|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 848 Records
-
1967 (11) TMI 12
Capital gains - respondents sold the omnibus together with the right to ply it - deemed profit under s. 10(2)(xii) - excess of Rs. 17,000 over the deemed profits of Rs. 6,000 should not be held taxable under s. 10(2)(vii) - Revenue's appeal dismissed
-
1967 (11) TMI 11
Appellant-society, a bank - exemption - interest received from the Govt. securities - business was to deal in money and credit and was not restricted to receiving deposits and lending money to its members or other societies, therefore the High Court was in error in treating interest derived from deposits as not arising from the business of the bank and therefore not falling within the income exempted under the notification - Revenue's appeal dismissed
-
1967 (11) TMI 10
Reopening of the assessment - notices under s. 34(1)(a) - limitation - notices issued after March 31, 1956, were not barred by time and there was material before the ITO which justified his belief that the income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment - Assessee's appeal dismissed
-
1967 (11) TMI 9
Assessee-firm was not a partner in B House and had been receiving interest in the capacity of a banker, the ITO decided to take action under s. 34(1)(b)- Reopening of the assessment - jurisdiction to issue notice under s. 34(1)(b) of the IT Act - Assessee's petition is dismissed
-
1967 (11) TMI 8
Tribunal omitted to consider the facts stated for the first time in petition for reference u/s 66(2)- Tribunal was right in law by basing their decision on a part of the evidence ignoring the statement made in petition for reference - High Court was incompetent to direct the Tribunal to state the case on the question which was directed to be referred and dealt with by the High Court - revenue's appeal is allowed and the order passed by the High Court is set aside
-
1967 (11) TMI 7
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the sum of Rs. 2,34,230 was the income of the assessee.
2. Whether the amount of Rs. 10,42,990 received by the assessee represented exclusively the price of the shares or included any consideration for procuring the resignation of the present directors, obtaining the appointment of directors of the choice of the purchaser, and the resignation of the present managing agents.
3. If so, what should be taken as the sale price of each of the ordinary shares and each of the preference shares sold by the assessee in calculating its income arising therefrom.
Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: Whether the sum of Rs. 2,34,230 was the income of the assessee.
The appellant, a private limited company controlled by Mulraj Kersondas, dealt in shares. From 1942 to 1948, the appellant included the profit and loss from dealings in Elphinstone Mills shares in its revenue account. By 1948, the appellant held a significant number of these shares. In 1953, the appellant sold its shares to K. D. Jalan and recorded a profit of Rs. 2,34,231, which it took to the capital reserve account, not showing it in its profit and loss account. The Income-tax Officer treated this amount as business income, which the Appellate Assistant Commissioner later categorized as capital gain. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal reversed this decision, treating it as business income.
The court held that the appellant was a dealer in shares and had treated the profits and losses from Elphinstone Mills shares as part of its business income. The appellant's argument that it had converted these shares into an investment was rejected due to a lack of evidence in its books or resolutions. The court noted that the appellant's inactivity in selling shares from 1949-1953 was likely due to a slump in share prices, not a change in the nature of the holding. Thus, the profit from the sale was rightly treated as business income.
Issue 2: Whether the amount of Rs. 10,42,990 received by the assessee represented exclusively the price of the shares or included any consideration for procuring the resignation of the present directors, obtaining the appointment of directors of the choice of the purchaser, and the resignation of the present managing agents.
The appellant argued that the Rs. 45 lakhs received by Mulraj Kersondas from K. D. Jalan was a composite consideration for four items: the sale of shares, procuring resignations of directors, securing appointments of new directors, and obtaining the resignation of the managing agents. It contended that the excess amount paid over the market price was for the controlling interest, not just the shares.
The court rejected this argument, stating that the appellant itself had no controlling interest in Elphinstone Mills and was not in a position to procure resignations or appointments. The transaction was conducted by Mulraj Kersondas alone, and the appellant merely provided its shares. The entire amount received by the appellant was for the shares, not for any additional rights.
Issue 3: If so, what should be taken as the sale price of each of the ordinary shares and each of the preference shares sold by the assessee in calculating its income arising therefrom.
Given the court's findings on the second issue, this question did not survive and was not addressed.
Conclusion:
The court upheld the High Court's judgment, affirming that the profit from the sale of shares was business income and that the entire amount received by the appellant was for the shares alone. The appeal was dismissed with costs.
-
1967 (11) TMI 6
Resale of parts of land and buildings purchased from government, within short time - Interest on loans taken to pay purchase money was far in excess of income from property - transaction was an adventure in the nature of trade - Assessee's appeal is dismissed
-
1967 (11) TMI 5
Issues:
1. Inclusion of capital gain from the sale of transferred shares in the total income of the transferor under section 16(3)(a)(iii) of the Income-tax Act.
2. Proper inclusion of interest earned on sale proceeds deposited with a third party in the total income of the transferor under section 16(3)(a)(iii) of the Income-tax Act.
Analysis:
The case involved an appeal regarding the inclusion of capital gain and interest earned by the wife of the assessee on shares transferred to her in the total income of the transferor under section 16(3)(a)(iii) of the Income-tax Act. The assessee had gifted shares to his wife, who later sold them, resulting in a capital gain. The Income-tax Officer included this gain in the total income of the assessee, along with the interest earned on the sale proceeds deposited with a partnership firm involving the assessee. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Appellate Tribunal upheld the inclusion of both the capital gain and the interest in the total income of the assessee.
The High Court was approached with specific questions of law regarding the proper inclusion of these amounts in the total income of the assessee. The High Court answered in favor of the department regarding the capital gain from the sale of shares, stating that it should be included in the total income of the transferor under section 16(3)(a)(iii) of the Income-tax Act. However, the High Court ruled in favor of the assessee regarding the interest earned on the sale proceeds, stating that only the portion attributable to the monetary value of the shares at the time of the gift should be included in the total income of the transferor.
The High Court's decision was based on the interpretation of section 16(3)(a)(iii) and the definition of "income" under the Income-tax Act. The court clarified that capital gains are included in the scope of income under the Act, and there is no distinction between income from the asset and income from the sale of the asset. The court emphasized that the purpose of the provision is to prevent tax avoidance and reduce tax incidence by transferring assets to family members.
In conclusion, the High Court's decision to include the capital gain from the sale of shares in the total income of the transferor was upheld, while the inclusion of interest earned on the sale proceeds was limited to the portion attributable to the value of the shares at the time of the gift. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the High Court's judgment.
-
1967 (11) TMI 4
Issues Involved:
1. Nature of the expenditure (capital vs. revenue expenditure)
2. Rights acquired under the lease deed
3. Findings of fact by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and Tribunal
4. Jurisdiction and role of the High Court in reviewing findings of fact
5. Precedent cases and their applicability
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Nature of the Expenditure (Capital vs. Revenue Expenditure):
The primary issue was whether the payments made by the assessee under the lease deed were capital expenditure or revenue expenditure. The Income-tax Officer initially held that the payments were capital expenditures because the lease granted the assessee a right to quarry sand, which was considered a capital asset. However, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal concluded that the payments were revenue expenditures, as the lease was for a short period of 11 months, and the sole right acquired was to remove sand lying on the surface, which did not involve any excavation or skilful extraction. The Supreme Court affirmed this view, stating that the decisive factor is the object with which the lease is taken and the nature of the payment made when obtaining the lease. The expenditure was deemed revenue in nature as it was for obtaining stock-in-trade and not for acquiring an enduring capital asset.
2. Rights Acquired Under the Lease Deed:
The lease deed granted the assessee the exclusive right to enter, occupy, and use the land for quarrying purposes and to remove sand. The Supreme Court noted that although the lease mentioned an exclusive right to enter and occupy the land, this did not necessarily make the payment a capital expenditure. The key consideration was that the lease was for a short period and aimed at removing sand lying loose on the surface, which was the assessee's stock-in-trade. The Court emphasized that the nature of the right acquired under the lease was not for acquiring a capital asset but for obtaining raw material for the business.
3. Findings of Fact by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and Tribunal:
The Appellate Assistant Commissioner conducted a personal investigation and found that the lease was a short-term contract for removing sand lying on the surface without any excavation. These findings were affirmed by the Tribunal. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in not accepting these findings of fact and instead recording a different finding. The Tribunal's findings were binding, and the High Court should have proceeded on that basis.
4. Jurisdiction and Role of the High Court in Reviewing Findings of Fact:
The Supreme Court criticized the High Court for exceeding its jurisdiction by not accepting the findings of fact recorded by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and affirmed by the Tribunal. The High Court's role was to examine the legal position based on the established facts, not to re-evaluate the evidence or record new findings. The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court should have accepted the factual findings and determined the legal question accordingly.
5. Precedent Cases and Their Applicability:
Several cases were referenced to illustrate principles related to capital and revenue expenditure. The Supreme Court noted that each case must be decided on its special facts. The Court referred to its decision in Gotan Lime Syndicate v. Commissioner of Income-tax, where lease payments for obtaining raw material were considered revenue expenditure. The Court also discussed Bombay Steam Navigation Co. (1953) Private Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, which explained that expenditure related to the profit-earning process and not for acquiring a permanent asset is revenue expenditure. The distinguishing feature in K.T.M.T.M. Abdul Kayoom v. Commissioner of Income-tax was noted, where the lease involved operations in the sea, unlike the present case where sand was removed from the surface.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's order, and answered the referred question in the affirmative, concluding that the payments made by the assessee under the lease deed were revenue expenditures. The Court emphasized the short-term nature of the lease and the specific purpose of removing sand as stock-in-trade, distinguishing it from acquiring a capital asset.
-
1967 (11) TMI 3
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the surplus derived by the assessee from the sale of its shares and securities in the relevant previous years was a revenue receipt and thus taxable under the Income-tax Act.
Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: Taxability of Surplus from Sale of Shares and Securities as Revenue Receipt
The primary question for consideration was whether the surplus derived by the assessee from the sale of its shares and securities constituted a revenue receipt and was thus taxable under the Income-tax Act.
Background and Tribunal's Findings:
The Tribunal was asked to submit a supplementary statement to clarify certain points, including the object behind the acquisition of shares, particularly those of McLeod and Co. Ltd., and the reasons for the assessee's confined activities to these shares. The Tribunal's supplementary statement indicated that the purchases and sales of the shares were in pursuit of clause (2) of the memorandum of association, which included dealing in shares, stocks, debentures, etc.
Facts and Circumstances:
1. Principal Activity: The principal activity of the assessee was the investment of its capital in shares and stocks, with income primarily derived from dividends and interest.
2. Memorandum of Association: The memorandum of association included an object to acquire, hold, sell, and transfer various securities.
3. Purchase and Sale of Shares: The Tribunal noted that the shares were purchased during a period of falling market prices and sold at a considerable profit. The assessee had taken loans to purchase these shares, indicating a motive of earning profit rather than investment.
4. Control of McLeod and Co. Ltd.: The explanation that the shares were sold due to the change in control of McLeod and Co. Ltd. was not substantiated. The Tribunal found no material evidence that the Bajoria group obtained a controlling interest as a result of the share acquisition.
Conclusion by the Court:
The court concluded that the shares were purchased and sold with the motive of earning profit rather than as an investment to derive income from dividends. The Tribunal's findings indicated that the transactions were an adventure in the nature of trade. The court noted that the earlier acceptance by the department of the transactions as investments was not binding for subsequent years.
Legal Principles and Precedents:
1. Investment vs. Trade: The court referenced the principle that mere variation of investments does not necessarily mean that the profits are taxable unless the variation amounts to dealing in investments.
2. Stock-in-Trade: The court observed that the shares were dealt with as stock-in-trade, despite not being shown as such in the account books.
3. Purpose of Purchase: The court emphasized the importance of the purpose behind the purchase of shares. If the purpose was investment, profits from sale would not be revenue income. However, in this case, the initial purpose was found to be profit from resale.
Final Judgment:
The High Court's conclusion that the surplus from the sale of shares and securities was a revenue receipt and taxable under the Income-tax Act was upheld. The appeals were dismissed with costs, affirming that the income derived from these transactions was taxable as revenue income.
Appeals Dismissed:
The appeals were dismissed with costs, and the court affirmed the High Court's conclusion that the income derived from the sale of shares and securities was taxable as revenue receipt under the Income-tax Act.
-
1967 (11) TMI 2
Exclusion of Govt. servants from the exemption given under s. 4(3)(xxi) of the IT Act, 1922, and later on under s. 10(26) of the IT Act, 1961 - exclusion of Govt. servant from exemption is violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India - Revenue's appeal is dismissed
-
1967 (11) TMI 1
Dissolution of firm - the cinema was returned to original owners - `sale` and `sold` are not defined in the IT Act: those expressions are used in s. 10(2)(vii) in their ordinary meaning - amount received should not be included in total income under the second proviso to s. 10(2)(vii) - Revenue's appeal is dismissed
-
1967 (10) TMI 73
Issues:
1. Taxability of remuneration received by a partner in a partnership firm in his individual capacity.
2. Determination of whether the remuneration received by the partner should be considered as income of the Hindu undivided family.
3. Interpretation of partnership agreement clauses regarding remuneration and management roles.
4. Application of legal precedents in similar cases to determine tax liability.
Detailed Analysis:
1. The primary issue in this case revolves around the taxability of the remuneration received by a partner, Shri M.D. Dhanwatey, in a partnership firm. The contention was that the remuneration received by Shri M.D. Dhanwatey was earned in his individual capacity and should not be included in the taxable income of the assessee Hindu undivided family.
2. The High Court held that the remuneration paid to Shri M.D. Dhanwatey was considered income of the Hindu undivided family, as he was a partner representing the family in the partnership firm. The court found that the remuneration was for the adjustment of rights between the partners and was derived from joint family assets, thus impacting the joint family property.
3. The interpretation of the partnership agreement clauses played a crucial role in the judgment. The agreement specified the roles and responsibilities of the partners, including the payment of remuneration to Shri M.D. Dhanwatey. The court analyzed these clauses to determine the nature of the remuneration and its impact on the tax liability of the Hindu undivided family.
4. In applying legal precedents, the court relied on previous decisions such as Commissioner of Income-tax v. Kalu Babu Lai Chand and Mathura Prasad v. Commissioner of Income-tax to support its conclusion. The court also referenced a similar case, V.D. Dhanwatey v. Commissioner of Income-tax, to establish consistency in the interpretation of the law regarding tax liability in partnership firms.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, ruling against the assessee and dismissing the appeal with costs. The judgment emphasized the importance of considering the partnership structure, remuneration agreements, and the source of funds in determining the tax implications for income received by partners in a Hindu undivided family.
-
1967 (10) TMI 72
Issues:
1. Interpretation of the definition of "land" under the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, 1953.
2. Whether trees standing on the land are included in the transfer of land under section 11 of the Act.
3. Vesting of trees in the State Government under section 84 of the Act.
4. Comprehensive analysis of the judgment.
Analysis:
The judgment involved the interpretation of the definition of "land" under the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, 1953, specifically focusing on the inclusion of trees standing on the land in the transfer of ownership. The case revolved around a landholding initially owned by the Government and later granted proprietary rights to a tenant under the Act. The key contention was whether the trees on the land were encompassed within the transfer of ownership to the tenant as part of the definition of "land."
The appellants argued that the trees did not vest in the tenant as per section 11 of the Act, emphasizing the definition of "land" under section 2(5) which included land for agricultural purposes, but did not explicitly mention trees. The appellants relied on previous court decisions related to similar definitions under different Acts, asserting that the transfer of land did not automatically include trees standing on it.
Contrary to the appellants' argument, the Judicial Commissioner, following precedents, held that the trees were included in the transfer of ownership to the tenant under section 11 of the Act. The Commissioner emphasized that the expression "right, title, and interest of the land-owner in the land" was broad enough to encompass trees standing on the land. The judgment underscored that the legislative intent was to transfer all aspects of ownership from the land-owner to the tenant, including trees.
Moreover, the judgment addressed the vesting of trees in the State Government under section 84 of the Act, highlighting that the provision explicitly mentioned the transfer of trees to the State. The court rejected the argument that such explicit mention in section 84 implied an omission in section 11 regarding the transfer of trees to the tenant. The judgment emphasized the comprehensive nature of the term "owner" in section 11, indicating the transfer of all rights, including trees, to the tenant.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Judicial Commissioner, dismissing the appeal and affirming that the trees standing on the land were indeed included in the transfer of ownership to the tenant under the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, 1953. The judgment provided a detailed analysis of the legislative provisions, previous court decisions, and the implications of ownership transfer under the Act, ensuring clarity on the inclusion of trees in the definition of "land" for the purposes of ownership transfer.
-
1967 (10) TMI 71
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the debt on the basis of which the petition for adjudication is presented and an adjudication order is sought should be a subsisting debt at the date of the hearing of the petition or is it enough that it subsisted at the date of the presentation of the petition.
Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Whether the debt on the basis of which the petition for adjudication is presented and an adjudication order is sought should be a subsisting debt at the date of the hearing of the petition or is it enough that it subsisted at the date of the presentation of the petition:
The petitioning-creditor alleged that the debtors borrowed Rs. 5,000 on February 22, 1962, with interest, and executed a Khata writing, making the amount payable after three months or earlier if demanded. Despite repeated demands, the debtors did not pay the total amount of Rs. 5,433.33, leading to the filing of the petition. The petitioning-creditor claimed that the debtors committed acts of insolvency, including transferring their business to others, absconding from their usual place of business, and secluding themselves to avoid creditors.
The debtors contested the allegations and argued that the debt was barred by the law of limitation at the date of the hearing, thus no adjudication order could be passed. The petitioning-creditor conceded that the debt had become time-barred by the date of the hearing and that no acknowledgment or part payment had been made to save the limitation period. However, the petitioning-creditor contended that it was sufficient if the debt subsisted at the date of the petition's presentation.
An issue was raised: "Whether the debt on the basis of which the petition for adjudication is presented and an adjudication order is sought should be a subsisting debt at the date of the hearing of the petition or is it enough that it subsisted at the date of the presentation of the petition?"
The petitioning-creditor relied on Section 12 of the Presidency-towns Insolvency Act, 1909, stating that the conditions for presenting an insolvency petition were fulfilled at the date of the petition's presentation. The petitioning-creditor cited the Madras High Court decision in Venkatarama Aiyar v. Buran Sheriff and a passage from Mulla's Insolvency, asserting that the debt need not subsist at the hearing.
Conversely, the debtors relied on Section 13 of the Presidency-towns Insolvency Act, 1909, which requires proof of the petitioning creditor's debt at the hearing. The debtors argued that the debt must be subsisting and payable at the date of the hearing and until the adjudication order is passed. They cited the Calcutta High Court case Ahmad Mahomed v. Praphulla Nath, which held that the debt must exist at the time of the petition's presentation, hearing, and adjudication order.
The court found substance in the debtors' contention, noting that the principle from Byramji Talati v. Official Assignee, Bombay, applied only after an adjudication order was made. The Madras High Court decision under the Provincial Insolvency Act was distinguished due to differences in statutory language. The court held that under Section 13(2) of the Presidency-towns Insolvency Act, the debt must subsist at the hearing and until the adjudication order is passed.
The court rejected the petitioning-creditor's argument of hardship, stating that creditors should keep the debt alive through acknowledgment, part payment, or filing a suit within the limitation period. The court dismissed the petition, with costs awarded to the debtors, and directed the Official Assignee to return properties and refund amounts as specified.
Conclusion:
The court concluded that for an adjudication order to be passed, the debt must be subsisting not only at the date of the presentation of the petition but also at the date of the hearing and until the adjudication order is made. The petition was dismissed with costs, and the Official Assignee was directed to return properties and refund amounts as specified.
-
1967 (10) TMI 70
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the jewellery was returned to the plaintiff by Lachhmi Narain.
2. The authenticity of the receipt (Ext. A-4) claimed by the appellant.
3. The significance of the plaintiff's actions and circumstances surrounding the alleged return of the jewellery.
4. The maintainability of the suit based on the alleged fraudulent intent to defeat the claim of Gomtibai.
5. Liability of the appellant as a member of a joint Hindu family for the alleged misappropriation by Lachhmi Narain.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Whether the jewellery was returned to the plaintiff by Lachhmi Narain:
The appellant contended that Lachhmi Narain had returned the jewellery to the plaintiff on April 23, 1942. The burden of proof lay on the appellant. The Trial Court and the High Court found that the receipt (Ext. A-4) was "not genuine." The appellant did not rely on the receipt before the Supreme Court but cited several circumstances to support his claim. However, the Supreme Court agreed with the High Court that these circumstances did not assist the appellant's case. The plaintiff's presence in Kanpur on April 23, 1942, did not imply that she received the jewellery from Lachhmi Narain.
2. The authenticity of the receipt (Ext. A-4) claimed by the appellant:
The Trial Court and the High Court both held that the receipt (Ext. A-4) was "not genuine." The appellant did not rely on this receipt before the Supreme Court, effectively conceding its lack of authenticity.
3. The significance of the plaintiff's actions and circumstances surrounding the alleged return of the jewellery:
The appellant cited several circumstances to support his claim that the jewellery was returned, including the plaintiff's presence in Kanpur, the steel box in the plaintiff's possession, a letter (Ext. A-2) listing some jewellery, and the delay in demanding the jewellery. The Supreme Court found that these circumstances, individually or collectively, did not support the appellant's case. The plaintiff's testimony and the absence of a demand during Lachhmi Narain's lifetime were not significant due to the trust reposed in him.
4. The maintainability of the suit based on the alleged fraudulent intent to defeat the claim of Gomtibai:
The appellant argued that the suit was not maintainable because the jewellery was entrusted to Lachhmi Narain to defraud Gomtibai, invoking the maxim "in pari delicto, potior est conditio defendentis." The Supreme Court found no specific plea or issue raised at the trial regarding fraud against Gomtibai. The plaintiff's case was that Gomtibai knew about the jewellery's deposit and agreed that it belonged to the plaintiff. The Court held that the parties were not "in pari delicto" and that the plaintiff did not plead any illegal purpose.
5. Liability of the appellant as a member of a joint Hindu family for the alleged misappropriation by Lachhmi Narain:
The appellant contended that as a member of a joint Hindu family, he was not liable for Lachhmi Narain's alleged misappropriation, citing Toshanpal Singh & Ors. v. District Judge of Agra & Ors. The Supreme Court held that there was no evidence of misappropriation by Lachhmi Narain and that the appellant did not prove the debt was "avyavaharika" or illegal. A Hindu son is liable for his father's debts unless they are illegal, and the appellant failed to prove such illegality.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the High Court's decree directing the return of the jewellery or payment of its value. The appellant's contentions regarding the return of jewellery, the authenticity of the receipt, the significance of circumstances, the maintainability of the suit, and liability as a member of a joint Hindu family were all rejected. The appeal was dismissed with costs.
-
1967 (10) TMI 69
Issues:
1. Authority of a Corporation to appoint officers and lay down conditions of service in the absence of regulations.
2. Power of General Manager to issue a notice inviting applications.
3. Claim of right to promotion to a higher post.
4. Dismissal of the petition seeking to adduce additional evidence.
5. Direction for the appellant to pay costs to the respondent.
Analysis:
1. The primary issue in this case pertains to the authority of a Corporation to appoint officers and lay down conditions of service in the absence of regulations. The Court examined relevant sections of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950, specifically focusing on Sections 14, 19, 34, and 45. The judgment highlighted that the Corporation has the inherent power to appoint officers and servants as necessary for the efficient performance of its functions, even in the absence of specific regulations. The Court emphasized that until regulations are framed, the Corporation can appoint officers and servants on terms it deems fit, subject to any directions from the State Government.
2. Another issue addressed was the power of the General Manager to issue a notice inviting applications without a specific resolution authorizing him to do so. The Court clarified that in the exercise of general management powers, the General Manager had the authority to issue such a notice. It was noted that the General Manager's action did not result in any appointments being made, thus affirming his power to issue the notice.
3. The Court also considered the respondent's claim of a right to be promoted to a higher post. The judgment highlighted that there was no evidence to support the respondent's assertion of a vested right to promotion. As a result, the claim was not substantiated.
4. Regarding the dismissal of the petition seeking to adduce additional evidence, the Court rejected the respondent's request in Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 3032 of 1967. The dismissal indicated that the Court did not find merit in allowing the introduction of new evidence or contentions at that stage.
5. Lastly, the judgment addressed the direction for the appellant to pay costs to the respondent, as per the Court's order dated August 17, 1967. The Court upheld the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and dismissed the writ petition. The appellant was directed to bear the costs of the appeal to the respondent, as specified in the order.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, emphasizing the Corporation's authority to appoint officers, the General Manager's power to issue notices, and dismissing the respondent's claim of a right to promotion. The Court also rejected the petition seeking to adduce additional evidence and upheld the direction for the appellant to pay costs to the respondent.
-
1967 (10) TMI 68
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the acquisition proceedings were mala fide and in fraud of the Act.
2. Whether the Society was entitled to an injunction against the Government taking possession of the land.
3. Whether the Government's satisfaction must be stated in the notification itself under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Mala Fides and Fraud of the Act:
The Trial Court found that the 1st respondent Society failed to establish allegations of mala fides and abuse of power under the Land Acquisition Act, leading to the dismissal of the suit. The Additional District Judge, upon appeal, also found no evidence of mala fides or misuse of power by the Government. The High Court concurred, noting no evidence of collusion between Swaika and the Education Department or the Land Acquisition Department officers. The High Court observed that "prima facie, there is no reason to differ from the findings made by the courts below."
The Supreme Court emphasized that the question of mala fides is a factual matter. With concurrent findings by the Trial Court and the District Court against the 1st respondent Society, the High Court could not reopen this finding unless it was perverse or unreasonable, which was not argued. Therefore, the allegation of mala fides or abuse of power by the Government was conclusively negated, and the 1st respondent Society could not canvass this question before the Supreme Court.
2. Injunction Against Government Taking Possession:
The 1st respondent Society sought an injunction against the Government taking possession of the land, claiming the acquisition proceedings were invalid. The Trial Court dismissed the suit, and the Additional District Judge upheld this decision, finding no grounds for an injunction. The High Court also did not find sufficient evidence to support the claim of mala fides or fraud, thus not justifying an injunction.
3. Government's Satisfaction in Notification Under Section 6:
The High Court held that the notification under section 6 must explicitly state the Government's satisfaction that the land is needed for a public purpose. The High Court was influenced by the change in wording from "when it appears to the Local Government" to "when the Local Government is satisfied" after the amendment by Act 38 of 1923. The High Court concluded that the notification using "it appears to the Governor" instead of "the Governor is satisfied" did not show such satisfaction and thus was not in proper form.
The Supreme Court, however, disagreed with this interpretation. It held that satisfaction of the Government is a condition precedent for a valid declaration under section 6, but the section does not require this satisfaction to be stated in the declaration. The declaration must state that the land is needed for a public purpose, which becomes conclusive evidence once published. The Supreme Court referenced the case of Ezra v. The Secretary of State, affirming that a notification under section 6 need not be in any particular form.
The Supreme Court further noted that even if satisfaction were stated in the notification, it could still be challenged factually. In this case, no issue was raised regarding the Government's actual satisfaction, and no evidence was led to prove otherwise. The procedural steps taken, including the inquiry under section 5A and the recommendations of the Additional Collector, indicated that the condition precedent of satisfaction was met. Therefore, the Supreme Court found the High Court's interpretation erroneous and held that the notification was valid.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment and decree. The judgment and decree of the Trial Court, confirmed by the Additional District Judge, dismissing the suit of the 1st respondent Society, were restored. The 1st respondent Society was ordered to pay the costs in the Supreme Court and the High Court.
-
1967 (10) TMI 67
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Madras Gymkhana Club qualifies as an "industry" under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
2. Whether the employees of the Madras Gymkhana Club are entitled to claim a bonus.
Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: Whether the Madras Gymkhana Club qualifies as an "industry" under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
The primary issue in this case is whether the Madras Gymkhana Club can be classified as an "industry" under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Industrial Tribunal, Madras, had previously ruled that the club is not an industry, and therefore, the management is not liable to pay a bonus to its workmen for the year 1962. The Madras Gymkhana Club Employees Union appealed this decision, arguing that the club should be considered an industry.
The definition of "industry" under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act includes "any business, trade, undertaking, manufacture or calling of employers" and "any calling, service, employment, handicraft, or industrial occupation or avocation of workmen." The court noted that earlier decisions have established that not all employer-employee relationships result in an industry. The court reviewed several past judgments to clarify the definition and scope of "industry."
The court referred to cases involving municipalities, hospitals, and other institutions to illustrate that the term "industry" can include non-profit undertakings if they involve cooperation between employers and employees for producing or distributing material goods or services. However, it emphasized that the activity must be organized in a manner similar to business or trade and must involve systematic cooperation between employers and employees.
In the case of the Madras Gymkhana Club, the court observed that it is a members' club with the primary objective of providing sports, games, and recreational facilities to its members. The club employs various staff for its operations, but its activities are primarily for the pleasure and amusement of its members. The court noted that the services provided by the club are for its members and their guests, and not for the general public.
The court concluded that the essential character of the club's activities does not align with the definition of "industry" as it is not engaged in trade, business, or an undertaking analogous to trade or business. The club's activities are self-serving for its members and do not cater to the material needs or wants of a broader community in a commercial sense.
Issue 2: Whether the employees of the Madras Gymkhana Club are entitled to claim a bonus.
Since the court determined that the Madras Gymkhana Club does not qualify as an industry under the Industrial Disputes Act, the employees are not entitled to claim a bonus under the provisions of the Act. The claim for a bonus is unsustainable as it is contingent upon the club being classified as an industry, which it is not.
Conclusion:
The court upheld the decision of the Industrial Tribunal, Madras, ruling that the Madras Gymkhana Club is not an industry under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Consequently, the employees of the club are not entitled to claim a bonus for the year 1962. The appeal by the Madras Gymkhana Club Employees Union was dismissed, and no order was made regarding costs.
-
1967 (10) TMI 66
Issues Involved:
1. Breach of contract by appellants.
2. Impossibility of performance under Section 56 of the Contract Act.
3. Jurisdiction of arbitrators under the arbitration clause.
4. Allegations of legal misconduct by arbitrators.
5. Basis for awarding damages.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Breach of Contract by Appellants:
The appellants agreed to purchase and the respondents agreed to sell two thousand bales of Saidpur N.C. Cuttings under a contract dated July 7, 1958. The contract stipulated that the buyers (appellants) were to provide the sellers (respondents) with import licences by November 1958, failing which the shipment period would extend to December 1958 with an increased price. If the licence was not provided by December 1958, the contract would be settled at the market price prevailing on January 2, 1959. The appellants failed to provide the licence, leading the respondents to claim damages, which were awarded by the Arbitration Tribunal.
2. Impossibility of Performance under Section 56 of the Contract Act:
The appellants contended that the contract became impossible to perform due to a change in government policy, which they argued was unforeseen and made the contract void under Section 56 of the Contract Act. Section 56 states that a contract becomes void if an act becomes impossible or unlawful after the contract is made. The appellants argued that they had done all they could to obtain the licence, but the refusal by authorities due to a change in policy constituted an unforeseen event making performance impossible. The court, however, found that the appellants were aware of the difficulties in obtaining the licence and had provided for such contingencies in the contract itself. The refusal was due to a personal disqualification (sufficient stock) rather than a force majeure event. Thus, the contract was not deemed void under Section 56.
3. Jurisdiction of Arbitrators under the Arbitration Clause:
The appellants argued that the arbitration clause perished along with the contract, thus the arbitrators had no jurisdiction. The court held that even if the contract was frustrated, the arbitration clause would survive for resolving disputes arising under or in connection with the contract. The arbitration clause was broad enough to include disputes about whether the contract was frustrated or not. Therefore, the arbitrators had jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute.
4. Allegations of Legal Misconduct by Arbitrators:
The appellants alleged legal misconduct by the arbitrators. However, both the Single Judge and the Division Bench found no evidence of such misconduct. The appellants failed to prove any legal misconduct, and this contention was ultimately not pressed by their counsel.
5. Basis for Awarding Damages:
The appellants contended that the arbitrators awarded damages based on the market rate of Rs. 51 per maund instead of the export price of Rs. 65 fixed by the Government of Pakistan, arguing that this was against public policy. The court dismissed this argument, stating that the Government of Pakistan's policies do not dictate public or economic policy in India. The arbitrators were justified in using the market rate in Calcutta on January 2, 1959, to determine the damages.
Conclusion:
The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the judgment of the High Court of Calcutta and the award passed by the Arbitration Tribunal. The court found that the appellants were liable for breach of contract, the contract was not void under Section 56, the arbitrators had jurisdiction, there was no legal misconduct, and the basis for awarding damages was appropriate. The appeal was dismissed with costs.
............
|
9911796707
