 8 of 1958. The core issue is the interpretation of Section 90 and Order 36 of the CPC. Section 90 CPC empowers parties to state a case for the court's opinion, and the court must try and determine the case as prescribed. Order 36 outlines the trial and determination procedure. It was contended by the appellants that the District Judge misread and misunderstood these provisions, leading to the dismissal of their case.
2. Requirement for stating facts and specifying documents under Order 36, Rule 1(2) CPC:
Order 36, Rule 1(2) CPC mandates that every case stated must concisely state facts and specify documents necessary for the court to decide the question. The District Judge interpreted this to mean that all facts must be agreed upon by the parties, and no further investigation into facts was required. The appellants argued that this interpretation was incorrect and that the court should allow the parties to produce evidence to prove their respective cases.
3. Procedure for hearing and determination of a special case under Order 36, Rule 5 CPC:
Order 36, Rule 5 CPC provides that a special case should be set down for hearing as a suit instituted in the ordinary manner, and the provisions of the CPC apply to such suits. The District Judge held that the court should pronounce judgment based solely on the facts stated without further evidence. However, the appellants contended that Rule 5 requires the case to be heard and determined following the procedures in Order XVIII CPC, which includes the production of evidence by the parties.
4. Misunderstanding and misapplication of the relevant rules by the District Judge:
The District Judge's view that Rule 5 prohibits taking any evidence outside the stated facts was deemed erroneous. The court must follow the procedure prescribed by Order XVIII CPC, allowing parties to produce evidence. The learned Judge misunderstood the effect of Sub-rules (1) and (2) of Rule 1 and Rule 5 of Order 36 CPC. The judgment emphasized that the respective statements of fact made by the parties take the place of pleadings, and parties can prove their cases as put forward in the agreed statement.
Conclusion:
The High Court concluded that the learned District Judge erred in dismissing the case without following the procedure prescribed by Order XVIII CPC. The judgment and decree of the District Judge were set aside, and the case was remanded to the District Court for disposal according to law. The costs of the appeal will abide by the result of the case, and the institution fees were ordered to be refunded to the appellants.
-
1963 (4) TMI 107
Issues:
1. Petition under article 226 to quash assessment order.
2. Disallowance of carried forward loss by Income Tax Officer.
3. Interpretation of proviso in Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1960.
4. Contention on adjustment of unabsorbed development rebate.
5. Applicability of Explanations to development rebate.
6. Impact of proviso on development rebate for road transport vehicles.
7. Legal principles governing adjustment of development rebate.
8. Interpretation of section 24 in relation to business losses.
Detailed Analysis:
1. The petitioner filed a petition under article 226 seeking to quash the assessment order by the Second Income Tax Officer, Tirunelveli. The petitioner, a private limited company in the transport business, claimed a carried forward loss for the assessment year 1960-61, which included unabsorbed development rebate directed to be allowed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Income Tax Officer refused to allow the set-off of this loss, leading to a tax demand, causing financial hardship to the petitioner.
2. The department contended that the Income Tax Officer was justified in disallowing the unabsorbed development rebate from being carried forward based on a newly inserted proviso in the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1960. The department argued that the development rebate should retain a distinct character for future adjustments, raising the principal issue for determination.
3. The court rejected the department's argument that the petition under article 226 was an improper remedy, acknowledging the financial burden imposed on the petitioner due to the incorrect application of the law. The court admitted the petition, emphasizing the need for relief in such circumstances despite other appeal remedies being available.
4. The main contention revolved around whether the unabsorbed development rebate could be split from the carried forward loss and remain unadjusted in subsequent years. The department initially relied on an explanation to section 10(2)(vi) but later conceded its inapplicability. The court examined the distinct character of development rebate and its adjustment against profits in succeeding years.
5. Section 10(2)(vi), (via), and (vib) of the Income Tax Act dealt with depreciation and development rebate allowances for machinery and plant. The court clarified the application of Explanations 1 and 2, highlighting their relevance to machinery installed after specific dates and their inapplicability to machinery installed before December 31, 1957.
6. The Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1960, inserted a proviso denying development rebate for road transport vehicles. The court noted the prospective nature of the proviso and emphasized that it could not withdraw previously granted development rebates or extinguish unabsorbed development rebates.
7. The court rejected the department's argument that development rebate should be maintained as a distinct entity in succeeding years to prevent converting business profits into losses. The court emphasized that development rebate, once granted, constituted an allowance to be deducted from gross profits, and any resulting net loss was part of income computation without retaining the character of unabsorbed development rebate.
8. The court analyzed the interpretation of section 24 in relation to business losses, rejecting the department's contention that development rebate should be treated separately based on the principle of carrying forward unabsorbed amounts. The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, finding the assessment in violation of relevant provisions and allowing the petition while awarding costs to the petitioner.
-
1963 (4) TMI 106
Issues Involved:
1. Misjoinder of charges and persons
2. Irregular procedure in investigation and committal stages
3. Introduction of irrelevant evidence
4. Abuse of powers under Section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr. P.C.)
5. Admissibility and reliability of the approver's evidence
Detailed Analysis:
1. Misjoinder of Charges and Persons:
The High Court concluded that there was a misjoinder of charges and persons, asserting that the provisions of Section 239 of the Cr. P.C. were not applicable cumulatively and that the trial involved more than three offences of the same kind, violating Section 234. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that Section 239 allows for cumulative application of its clauses and is not subject to the limitations of Section 234. The Court emphasized that the object of Section 239 is to avoid multiplicity of trials and that the various clauses of Section 239 can be applied together. The Court held that the joint trial of the respondents was valid and that the charges were framed correctly under the provisions of Section 239.
2. Irregular Procedure in Investigation and Committal Stages:
The respondents argued that the procedure adopted during the investigation and committal stages was irregular. The Supreme Court did not find any substantial merit in this argument, noting that the respondents had not raised these objections at the appropriate time during the trial. The Court emphasized that procedural irregularities must be shown to have caused a failure of justice to be considered significant.
3. Introduction of Irrelevant Evidence:
The High Court had held that certain account books and other documents introduced by the prosecution were irrelevant and inadmissible. The Supreme Court clarified that entries in account books are relevant under Section 34 of the Evidence Act when they refer to a matter under inquiry. Additionally, the absence of entries in account books can be relevant under Section 11 of the Evidence Act, as it can be inconsistent with the prosecution's case. The Court also addressed the admissibility of untranslated account books, stating that the High Court erred in applying Section 356 (2A) of the Cr. P.C. to documentary evidence.
4. Abuse of Powers Under Section 342 of the Cr. P.C.:
The respondents contended that the examination under Section 342 was unfair, with long and involved questions and references to numerous documents not made available to them. The Supreme Court found that the questions, though lengthy, were understood and answered by the respondents, who also filed written statements addressing the points raised. The Court held that there was no abuse of power and that the respondents were not prejudiced in their defense.
5. Admissibility and Reliability of the Approver's Evidence:
The High Court had deemed the approver's evidence inadmissible due to an allegedly illegal pardon. The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the pardon, stating that Section 337 (1) of the Cr. P.C. applied to the offences in question. The Court also rejected the argument that the Additional District Magistrate was not empowered to grant the pardon, noting that the power to grant pardon had been conferred on executive magistrates, including the Additional District Magistrate (Independent). The Supreme Court emphasized that the evidence of the approver should be considered in conjunction with corroborative evidence and that the High Court should re-evaluate the evidence on its merits.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the acquittal of the respondents and remanded the case to the High Court for a fresh decision on the merits, considering the entire evidence and the specific charges. The Court instructed the High Court to focus on a few selected charges under each head, excluding conspiracy, to streamline the proceedings and ensure a thorough evaluation. The appeal was allowed, and the case was remanded for further consideration.
-
1963 (4) TMI 105
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of an arbitration agreement between an Indian company and a foreign entity.
2. Applicability of Section 389 of the Indian Companies Act, 1956.
3. Applicability of the Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act, 1937.
4. Interpretation of Section 47 of the Arbitration Act, 1940.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of an Arbitration Agreement Between an Indian Company and a Foreign Entity:
The primary issue was whether an agreement to refer future disputes to arbitration according to the rules of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) between an Indian company and a foreign entity is binding. The court examined the arbitration clause in the collaboration agreement and the relevant rules of the ICC. The High Court had previously held that the arbitration clause was invalid because it required arbitration outside the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1940, which was contrary to Section 389 of the Indian Companies Act, 1956.
2. Applicability of Section 389 of the Indian Companies Act, 1956:
Section 389(1) of the Indian Companies Act, 1956, states that a company may refer disputes to arbitration in accordance with the Arbitration Act, 1940. The High Court interpreted this to mean that any arbitration agreement obliging the company to submit to arbitration outside the Arbitration Act, 1940, was invalid. The Supreme Court, however, clarified that Section 389 is not merely an enabling provision but also regulates the company's power to enter into arbitration agreements, making it obligatory to follow the Arbitration Act, 1940.
3. Applicability of the Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act, 1937:
The court noted that the Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act, 1937, applies to international arbitration agreements and awards. Section 3 of this Act mandates that if a party to an arbitration agreement commences legal proceedings, the court must stay the proceedings unless the arbitration agreement is found to be inoperative or invalid. The Supreme Court emphasized that this Act applies to all arbitration agreements, including those involving companies, making the ICC arbitration agreement valid under this Act.
4. Interpretation of Section 47 of the Arbitration Act, 1940:
Section 47 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, states that the provisions of the Act apply to all arbitrations and proceedings thereunder, subject to any other law in force. The Supreme Court held that this section makes the provisions of the Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act, 1937, applicable to consensual arbitrations under the Arbitration Act, 1940, even if the arbitration scheme is inconsistent with Sections 3 to 38 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. This interpretation supports the validity of the ICC arbitration agreement under the Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act, 1937.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the arbitration agreement between the Indian company and the foreign entity was valid and enforceable under the Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act, 1937. The High Court's decision to refuse the stay of the suit was based on an incorrect interpretation of Section 389 of the Indian Companies Act, 1956, and the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The case was remanded to the Court of First Instance to be heard and disposed of according to law, with costs to abide the result of the proceedings in the trial court.
-
1963 (4) TMI 104
Issues Involved:
1. Professional misconduct by an Advocate.
2. Jurisdiction and procedure of the High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926.
3. Validity of the complaint and procedural irregularities.
4. Discretion of the High Court to proceed with professional misconduct proceedings versus criminal prosecution.
5. Credibility of evidence and witness testimony.
6. Severity of the punishment imposed.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Professional Misconduct by an Advocate:
The appellant, an Advocate, was charged with professional misconduct for not paying over a sum of Rs. 1,452/4/- to his clients after cashing a cheque on their behalf. Despite demands, the appellant falsely claimed to have paid the amount.
2. Jurisdiction and Procedure of the High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926:
The High Court's jurisdiction in cases of professional misconduct is neither civil nor criminal. It is a statutory power to ensure the highest standards of professional rectitude. The High Court's primary responsibility is to maintain professional discipline and co-operate with the judiciary in the administration of justice. The Supreme Court is reluctant to interfere with the High Court's orders unless there is a question of principle, violation of natural justice, or miscarriage of justice.
3. Validity of the Complaint and Procedural Irregularities:
The appellant argued that the Bar Council was not consulted before referring the case to the District Judge, which allegedly vitiated the proceedings. The Supreme Court noted that this objection was not raised earlier and presumed regularity in official acts. The appellant also contended that the complaint was not properly signed or verified. However, the Supreme Court found this objection frivolous, noting that the complainants signed and verified the petition before the District Judge, who attested their signatures.
4. Discretion of the High Court to Proceed with Professional Misconduct Proceedings versus Criminal Prosecution:
The appellant argued that the High Court should have left the complainants to prosecute him criminally rather than proceed under the Bar Councils Act. The Supreme Court clarified that proceedings under the Bar Councils Act aim to maintain professional standards, not to enforce criminal law. The High Court has the discretion to proceed with professional misconduct inquiries without awaiting the outcome of criminal proceedings, especially when the misconduct is related to the Advocate's duty to his clients.
5. Credibility of Evidence and Witness Testimony:
The appellant claimed that one of the plaintiffs, Kagga Veeraiah, admitted receiving the cheque proceeds. The High Court found that the person claiming to be Kagga Veeraiah was likely an impersonator, and even if he was genuine, his testimony was unreliable. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's assessment, noting that the witness's ignorance about the case details rendered his testimony untrustworthy.
6. Severity of the Punishment Imposed:
The appellant argued that the five-year suspension was too severe. The Supreme Court found this submission untenable, noting the gravity of the misconduct. The appellant had not only failed to return the clients' money but also put forward a false defense and suborned witnesses. The Supreme Court opined that even striking off the appellant's name from the roll of advocates would have been appropriate, and the High Court's order was lenient.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's judgment of professional misconduct and the five-year suspension from practice. The Court emphasized the importance of maintaining high professional standards and the Advocate's duty to both the court and clients.
-
1963 (4) TMI 103
Issues:
- Interpretation of section 67A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 regarding the exclusion of time required for obtaining certified copies of orders from the Appellate Tribunal.
- Application of section 67A in determining the timeliness of filing applications under section 66(1) of the Act.
- Comparison of section 67A with section 268 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
- Consideration of condoning delay in filing applications under section 66(1) under section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Analysis:
The judgment by the Assam High Court involved the interpretation of section 67A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, specifically regarding the exclusion of the time required for obtaining certified copies of orders from the Appellate Tribunal. The court considered whether the applicants were entitled to exclude the time needed to obtain certified copies of orders before filing applications under section 66(1) of the Act. The court noted that section 66(1) required applications to be filed within sixty days of receiving notice of the order under section 33(4) of the Act. The Tribunal had rejected the applications as being beyond the sixty-day limit, without considering the provision of section 67A, which allows for the exclusion of time required for obtaining a copy of the order.
Section 67A of the Act was analyzed by the court, which states that the time required for obtaining a copy of the order should be excluded in computing the period of limitation for an appeal or an application under the Act. The court emphasized the wide language of section 67A, allowing for the exclusion of time even if the copy of the order is not required to be filed along with the application. The court drew parallels with section 12(2) of the Indian Limitation Act, highlighting the importance of excluding time for obtaining copies for the appellant's ability to file an appeal promptly.
Furthermore, the court addressed the argument that the time required for obtaining a copy should not be excluded if the copy has already been supplied under section 33(4) of the Act. The court rejected this distinction, emphasizing the plain language of section 67A and the absence of any such limitation within the section itself. The court disagreed with a previous decision of the Punjab High Court, asserting that the benefit of section 67A should be available to an assessee regardless of whether a copy has been supplied under section 33(4).
The judgment also compared section 67A with section 268 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which replaced it. The court highlighted the differences in language between the two sections, particularly regarding the exclusion of time required for obtaining a copy if the copy has been furnished to the assessee. The court rejected the argument that the redrafting of the section in 1961 was to give effect to the decision of the Punjab High Court, emphasizing that if the benefit of excluding time was not available when a copy was given, there would have been no need to redraft the section.
Lastly, the court considered the issue of condoning the delay in filing applications under section 66(1) under section 5 of the Limitation Act. The court opined that even if the applications were filed beyond the stipulated time, the delay should be condoned in the circumstances of the case. The court directed the Tribunal to treat the applications as having been filed within time and to dispose of them accordingly, allowing the petitions with costs assessed for each rule.
-
1963 (4) TMI 102
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of Labour Court under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
2. Entitlement of respondents to special allowance under paragraph 164(b)(1) of the Sastry Award.
3. Interpretation of the term "Comptists" and its equivalence to "adding machine operators."
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Jurisdiction of Labour Court under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947:
The principal contention by the appellant was that the Labour Court exceeded its jurisdiction in entertaining the applications under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The appellant argued that Section 33C(2) could only be invoked for benefits that are admitted and not disputed. The court, however, held that Section 33C(2) is broad enough to include cases where the right to the benefit is disputed. The Labour Court has the jurisdiction to determine whether the workman has the right to receive the benefit claimed. The court emphasized that the opening clause of Section 33C(2) does not imply that the right must be admitted by the employer. The Labour Court can interpret the award or settlement to decide on the workman's right and then compute the benefit in terms of money.
2. Entitlement of respondents to special allowance under paragraph 164(b)(1) of the Sastry Award:
The respondents claimed a special allowance of Rs. 10 per month for operating adding machines, as provided under paragraph 164(b)(1) of the Sastry Award. The appellant contended that this allowance was meant only for "Comptists" and not for those operating adding machines. The court noted that the Labour Appellate Tribunal had equated adding machine operators with Comptists in the context of the Imperial Bank of India, but this equivalence was not binding on other banks. The court found that the Labour Court's basis for allowing the respondents' claim was erroneous. The court remanded the case to the Labour Court to allow the parties to amend their pleadings and lead evidence to prove whether the respondents' work could be classified as that of Comptists.
3. Interpretation of the term "Comptists" and its equivalence to "adding machine operators":
The court examined the Sastry Award and the Labour Appellate Tribunal's decision, noting that the term "Comptists" was used for employees requiring special qualifications or skill. The Imperial Bank of India had equated Comptists with adding machine operators and addressographers, but this was not universally applicable. The court emphasized that the nature of the duties and responsibilities should determine whether an employee could be classified as a Comptist. The court directed the Labour Court to ascertain if the respondents' duties and responsibilities were akin to those of Comptists and, if so, to determine their entitlement to the special allowance accordingly.
Conclusion:
The appeals were allowed, the orders of the Labour Court were set aside, and the matters were remanded to the Labour Court for disposal in accordance with the law. The Labour Court was directed to allow amendments to pleadings and to take evidence to determine if the respondents' work could be classified as that of Comptists, thereby entitling them to the special allowance. No order as to costs was made.
-
1963 (4) TMI 101
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court.
2. Validity and enforceability of the contract under Section 175(3) of the Government of India Act, 1935.
3. Applicability of Section 70 of the Indian Contract Act.
4. Alleged payment of the bills by the respondent.
5. Claim for compensation by the appellant.
6. Plea under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
7. Admission of the claim by the respondent.
8. Negligence and estoppel.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court:
The respondent did not press the issues concerning the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court, and therefore, no findings were recorded on these issues.
2. Validity and Enforceability of the Contract:
The trial court found that the contract on which the appellant based its claim was invalid and unenforceable because it did not comply with Section 175(3) of the Government of India Act, 1935. This finding was upheld by both judges in the Division Bench of the High Court, and it was concluded that the contract was void and unenforceable.
3. Applicability of Section 70 of the Indian Contract Act:
The trial court held that the respondent was bound to pay the appellant the amount claimed by way of compensation under Section 70 of the Indian Contract Act. This decision was challenged, and the Division Bench of the High Court had differing views. Bose J. held that Section 70 was inapplicable, while Mukarji J. found that the contract had been ratified but still dismissed the claim on other grounds. The Supreme Court, referring to a recent decision in the State of West Bengal v. M/S. B. K. Mondal & Sons, concluded that Section 70 would justify the claim made by the appellant.
4. Alleged Payment of the Bills:
The trial court found against the respondent on the issue of the alleged payment of the bills. The respondent claimed that payment had been made through an 'account payee' cheque, which was delivered to a person purporting to have authority to receive payment on behalf of the appellant. However, this was found to be part of a fraudulent scheme.
5. Claim for Compensation by the Appellant:
The trial court held that the respondent was bound to pay the appellant the amount claimed by way of compensation. This finding was crucial in deciding the fate of the suit, leading to a decree in favor of the appellant. The Supreme Court upheld this finding, concluding that the appellant was entitled to compensation under Section 70 of the Indian Contract Act.
6. Plea under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure:
The issue raised under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure was not pressed by the respondent, and therefore, no finding was recorded on this issue.
7. Admission of the Claim by the Respondent:
The trial court answered against the appellant on the issue of whether the respondent had admitted the claim. This finding was not central to the final decision.
8. Negligence and Estoppel:
The Division Bench of the High Court had differing views on negligence and estoppel. Mukarji J. held that the appellant was negligent in handling the intimation card, which led to the fraudulent encashment of the cheque, and thus, the appellant was estopped from claiming the amount. Bose J. did not entertain the plea of negligence. The Supreme Court, however, found that negligence was not properly pleaded in the trial court and that the broad principle of estoppel by negligence, as applied by Mukarji J., was not sustainable. The Supreme Court concluded that the appellant's alleged negligence did not create an estoppel against its claim.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the decree passed by the appellate court and restoring the trial court's decree in favor of the appellant, with costs throughout. The appellant was entitled to recover the claimed amount under Section 70 of the Indian Contract Act, and the plea of estoppel by negligence raised by the respondent was not upheld.
-
1963 (4) TMI 100
Issues Involved:
1. Whether a Hindu deity is assessable under the Income-tax Act as a unit of assessment.
2. Whether the dedication to a deity is always for public religious purposes and thus exempt under Section 4(3)(i) of the Income-tax Act.
3. Whether Section 41 of the Income-tax Act can be applied to shebaits of a Hindu deity.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Assessability of Hindu Deity under the Income-tax Act:
The question of whether a Hindu deity is assessable under the Income-tax Act was examined in detail. The court noted that the deity is treated as a juridical entity capable of owning property, and thus, the deity is liable to be taxed. The court referenced several cases and authorities to establish that the deity, though acting through human agency, is considered a legal person for the purposes of taxation. The court concluded that a Hindu deity is an artificial juridical person and can be assessed under the Income-tax Act.
2. Public Religious Purpose and Exemption under Section 4(3)(i):
The court examined whether the dedication to a deity is always for public religious purposes and thus exempt under Section 4(3)(i) of the Income-tax Act. It was argued that an absolute debutter (dedication) to a deity should be considered a public religious purpose, and therefore, the income derived from such property should be exempt from tax. The court considered the terms of the will and the nature of the dedication, concluding that the dedication in this case was for a private religious purpose, as it did not benefit the public at large. Therefore, the income was not exempt under Section 4(3)(i).
3. Applicability of Section 41 to Shebaits:
The court analyzed whether Section 41 of the Income-tax Act, which deals with the taxation of income received by courts of wards, administrators-general, official trustees, receivers, managers, and trustees, could be applied to shebaits of a Hindu deity. The court noted that while shebaits are not trustees in the English sense, they perform similar functions and have similar obligations. The court concluded that shebaits could be considered trustees within the meaning of Section 41, provided they are appointed under a trust declared by a duly executed instrument in writing, whether testamentary or otherwise. Therefore, the assessments on the shebaits under Section 41 were held to be in accordance with the law.
Conclusion:
The court answered the reference affirmatively, holding that the assessments on the deities through the shebaits under Section 41 of the Income-tax Act were in accordance with the law. The court emphasized that the shebaits, though not trustees in the technical sense, fall within the scope of Section 41 due to their obligations and duties akin to those of trustees. The court also clarified that the dedication in this case was for a private religious purpose, and thus, the income was not exempt under Section 4(3)(i).
-
1963 (4) TMI 99
Issues:
1. Determination of whether the appellant is the employer of the 21 workmen.
2. Interpretation of the definition of "employer" under the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
3. Examination of whether the workmen are entitled to the benefits of the Standing Orders regarding minimum wages.
Detailed Analysis:
1. The primary issue in this case was to determine whether the appellant was the employer of the 21 workmen involved. The Labour Court accepted the appellant's contention that the work of removal of press-mud was contracted to a third party, Banarsi Das, and that the workmen were employed by this contractor. However, the Labour Court held that based on the definition of "employer" in the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, the appellant was considered the legal employer of the workmen, entitling them to benefits such as minimum wages and reinstatement.
2. The interpretation of the definition of "employer" under the Act was crucial in establishing the appellant's liability as the employer of the workmen. The Act's definition stated that if the owner of an industry contracts with a person for work that is part of the industry, the owner becomes the employer. The Court dismissed the appellant's argument that this definition made the contractor the employer, emphasizing that the purpose was to prevent owners from evading the Act by using contractors. The Court concluded that the workmen were indeed under the appellant's employment based on the Act's definition.
3. Another significant issue was whether the workmen were entitled to the benefits of the Standing Orders, specifically regarding minimum wages. The Standing Orders defined "workmen" as those employed by a factory, leading to a debate on whether workmen employed by a contractor fell under this definition. The Court ruled that the Standing Orders' language was broad enough to include workmen employed by contractors, ensuring that all individuals engaged in the industry's work received the benefits outlined in the Orders.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Labour Court's decision regarding the employer-employee relationship and the entitlement of the workmen to benefits under the Standing Orders. The judgment clarified the definitions under the Act and the Standing Orders, emphasizing the protection of workmen's rights and preventing circumvention of labor laws through contractor arrangements.
-
1963 (4) TMI 98
Issues:
1. Right of a mortgagee to claim interim compensation amount deposited by the Government under the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948.
2. Interpretation of Sections 50(2), 44(1), 42, and 50(8) of the Act regarding the entitlement of the mortgagee to the compensation amount.
3. Application of Section 48 of the Civil Procedure Code in relation to the mortgage decree and limitation.
Analysis:
1. The appeals under Section 51(1) of the Act questioned the mortgagee's entitlement to the interim compensation amount deposited by the Government after taking over the estates. The Tribunal initially rejected the mortgagee's claim, stating that the interim compensation belonged to the landholder. However, the High Court disagreed, citing Section 50(2) of the Act, which mandates payment to various parties, including mortgagees under Section 44(1). The Court emphasized that the mortgagee's right to the compensation amount was clear under the Act's scheme, irrespective of prior attachments made by the mortgagee.
2. The Court further analyzed the provisions of Sections 44(1), 42, and 50 of the Act, along with relevant case law, to establish the mortgagee's right to the compensation amount. It highlighted that the Act empowers the Tribunal to distribute interim compensation among parties whose rights transferred to the Government, including mortgagees. The Court dismissed the Tribunal's view that prior attachments by the mortgagee affected the current claim, emphasizing the statutory rights conferred upon the mortgagee by the Act.
3. Regarding the application of Section 48 of the Civil Procedure Code, the Court clarified that the mortgagee's claim for the compensation amount was not barred by limitation. The Court differentiated between enforcing the statutory right to the compensation amount and executing the decree, stating that Section 48 did not apply in this context. Additionally, the Court addressed arguments related to Section 50(8) of the Act, emphasizing that interim payments were distinct from advance compensation and did not negate the mortgagee's entitlement to the compensation amount. The Court held in favor of the mortgagee, allowing the appeals and emphasizing the mortgagee's right to claim the compensation amount as per the Act.
-
1963 (4) TMI 97
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of assessments made under Section 20(4) of the Assam Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1939 without serving individual notices under Section 19(2) or initiating proceedings under Section 30.
2. Interpretation and application of Section 20(4) and Section 30 of the Assam Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1939.
3. Compliance with the procedural requirements under the Assam Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1939, specifically regarding the issuance of notices.
4. The impact of non-compliance with Section 20A regarding the discontinuance of business and the transfer of land.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of Assessments Made Under Section 20(4) Without Serving Individual Notices Under Section 19(2) or Initiating Proceedings Under Section 30:
The main contention by the petitioners was that no best judgment assessment under Section 20(4) could be made without serving an individual notice under Section 19(2) or initiating proceedings under Section 30. It was argued that the assessment could only proceed after due notice under Section 19(2) or by initiating proceedings under Section 30 if no such notice was served. The court found that in the absence of individual notices under Section 19(2) or proceedings under Section 30, the assessments made under Section 20(4) were without jurisdiction and thus invalid.
2. Interpretation and Application of Section 20(4) and Section 30 of the Assam Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1939:
The court examined the provisions of Sections 19, 20, and 30 to determine the proper procedure for making assessments. Section 19(2) requires an individual notice to be served in the financial year, and if no such notice is served, proceedings under Section 30 can be initiated within three years. The court held that Section 20(4) could not be invoked without complying with the notice requirements of Section 19(2) or Section 30. The court emphasized that Section 20(4) is a penal provision and can only be invoked if the assessee fails to file a return after being served with a notice under Section 19(2).
3. Compliance with Procedural Requirements Under the Assam Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1939:
The court found that the procedural requirements under the Act were not followed. The petitioners alleged that they were not served with any notices under Section 19(2) or Section 30, and the court found no evidence to show that such notices were issued or refused by the petitioners. The court noted that the dates of the alleged notices were not mentioned in the counter-affidavit, and no explanation was given for not supplying certified copies of the notices to the petitioners. Consequently, the court held that the assessments made under Section 20(4) were illegal due to non-compliance with the procedural requirements.
4. Impact of Non-Compliance with Section 20A Regarding the Discontinuance of Business and Transfer of Land:
The court addressed the contention that Section 20A cast an obligation on the petitioners to inform the Agricultural Income-tax Officer of the discontinuance of their business. The court clarified that Section 20A applies to the discontinuance of business by a firm or association of individuals, not to the transfer of land. Since the petitioners had transferred the land, they ceased to have any agricultural income from the date of transfer, and no obligation under Section 20A was cast upon them to inform the Agricultural Income-tax Officer of the transfer.
Judgment:
The court concluded that the assessments made under Section 20(4) without serving individual notices under Section 19(2) or initiating proceedings under Section 30 were illegal. The court issued a mandamus directing the opposite parties not to give effect to the ex parte assessments made under Section 20(4) of the Act. The applications were allowed with costs fixed at Rs. 200, with each set receiving Rs. 100.
Separate Judgment by Dutta, J.:
Dutta, J. agreed with the Chief Justice that the assessments were illegal and that a mandamus should issue. He provided additional reasoning, emphasizing that assessment proceedings do not commence with the public notice under Section 19(1) but require an individual notice under Section 19(2) or proceedings under Section 30 after the financial year ends. He reiterated that Section 30 introduces a time limit for making assessments and that the assessments in the present cases were illegal due to non-compliance with the notice requirements.
-
1963 (4) TMI 96
Issues Involved:
1. Taxability of profit from the sale of gold.
2. Assessability of rent from houses forming part of impartible property.
3. Taxability of profit from the sale of shares and securities.
Comprehensive Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Taxability of Profit from the Sale of Gold:
M.J.C. 342:
- Question: Whether the receipt of Rs. 13,43,469 from the sale of gold is taxable as income, profits, and gains for the assessment year 1945-46?
- Analysis: The court examined the intention behind the purchase and sale of gold. The assessee claimed the gold was bought for safety during wartime and sold due to pressing necessities. However, the Tribunal found inconsistencies in the assessee's explanation, noting that large sums were still kept in banks and cash. The Tribunal concluded that the gold was sold for profit, not due to pressing necessities, as the assessee's conduct indicated a profit motive. The court upheld the Tribunal's finding, stating it was based on reasonable evidence and thus, the profit from the sale of gold was taxable.
M.J.C. 346:
- Question: Whether the receipt of Rs. 33,481 from the sale of gold is taxable as income, profits, and gains for the assessment year 1946-47?
- Analysis: Similar to M.J.C. 342, the court found that the sale of gold was driven by a profit motive rather than pressing necessities. The Tribunal's finding was based on the frequency and timing of transactions, indicating a business activity. The court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, making the profit from the sale of gold taxable.
2. Assessability of Rent from Houses Forming Part of Impartible Property:
M.J.C. 342 and M.J.C. 346:
- Question: Whether the amount of rent for houses forming part of the impartible property is assessable in the hands of the assessee?
- Analysis: The Tribunal and income-tax authorities held that the rent from houses was taxable. The assessee did not present any argument to challenge this decision. The court, therefore, affirmed the Tribunal's decision, making the rent assessable in the hands of the assessee.
3. Taxability of Profit from the Sale of Shares and Securities:
M.J.C. 346:
- Question: Whether the amount of Rs. 88,522 received as profit from the sale of shares and securities is liable to be taxed?
- Analysis: The court examined the assessee's claim that the shares were bought to gain control over a company, not for trading. However, the Tribunal found that the frequency and nature of transactions indicated a business activity. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had borrowed money to purchase shares, further supporting the business motive. The court upheld the Tribunal's finding, stating it was based on substantial evidence, making the profit from the sale of shares taxable.
Conclusion:
All the questions in both cases were answered in the affirmative, in favor of the department and against the assessee. The court upheld the Tribunal's findings that the transactions in question were driven by a profit motive and constituted business activities, thus making the profits taxable. The assessee was ordered to pay the costs to the department, with a consolidated hearing fee of Rs. 250 in both cases.
-
1963 (4) TMI 95
Issues Involved:
1. Determination of the true legal character of the document Ex. A-I.
2. Whether Ex. A-I is a mutual reciprocal Will or a joint Will.
3. The validity of the revocation of Ex. A-I by Perumal through Ex. B-I.
4. Whether Ex. A-I can be considered a family arrangement.
5. The effect of the Hindu Law of coparcenary estate and survivorship on Ex. A-I.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Determination of the true legal character of the document Ex. A-I:
The main question in dispute is the determination of the true legal character of the document Ex. A-I and the proper interpretation of its terms. The plaintiffs argued that Ex. A-I is a mutual reciprocal Will, which is irrevocable and represents a family arrangement between the two brothers, Perumal and Chinnappa. The defendants contended that Ex. A-I was a joint Will, revocable by either testator during their lifetime or even after the death of one of them, and that Perumal had executed a registered Will, Ex. B-I, canceling the earlier Will.
2. Whether Ex. A-I is a mutual reciprocal Will or a joint Will:
The Court analyzed the law relating to joint and mutual Wills, referencing Halsbury's Laws of England and various case laws. It was established that a joint Will is a single testamentary instrument executed by two or more persons, while mutual Wills are separate Wills with reciprocal provisions executed in pursuance of an agreement between the testators. The Court concluded that Ex. A-I is a mutual reciprocal Will, based on the language and scheme of the document, which indicated a mutual exchange of ideas and a bilateral agreement between the brothers.
3. The validity of the revocation of Ex. A-I by Perumal through Ex. B-I:
The Court held that Ex. A-I was irrevocable after the death of Chinnappa because Perumal had derived benefits under the mutual Will. The clause in Ex. A-I stating "we are entitled to revoke or alter the Will during our lifetime" was interpreted to mean revocation or alteration during the lifetime of both testators. The Court found it inequitable and unjust to allow the surviving brother to revoke the mutual arrangement unilaterally. Therefore, the revocation of Ex. A-I by Perumal through Ex. B-I was invalid.
4. Whether Ex. A-I can be considered a family arrangement:
The Court considered whether Ex. A-I could be upheld as a family arrangement. It was noted that under Hindu law, it is not competent for a member of a joint family to execute a Will in regard to his share in the joint family properties unless all coparceners agree. The Court concluded that Ex. A-I was a bona fide family arrangement, as it was executed with mutual consent and consideration, and was intended to prevent disputes regarding the properties after the brothers' deaths.
5. The effect of the Hindu Law of coparcenary estate and survivorship on Ex. A-I:
The defendants argued that the properties dealt with under Ex. A-I were joint family properties and that Perumal became entitled to them by survivorship upon Chinnappa's death. The Court rejected this contention, stating that the mutual arrangement in Ex. A-I severed the joint tenancy and converted it into a tenancy in common. The surviving brother could not claim higher rights by survivorship, as the mutual Will had modified the normal course of devolution under Hindu law.
Conclusion:
The Court reversed the judgment of Basheer Ahmed Sayeed, J., and decreed both suits as prayed for, holding that Ex. A-I was a mutual reciprocal Will and a family arrangement, which could not be unilaterally revoked by Perumal. The parties were directed to bear their own costs throughout the proceedings.
-
1963 (4) TMI 94
Issues:
1. Whether the applicants are dealers as defined in section 2(6) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, and liable to registration.
Detailed Analysis:
The case involved the applicants, a concern engaged in ginning and pressing cotton, who purchased hessian and iron hoops for their business. The turnover of these purchases exceeded the prescribed limit of Rs. 25,000 per year. The applicants sought a determination from the Additional Collector of Sales Tax regarding their status as dealers and liability for registration. The Additional Collector found them liable, leading to an appeal before the Tribunal, which upheld the decision. The Sales Tax Tribunal then referred the case to the High Court, raising two questions for consideration.
The first question was whether the applicants could be considered as carrying on the business of buying and selling hessian and iron hoops, making them liable for registration when the turnover exceeded the limit. The second question was whether these transactions constituted purchases and sales as defined in the Sales Tax Act and if they were part of the applicants' business activity. The applicants' counsel conceded that the second question was encompassed within the first and did not require a separate analysis.
The applicants argued that they were not engaged in the business of purchasing hessian and iron hoops but rather in providing services, contending that the goods purchased were consumed in their business activities, not for resale. However, the Court referenced a previous Division Bench decision that established the applicants' business activity involved selling hessian and iron hoops to customers. This previous case had a similar factual scenario, and the Court had determined that such transactions constituted sales of goods, making the assessee a dealer under the Act.
The applicants' counsel raised the argument that a subsequent Supreme Court decision altered the interpretation of service contracts involving the sale of materials. However, the High Court clarified that the Supreme Court decision did not impact the earlier ruling, emphasizing that in the applicants' business transactions, there was a distinct sale of materials involved. The Court reiterated that even service contracts could involve divisible components, including separate contracts for material transfer and service remuneration.
Ultimately, the High Court affirmed that the applicants qualified as dealers under the Sales Tax Act due to the sale of hessian and iron hoops in their business activities. The Court concluded that the applicants' argument regarding the nature of their purchases was unnecessary given the established sales aspect of their transactions. Consequently, the Court answered the first question in the affirmative, with no need to address the second question separately, and directed the applicants to bear the costs of the Department.
-
1963 (4) TMI 93
Issues Involved:
1. Whether a Munsif exercising jurisdiction under Section 7-E of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act acts as a Civil Court or as a persona designata.
2. Whether an order passed by a Munsif under Section 7-E is revisable by the High Court under Section 115, CPC.
Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Whether a Munsif exercising jurisdiction under Section 7-E of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act acts as a Civil Court or as a persona designata:
The case was referred to a larger Bench due to conflicting decisions on whether a Munsif under Section 7-E acts as a Civil Court or as a persona designata. The Act confers jurisdiction upon District Magistrates and other officers for various matters, and specifically mentions that a landlord or tenant can apply to the "Munsif having jurisdiction" for certain orders, such as repairs. The primary question was whether the Munsif, when exercising this jurisdiction, acts as a part of his ordinary jurisdiction or as a special authority.
The judgment analyzed the ordinary jurisdiction of a Munsif, which includes all original suits of a civil nature unless expressly or impliedly barred. The court noted that the dispute between a landlord and tenant over repairs is a civil dispute. The right to require repairs is created by Section 7-E, which also specifies that the Munsif with jurisdiction should enforce this right.
The judgment emphasized that the legislature had no reason to distinguish this jurisdiction from the ordinary jurisdiction over civil suits. The court interpreted the use of the term "Munsif having jurisdiction" to mean territorial jurisdiction, which supports the argument that the Munsif acts as a court governed by the Civil Courts Act and not as a persona designata.
The court also considered various precedents where jurisdiction conferred upon a judge of a court was deemed to be exercised as a court and not as a persona designata. The court concluded that the Munsif, when acting under Section 7-E, does so as a part of his ordinary jurisdiction.
2. Whether an order passed by a Munsif under Section 7-E is revisable by the High Court under Section 115, CPC:
The court examined whether the Munsif's order under Section 7-E is revisable by the High Court. The Munsif's court is created under the Bengal, Agra, and Assam Civil Courts Act, and any order passed in the exercise of jurisdiction conferred by this Act is revisable by the High Court. The court noted that the ordinary jurisdiction of a Munsif includes all suits of a civil nature, and the dispute over repairs between a landlord and tenant is a civil dispute.
The judgment highlighted that the legislature intended for the Munsif to act as a court when exercising jurisdiction under Section 7-E. The court referred to various precedents where orders passed by a civil judge or Munsif under different statutes were held to be revisable by the High Court. The court also noted that if the Munsif were acting as a persona designata, there would be no necessity for a provision barring an appeal from his order, as the absence of such a provision would suffice.
The court concluded that the Munsif, when exercising jurisdiction under Section 7-E, acts as a court and not as a persona designata. Therefore, an order passed by the Munsif under Section 7-E is revisable by the High Court under Section 115, CPC.
Final Judgment:
The court held that a Munsif exercising jurisdiction under Section 7-E of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, is a Civil Court and not a persona designata. Consequently, an order passed by the Munsif under Section 7-E is revisable by the High Court under Section 115, CPC.
............
|
9911796707
