|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 3101 Records
-
1949 (3) TMI 32
Issues:
1. Entitlement of the assessee bank to benefit under Rule 5 of Schedule I of the Excess Profits Tax Act.
2. Method of computing the average amount of capital under Rule 5 of Schedule II of the Act.
Analysis:
Issue 1: Entitlement to Benefit under Rule 5 of Schedule I
The judgment addresses the question of whether the assessee bank is entitled to the benefit conferred under Rule 5 of Schedule I of the Excess Profits Tax Act. The court examines the provision of Rule 5, which exempts certain loans or debentures from deduction in arriving at the capital employed in the business. The court highlights that Rule 5 applies only if a company has a standard period, as indicated in Section 6 of the Act. Since the assessee bank did not have a standard period due to commencing business after a specific date, it could not avail itself of the exception in Rule 5. Therefore, the court concludes that the assessee was not entitled to the benefit set out in Rule 5.
Issue 2: Method of Computing Average Capital under Rule 5 of Schedule II
The judgment further delves into the method of computing the average amount of capital employed in a business under Rule 5 of Schedule II of the Act. The court explains that this rule deems profits or losses to have accrued evenly throughout a period, resulting in a corresponding increase or decrease in the capital employed. The court clarifies that the term "profits or losses" in this rule must be construed as "statutory profits" as defined in the Act, not actual profits. The court emphasizes that the legislative framework provides for an artificial method of determining profits and capital increase, subject to rebuttal by the Income Tax Department. The court discusses a specific case where the Excess Profits Tax Officer calculated profits differently from the statutory profits, highlighting the need to show that the entire amount did not increase the capital employed. The court upholds the directions given by the Tribunal members regarding the proper interpretation of profits under Rule 5 of Schedule II.
In conclusion, the court answers the questions posed in the judgment, denying the assessee bank's entitlement under Rule 5 of Schedule I and affirming the method of computing average capital under Rule 5 of Schedule II. The judgment provides a detailed analysis of the legal provisions and their application to the specific case at hand, ensuring clarity and adherence to the statutory framework.
-
1949 (3) TMI 31
Issues Involved:
1. Admissibility and reliability of accomplice evidence
2. Corroboration of accomplice testimony
3. Use of Section 164 statements and Section 288 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
4. Role and weight of the confession of a co-accused under Section 30 of the Evidence Act
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Admissibility and Reliability of Accomplice Evidence:
The judgment discusses the legal framework in India concerning the evidence provided by accomplices. It notes that even before the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the law in India was similar to that in England, as established in R. v. Elahee Buksh. Section 133 of the Indian Evidence Act stipulates that an accomplice is a competent witness against an accused, and a conviction is not illegal merely because it is based on uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. However, Illustration (B) to Section 114 advises that the court may presume an accomplice to be unworthy of credit unless corroborated in material particulars. The courts in India have interpreted this to mean that while acting on uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice is not illegal, it is generally unsafe to do so unless corroborated in material respects.
2. Corroboration of Accomplice Testimony:
The judgment emphasizes that the evidence of an accomplice should be corroborated by independent evidence in material particulars before it can be acted upon. The court should not rely solely on the testimony of one accomplice to corroborate another. In the present case, the High Court recognized that it would be unsafe to rely on the evidence of the approver, who had given contradictory statements, unless corroborated by independent evidence. The High Court found sufficient independent corroboration in the discovery of the deceased's cloth and the production of the khantibadi, but the Privy Council disagreed, stating that neither the cloth nor the khantibadi sufficiently implicated the accused.
3. Use of Section 164 Statements and Section 288 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:
The approver's statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was discussed. Such a statement cannot be used as substantive evidence but can support or challenge the evidence given in court. The Sessions Judge brought the evidence given before the committing magistrate on record under Section 288, making it evidence in the case for all purposes. The High Court preferred the approver's evidence given before the committing magistrate over his testimony in the Sessions Court, but the Privy Council found that the statement under Section 164 did not amount to the necessary corroboration.
4. Role and Weight of the Confession of a Co-accused under Section 30 of the Evidence Act:
Section 30 of the Evidence Act allows the court to consider the confession of a co-accused against other accused persons. However, such confessions are considered weak evidence as they are not given on oath, in the presence of the accused, nor subject to cross-examination. The Privy Council affirmed the view that a co-accused's confession can only support other evidence and cannot be the sole basis for a conviction. In this case, the confession of Trinath, another accomplice, was retracted and did not provide sufficient corroboration for the approver's evidence. The Privy Council emphasized the necessity for independent evidence implicating the accused to avoid the risk of false implications.
Conclusion:
The Privy Council concluded that the conviction of the appellant could not stand due to the lack of sufficient corroboration of the accomplice's testimony by independent evidence. The judgment highlights the importance of corroboration and the cautious approach courts must take when dealing with accomplice evidence and confessions of co-accused.
-
1949 (3) TMI 30
Issues Involved:
1. Authority of the Collector to fix rent under Bengal Regulation VII of 1822 and Bengal Alluvial Lands Settlement Act of 1858.
2. Effect of an entry made by the Collector under Regulation VII of 1822.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Authority of the Collector to Fix Rent:
The primary issue was whether the Collector had the authority to fix rent for alluvial lands, overriding the contract between the parties, under Bengal Regulation VII of 1822 and Bengal Alluvial Lands Settlement Act of 1858. The judgment clarified that the scheme of Regulation VII of 1822 was to ascertain facts due to incorrect data in previous revenue settlements. The purpose was to find out actual rents received by landlords or customary rents in the locality, not to fix fair or equitable rents. The Collector's duty was to ascertain existing rents, not to determine new rents. This interpretation was supported by previous cases like Ishur Chandra Sarkar v. Troylukhya Nath and Jagindra Nath Roy v. Mohendra Nath Mozumdar. Act XXXI of 1858, which deals specifically with alluvial lands, uses the term "determine" in Section 2, indicating the setting of rents where no previous rents existed. However, it does not expand the Collector's powers to override existing agreements. Thus, the Collector has no authority under Regulation VII of 1822 or Act XXXI of 1858 to fix rents contrary to existing agreements between landlords and tenants.
2. Effect of an Entry Made by the Collector:
The second issue was the legal effect of an entry made by the Collector under Regulation VII of 1822. Such an entry, resulting from the Collector's inquiries, has presumptive value, assuming the Collector acted within his powers. If the Collector exceeded his powers by fixing rents contrary to existing agreements, the entry does not hold probative value. Aggrieved parties can challenge the entry's correctness either by mutual agreement or through a regular suit. The term "regular suit" refers to a suit in a court with ordinary civil jurisdiction, not limited to summary or revenue suits. Both plaintiffs and defendants can contest the accuracy of the entry in such suits. The judgment emphasized that the appellants could challenge the entry's correctness in the respondent's suit to recover rent. There is no time limitation prescribed for such a challenge, supporting the view that objections can be raised by way of defense.
Separate Judgments:
- Fazl Ali, J.: Agreed with the conclusion but added that Section 2 of Act XXXI of 1858 allows the settlement officer to fix rents for newly formed lands where no rent was previously paid. However, the correctness of the entry can still be challenged in a regular suit.
- Patanjali Sastri, J.: Concurred with the appeal being allowed but reached the conclusion on slightly different grounds, emphasizing the historical context and legislative intent behind Regulation VII of 1822.
- Mahajan, J.: Agreed with the judgment delivered by Mukherjea J., emphasizing that the Regulation did not intend to confer powers to enhance or abate rents without specific statutory authority.
Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed, and the decree of the District Judge of 24-Parganas was restored, resulting in the respondent's suit being dismissed with costs throughout. The judgment clarified that the Collector's role under Regulation VII of 1822 and Act XXXI of 1858 was to ascertain existing rents, not to fix new rents contrary to existing agreements, and that entries made by the Collector could be challenged in a regular suit.
-
1949 (3) TMI 29
Issues:
Taxability of insurance proceeds received by the assessee company as indemnity for loss of profits due to fire damage.
Analysis:
The High Court of Bombay considered the taxability of two sums, totaling &8377; 14,00,000, received by the assessee company as indemnity for the loss of profits resulting from a fire incident. The company held insurance policies that covered consequential losses due to fire damage. The contention was raised that these sums were not taxable as they were received as indemnity and not profits earned during business operations. However, the Chief Justice rejected this argument, stating that the insurance proceeds represented the profits the company would have earned if not for the fire. Referring to a precedent set by the Privy Council in Rex v. B.C. Fir and Cedar Lumber Co., it was established that such receipts are considered revenue payments prudently made by the company to secure expected gains. The judgment emphasized that the receipt was inseparably connected with the ownership and conduct of the business, making it a revenue receipt subject to tax.
The Chief Justice addressed the attempt to distinguish the precedent based on different taxation statutes, asserting that the principle established by the Privy Council was applicable universally. The wide definition of "income" under the Income-tax Act encompassed various scenarios, including the receipt of insurance proceeds in this case. The judgment clarified the reformulation of the question posed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to determine whether the sum of &8377; 14,00,000 constituted income under the Indian Income-tax Act and was liable for taxation. The revised question was answered in the affirmative, confirming the taxability of the insurance proceeds as revenue income.
Justice Tendolkar concurred with the Chief Justice's analysis and decision, supporting the taxability of the insurance proceeds received by the assessee company. The unanimous agreement by both judges solidified the conclusion that the sums received as indemnity for loss of profits due to fire damage were indeed subject to income tax under the Indian Income-tax Act.
-
1949 (3) TMI 28
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of deduction under Section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.
2. Disallowance of the sum for the purpose of Excess Profits Tax.
3. Procedure for reference under Section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of Deduction under Section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922:
The primary issue was whether the amount paid by an employer to his employees could be considered a valid deduction under Section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The court had to determine if the expenditure was "laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business of the assessee."
The assessee employed two individuals, Jamnadas and Purshottamdas, who were initially paid salaries of Rs. 125 and Rs. 111, respectively. On September 1, 1940, an agreement was made to pay each a commission of 20% on the net profits of the branch, resulting in payments of Rs. 6,000 each in the year of account. The Income-tax Officer allowed only Rs. 1,000 for both employees, disallowing the remaining Rs. 11,000. The Tribunal upheld this disallowance, concluding that only Rs. 1,000 was expended wholly and exclusively for the business.
The court agreed with the principle that the employer should determine the remuneration for employees. However, it emphasized that the Income-tax Officer must decide whether the remuneration was wholly and exclusively for the business. The court noted that various factors could be considered, such as the relationship between the employer and employee, the extent of the business, and the specific services rendered. The Tribunal found no evidence that the employees rendered special services justifying the large sum, and thus, the disallowance was upheld.
2. Disallowance of the Sum for the Purpose of Excess Profits Tax:
The second issue was whether the disallowance of the sum for Excess Profits Tax purposes was justifiable. The assessee argued that the disallowance was made under Rule 12 of Schedule I to the Excess Profits Tax Act, which required the consent of the Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax, and such consent was not obtained.
The court clarified that the Excess Profits Tax Act allows the Excess Profits Tax Officer to disallow deductions permissible under the Income-tax Act. However, since the deduction was disallowed under the Income-tax Act itself, there was no need to consider Rule 12 of Schedule I, and thus, no question of obtaining the Commissioner's permission arose.
3. Procedure for Reference under Section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922:
The third issue concerned the procedural aspect of the reference under Section 66(2). Initially, the Income-tax Tribunal refused to state a case on the assessee's application. The High Court, upon the assessee's request, directed the Tribunal to state a case with reference to questions formulated by the assessee.
The court emphasized that under Section 66(1), the Tribunal should draw up a statement of the case and refer it to the High Court if a question of law arises. If the Tribunal refuses, the assessee or Commissioner can approach the High Court under Section 66(2), and the High Court can require the Tribunal to state the case. The High Court must indicate the questions of law arising from the Tribunal's order. The Tribunal's role is to formulate the questions based on the High Court's indication and state a case germane to those questions. The High Court can then answer, reframe, or modify the questions as necessary.
The court concluded that the proper procedure involves the High Court indicating the questions of law, and the Tribunal formulating the questions for the case. The questions raised in this case were not well-worded, but the court decided to answer questions Nos. 4 and 5 in the negative.
Conclusion:
The court upheld the disallowance of Rs. 11,000 as the payment was not wholly and exclusively for the business. The disallowance for Excess Profits Tax was justified without needing the Commissioner's consent. The procedural aspect clarified that the High Court should indicate the questions of law, and the Tribunal should formulate the questions for the case.
-
1949 (3) TMI 27
Issues:
1. Applicability of Section 23A of the Income-tax Act when no dividends were declared.
2. Consideration of factors by the Income-tax Officer in determining reasonableness of dividend payment.
3. Limitation period for making orders under Section 23A.
4. Whether the smallness of profits justifies not declaring dividends under Section 23A.
Analysis:
1. The judgment addresses the applicability of Section 23A of the Income-tax Act when no dividends were declared by a private limited company. The court rejected the argument that Section 23A requires actual distribution of dividends for its application. It emphasized that the section aims to ensure that at least 60% of the assessable income is distributed, regardless of whether any dividends were actually paid. The court held that the section applies even if no distribution or less than 60% distribution occurs.
2. The judgment clarifies that the Income-tax Officer has discretion to determine the reasonableness of dividend payments based on two factors: losses incurred in previous years and the smallness of profits. The court emphasized that the officer's satisfaction regarding reasonableness should be based solely on these factors specified in the section. The court rejected the argument that additional factors like paid-up capital or business duration should be considered, stating that such factors were not mandated by the legislature.
3. The judgment addresses the limitation period for making orders under Section 23A. It explains that while Section 34(2) imposes a four-year limitation for regular assessments, there is no specific time limit mentioned for orders under Section 23A. Therefore, the court held that the order made under Section 23A was not barred by limitation.
4. The judgment also discusses whether the smallness of profits justifies not declaring dividends under Section 23A. It clarifies that the determination of whether profits are too small to declare dividends is a factual matter within the discretion of the Income-tax Officer. The court stated that it is not for the court to substitute its judgment for that of the officer, as long as the decision is based on the factors specified in the section. The court permitted the question on the construction of Section 23A regarding small profits to be raised for advisory jurisdiction, emphasizing that the smallness of profits should be considered in relation to the reasonableness of dividend payments only.
In conclusion, the judgment provides a detailed analysis of the issues related to the application of Section 23A of the Income-tax Act, emphasizing the legislative intent behind the provision and the factors to be considered by the Income-tax Officer in determining the reasonableness of dividend payments.
-
1949 (3) TMI 26
Issues Involved:
1. Whether defendants 2 and 3 could claim immunity from eviction as "tenants" under the Bombay Rent Act.
2. Whether the plaintiff's acceptance of rent from defendants 2 and 3 after the lease's expiration created a month-to-month tenancy under Section 116, T.P. Act, requiring proper notice to quit.
Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: Immunity from Eviction under the Bombay Rent Act
The primary contention was whether defendants 2 and 3 could claim protection under the Bombay Rent Act as "tenants." However, the appellate court did not delve into this issue as it resolved the case based on the second issue regarding the creation of a new tenancy by holding over.
Issue 2: Creation of Tenancy by Holding Over under Section 116, T.P. Act
The core of the judgment revolves around whether the plaintiff's acceptance of rent from defendants 2 and 3 constituted a new tenancy under Section 116, T.P. Act.
Facts and Background:
- The plaintiff leased the entire premises to defendant 1, who subleased portions to defendants 2 and 3.
- The lease expired on 31st August 1942, but defendants 2 and 3 continued to occupy the premises and sent rent cheques to the plaintiff.
- Initially, the plaintiff rejected these cheques, asserting that defendants 2 and 3 were trespassers.
- Subsequently, the plaintiff accepted cheques from November 1942 onwards, depositing them in his bank account without issuing receipts initially.
- The plaintiff later clarified that these amounts were accepted as compensation for wrongful occupation, not as rent.
Legal Analysis:
- Section 116, T.P. Act: This section states that if a lessee or under-lessee remains in possession after the lease's determination and the lessor accepts rent or otherwise assents to the continued possession, a new tenancy is created.
- Appellate Court's View: The appellate court held that the plaintiff's acceptance of rent cheques constituted assent to the continued possession, thereby creating a new tenancy from month to month.
- Plaintiff's Argument: The plaintiff contended that the acceptance of rent was not as tenants but as compensation for wrongful occupation, arguing that there was no consensus ad idem (meeting of minds) to create a new tenancy.
Judgment:
- Majority Opinion: The majority held that the acceptance of rent cheques without immediate protest and their subsequent deposit indicated assent to the creation of a new tenancy. The plaintiff's later protest in January 1943 was deemed too late to alter the legal consequences of the earlier acceptance.
- Key Points:
- Acceptance of rent without reservation initially implied a new tenancy.
- The plaintiff's subsequent letters did not negate the creation of the tenancy, as the initial acceptance was without reservation.
- The principle that acceptance of rent as indicated by the debtor binds the creditor was applied.
- Dissenting Opinion (Patanjali Sastri, J.): The dissenting judge disagreed, emphasizing that the acceptance of rent cheques was done without prejudice to the plaintiff's rights and contentions. He argued that there was no mutual agreement to create a new tenancy, as both parties maintained their respective positions.
- Key Points:
- The correspondence and conduct of parties indicated no consensus ad idem.
- The appellant's acceptance of cheques was a pragmatic step to minimize loss, not an assent to a new tenancy.
- The principle from the Privy Council decision in Kamakhya Narayan Singh v. Ram Raksha Singh was applied, where payment and acceptance of rent without prejudice did not imply a new tenancy.
Conclusion:
- The appeal was dismissed, upholding the appellate court's decision that a new tenancy was created under Section 116, T.P. Act, due to the plaintiff's acceptance of rent cheques.
- The dissenting opinion highlighted the importance of mutual agreement and the context of acceptance without prejudice, but it did not prevail.
The judgment underscores the significance of the lessor's conduct in accepting rent and the legal implications of such acceptance under Section 116, T.P. Act, in determining the creation of a new tenancy.
-
1949 (3) TMI 25
Issues:
1. Validity of the assignment of trade marks in two cross suits.
2. Acquisition of right to trade marks by the respective parties.
3. Application of legal principles regarding trade marks and goodwill.
4. Estoppel based on acquiescence in using trade marks.
In the judgment by the Madras High Court, two cross suits (O. S. Nos. 13 of 1944 and 14 of 1944) were filed by parties seeking declaration of their title in trade marks and an injunction against interference with their rights. The suits originated from a partnership between K. A. Kadir Sahib and S. A. Sattar Sahib, conducting business under the name "S. A. Sattar and K. A. Kadir and Co." After Sattar Sahib's death, a suit was settled by arbitration, resulting in the sale of trade marks to Zuleika Bibi, later sold to Abdul Waheb Sahib and eventually purchased by the plaintiff in O. S. No. 14 of 1944. The plaintiffs in O. S. No. 13 of 1944 claimed rights to the "original lion 7" trade mark used in a new business after the dissolution of the partnership. The District Judge held that the plaintiffs in O. S. No. 14 of 1944 did not acquire legal title to the trade marks, while recognizing the plaintiffs' right to the trade mark in O. S. No. 13 of 1944. The appeals arose from these decisions.
The court analyzed the law on trade marks, emphasizing that a trade mark is a warranty of origin or trade association of goods, with assignment validity principles outlined in legal precedents such as 'Lacteosote Ltd. v. Alberman'. It was established that a trade mark cannot be assigned separately from the goodwill of the business to which it is attached, as seen in 'Edwards v. Dennis'. The court considered the argument that the trade marks were not validly assigned due to the absence of goodwill transfer, ultimately agreeing with the lower court that the plaintiffs did not acquire legal title to the trade marks.
Regarding the defendants' alleged derogation from their grant, the court distinguished the case of 'Jenings v. Jenings', emphasizing that in the present case, only the trade marks were conveyed, not the goodwill. The argument of estoppel based on acquiescence was also addressed, citing 'Mohideen Bawa v. Rigaud Perfume Manufacturers' and legal principles requiring proof of ignorance of rights and detrimental reliance. The court found no evidence of acquiescence by the defendants in this case.
In the analysis of the trade marks in question, the court compared the plaintiffs' trade mark with the disputed marks, noting differences in design, color scheme, and details. It was concluded that the defendants' use of a trade mark was a clear imitation of the plaintiffs' mark, leading to the decision that the defendants had no right to the "Rising Sun" trade mark. The court upheld the lower court's declaration of the plaintiffs' title in the trade mark and issuance of an injunction against the defendants.
In conclusion, the court dismissed one appeal with costs and upheld the lower court's decision in the other appeal without costs, based on the detailed analysis of the validity of trade mark assignments, acquisition of rights, application of legal principles, and absence of estoppel through acquiescence.
-
1949 (3) TMI 24
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Forfeiture of Shares.
2. Limitation for Rectification of the Register.
3. Delay, Acquiescence, Waiver, and Estoppel.
4. Impossibility of Rectification.
5. Conduct of Shareholders and Corporate Personality.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of the Forfeiture of Shares:
The respondent company challenged the forfeiture of 5000 shares by Jawahar Mills Ltd., arguing it was invalid due to non-compliance with the notice requirements under Article 25 of the company's regulations. The notice was short by one day. The court held that the forfeiture was irregular but not void, making it voidable. The power to forfeit shares must be exercised strictly as per the company's regulations, and any irregularity makes the forfeiture voidable at the instance of the shareholder.
2. Limitation for Rectification of the Register:
There is no specific period of limitation prescribed for rectification under Section 38 of the Companies Act. However, it was agreed that if a suit for rectification is barred by limitation, the relief under Section 38 should be refused. The court applied Article 120 of the Limitation Act, which provides a six-year period for filing such claims. The cause of action accrued on 5-9-1941, and the application was filed on 5-3-1946, within the six-year period, making the claim timely.
3. Delay, Acquiescence, Waiver, and Estoppel:
The appellant argued that the respondent company's delay of nearly five years in seeking rectification disentitled them to relief. The court noted that mere delay is not a bar unless it leads to an inference of abandonment or actual prejudice to the opposing party. The court found no evidence of acquiescence, waiver, or estoppel but emphasized that the long delay caused prejudice to Jawahar Mills Ltd., which had acted on the assumption that the forfeiture was valid.
4. Impossibility of Rectification:
The court highlighted that Jawahar Mills Ltd. had re-allotted the forfeited shares to various persons and reduced its capital with court approval. As the shares were not available in specie, rectification was deemed impossible. The learned Judge's order to substitute 5000 unissued shares for the forfeited ones was found to lack a legal basis. The court concluded that it could not order rectification in the absence of third parties whose rights would be affected.
5. Conduct of Shareholders and Corporate Personality:
The court examined the conduct of the shareholders, who had opposed the restoration of the company in earlier proceedings and acted on the assumption that the forfeiture was valid. The court applied the modern doctrine of "lifting the corporate veil," considering the conduct of individuals behind the corporate entity. The court found that the shareholders' conduct, which caused prejudice to Jawahar Mills Ltd., justified denying the relief sought.
Conclusion:
The appeal by Jawahar Mills Ltd. was allowed, and the order of the learned Judge was set aside. The court directed the refund of the amount paid by the respondent company in compliance with the impugned order. The appeal by Govidarajulu Chetty concerning the forfeiture of 1000 shares was dismissed, as the notice issued met the requirements of the articles and was valid.
-
1949 (3) TMI 23
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the plaintiff is a holder in due course.
2. Whether the notice of dishonor was given within a reasonable time.
3. Whether the defendant is entitled to unconditional leave to defend the suit.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Whether the plaintiff is a holder in due course:
The plaintiff, South Indian Bank, Ltd., instituted a suit for recovery of a sum based on a cheque drawn by the defendant. The cheque was endorsed to the plaintiff for valuable consideration, making the plaintiff a holder in due course. The defendant contended that the plaintiff was not a holder in due course as there was no consideration for the endorsement. However, the Master found that the endorsement was supported by consideration because the payee endorsed the cheque in reduction of his previous liability and to provide a margin for future advances. This finding was upheld by Yahya Ali, J., and the appellate court, which concluded that the plaintiff was indeed a holder in due course.
2. Whether the notice of dishonor was given within a reasonable time:
The defendant argued that the plaintiff had no cause of action as no notice of dishonor was given until 26th May, 1947, which was unreasonable given the cheque was dishonored on 16th April, 1947. The Master found that the defendant was informed orally of the dishonor immediately after it occurred and had requested the plaintiff to present the cheque again, which was dishonored twice more. Therefore, the delay in formal notice was justified, and the oral notice was deemed sufficient. This finding was also upheld by Yahya Ali, J., and the appellate court.
3. Whether the defendant is entitled to unconditional leave to defend the suit:
The defendant sought leave to defend the suit unconditionally, arguing that triable issues were raised. Under Order 7, Rule 6 of the Original Side Rules and Order 37, Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, the court has discretion to grant leave to defend either unconditionally or subject to terms. The appellate court referred to the principles laid down in Jacobs v. Booth's Distillery Co. and other precedents, which state that leave to defend should be granted unconditionally if the defense raises a real and substantial issue. The court concluded that the defendant's defense was a sham and did not raise a real issue. The defendant admitted that the cheque was issued as an accommodation cheque, and therefore, he suffered no prejudice due to the lack of notice of dishonor. The defense of the plaintiff not being a holder in due course was also found to lack substance. Consequently, the court upheld the decision to grant conditional leave to defend, requiring the defendant to deposit a sum of Rs. 10,000 or furnish security within a specified period.
Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed, and the court extended the time for the defendant to furnish security by one month. The defendant's undertaking not to alienate his immovable properties pending the appeal was to continue until the security was furnished. The judgment emphasized that the defense raised by the defendant did not warrant unconditional leave to defend as it did not raise a plausible issue for trial.
-
1949 (3) TMI 22
Issues:
Interpretation of Section 8 of the Income-tax Act regarding deduction of interest on borrowings for investment in securities, Determining the principle for deciding the funds utilized by a bank in the investment of securities.
Analysis:
1. The judgment delves into the interpretation of Section 8 of the Income-tax Act concerning the deduction of interest on borrowings for investing in securities. The court analyzed the provisos under Section 8, particularly focusing on proviso 1, which allows for a deduction of interest paid on borrowings for investing in securities. The court clarified that this deduction is applicable only when the securities are taxable and not tax-free. The court emphasized the need to interpret the section and its provisos as a whole to derive a comprehensive and logical meaning, ultimately concluding that the deduction under proviso 1 does not apply to investments in tax-free securities.
2. The judgment discussed conflicting views from different High Courts on the interpretation of Section 8. While the Madras High Court supported the view that the deduction of interest on borrowings is not permissible for investments in tax-free securities, the Nagpur High Court took a contrary stance, allowing for the deduction despite the double benefit received by the assessee. The Bombay High Court favored the interpretation of the Madras High Court, emphasizing the need for a strict construction of taxing statutes and concluding that the deduction under proviso 1 is limited to investments in taxable securities.
3. The second issue addressed in the judgment pertains to determining the principle for identifying the funds utilized by a bank in the investment of securities. The court examined whether the bank used its working capital or deposits for investing in securities to ascertain eligibility for the deduction under proviso 1. Despite the lack of clarity in the bank's accounting practices, the court rejected the presumption that deposits were primarily used for investments, highlighting the absence of banking practices mandating such allocation. The court upheld the Tribunal's decision to deem that investments were made proportionately from both capital and deposits, aligning with the rule of justice, equity, and good conscience.
4. The court re-formulated the first question to address the computation of interest on borrowings based on proportional investments from capital and deposits. Both questions were answered affirmatively, confirming that the interest deduction under Section 8 is contingent on investments in taxable securities and that the bank's investments were deemed to be proportionate from capital and deposits. The judgment concluded with the assessee being directed to pay the costs, with the concurring opinion of Justice Tendolkar.
-
1949 (3) TMI 21
Issues:
1. Whether the assessee, a cooperative society engaged in life insurance business, is exempt from income tax under a notification issued by the Central Government under Section 60 of the Indian Income-tax Act.
Analysis:
The judgment addresses the issue of whether the B.B.&C.I. Railway Co-operative Mutual Death Benefit Society for Indian Staff, Limited, Bombay, is exempt from income tax under a notification issued by the Central Government. The crux of the matter lies in interpreting the notification and its applicability to cooperative societies engaged in insurance business. The Income-tax Act specifies that the profits of any business of insurance carried on by a mutual insurance association are considered income for tax purposes. However, a special method of computing these profits is outlined in Section 10(7) of the Act, which substitutes the provisions contained in Sections 8, 9, 10, 12, or 18 with rules in the Act's Schedule. The Schedule's Rule 2 dictates the computation of profits and gains of life insurance business. In this case, the profits of the society are to be computed as gross external incomings less management expenses. The Central Government, under Section 60 of the Act, has the power to exempt certain classes of income from tax through a notification. The notification at hand exempts the profits of cooperative societies, with an explanation excluding specific types of income. The dispute arises from whether the society's profits are wholly exempt or subject to taxation based on the explanation's applicability.
The first contention raised is that the profits of the assessee company cannot be wholly exempt under the notification as only profits falling outside the explanation are exempt. However, this argument is deemed fallacious as the explanation applies to income falling under specific heads, whereas the society's income is not categorized under different heads but computed as a single unit as per the Schedule to the Act. Therefore, the explanation does not apply to the society's case. The second argument questions whether the notification applies to an insurance company like the assessee. It is argued that the notification's language implies it applies to entities with multiple classes of income, which an insurance company may lack. However, the judgment interprets "classes of income" as broader than "heads of income," encompassing categories of income. Thus, the notification is deemed applicable to cooperative societies, including those engaged in insurance business. In the case of insurance companies, the entire income is exempt as the explanation does not apply to them. Therefore, the notification applies to both cooperative societies not engaged in insurance business and those involved in insurance business, exempting profits based on the explanation's scope.
In conclusion, the judgment affirms that the assessee, a cooperative society engaged in life insurance business, is exempt from income tax under the notification issued by the Central Government. The notification applies to cooperative societies, including those conducting insurance business, and exempts their profits based on the explanation's applicability. The judgment rules in favor of the assessee, affirming the exemption of their profits from taxation and directing the Commissioner to pay the costs.
-
1949 (3) TMI 20
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the payment made by the assessee was in the nature of capital expenditure or revenue expenditure.
Detailed Analysis:
Nature of Payment: Capital or Revenue Expenditure
The primary issue raised in this reference was whether a certain payment made by the assessee, Kolhia Hirdagarh Company Limited, was in the nature of capital expenditure or revenue expenditure. The payment in question was made to Rai Bahadur Seth Goverdhandas, who had sold his mining rights to Messrs. Choonilal Manilal Ltd., which later floated the assessee company.
Agreement Details
By the agreement dated 14th September 1939, the consideration for the purchase of mining rights included:
- A cash payment of Rs. 75,000.
- Fully paid-up shares worth Rs. 25,000.
- A minimum annual dividend of four annas per ton of coal raised.
Modification of Agreement
Due to legal constraints on paying fixed dividends irrespective of profits, a fresh agreement was made on 6th March 1941. This agreement modified the consideration:
- Goverdhandas gave up dividends on preference shares up to 6th March 1941.
- Preference shares were converted into ordinary shares.
- The company agreed to pay a commission of four annas per ton of steam and rubble coal and three annas per ton of slack coal raised and sold.
Tribunal's View
The Tribunal held that the payment of Rs. 9,849 for the account year 1941 was revenue expenditure.
Analysis of Transaction
The court emphasized the importance of understanding the real nature of the transaction, considering both the documents and surrounding circumstances. The court divided the consideration into two categories:
1. A specific sum of Rs. 75,000 and 500 preference shares.
2. A commission based on the coal production.
Key factors considered:
1. The commission was for an indefinite period.
2. The payment was related to turnover, not profits.
3. No specific amount was fixed for the commission.
Precedents and Case Law
The court referred to several cases to support its decision:
- Commissioners of Inland Revenue v. 36/9 Holding Ltd. (In Liquidation): This English case was almost indistinguishable from the present case. It involved an indefinite commission based on turnover, which was held to be revenue expenditure.
- Raja Bahadur Kamakshya Narain Singh v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bihar and Orissa: This Privy Council case held that royalties are revenue expenditure.
- Maharajkumar Gopal Saran Narain Singh v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bihar & Orissa: This case dealt with an annual payment being income in the hands of the vendor, not capital.
- Minister of National Revenue, Canada v. Catherine Spooner: This case caused some difficulty as it held that a share of oil production was a capital receipt, but the court distinguished it based on the nature of the transaction and the fact that it involved payment in kind.
Conclusion
The court concluded that the payment made by the assessee was revenue expenditure, considering:
- The indefinite period of payment.
- The relation to turnover rather than profits.
- The absence of a specific sum fixed as part of the purchase price.
Both questions submitted were answered in the affirmative, and the Commissioner was ordered to pay the costs.
Agreement by Tendolkar, J.
Tendolkar, J. agreed with the judgment.
-
1949 (3) TMI 19
Issues Involved
1. Competence of the second petition under Articles 226 and 227.
2. Tribunal's inherent power to review its order.
3. Presumption of due service of notice.
4. Delay and gross negligence in filing the petition.
Detailed Analysis
1. Competence of the Second Petition under Articles 226 and 227
The preliminary objection raised by the learned Advocate-General was that the second petition was not competent as it was between the same parties, for the same purpose, and seeking the same relief. Reference was made to Halsbury's Laws of England and several cases to support this contention. However, the court found that the previous application under Articles 226 and 227 was not for the same relief as the present petition. The earlier application sought a direction to respondent No. 2 to make certain additions to the reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, whereas the present petition sought to quash the order dated October 27, 1950, and to direct respondent No. 2 to hear and dispose of the application on merits and according to law. Therefore, the court held that the present petition was competent.
2. Tribunal's Inherent Power to Review its Order
The petitioners contended that the Tribunal had an inherent power to review its order, especially when the assessee had no opportunity of hearing due to non-service of notice. The Tribunal had dismissed the application for setting aside its order on the ground that it had no inherent power of review. However, the court observed that the hearing of the parties is a statutory imperative under Section 33(4) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. If a party can prove that it was never properly served with the notice, it cannot be said that such a party had an opportunity of being heard. The court held that the Tribunal had inherent jurisdiction to entertain and decide the application for setting aside the order if there was proof of non-service of notice. The court referred to the case of Bhagwan Radha Kishen v. Commissioner of Income-tax, which supported the view that the Tribunal had inherent jurisdiction to set aside an order of dismissal for default if there was no service of notice.
3. Presumption of Due Service of Notice
The first question framed for determination was whether a presumption of due service arises when a properly addressed registered letter is returned by the post office with an endorsement of refusal. The Division Bench had previously answered this question in the affirmative, holding that the return of the registered cover marked as "refused" is presumptive evidence of service and refusal. However, the court noted that if a party can prove that the return was not a true return and that there was no presentation of the registered cover, then it should be allowed to prove that as a fact.
4. Delay and Gross Negligence in Filing the Petition
The learned Advocate-General argued that the petition should be dismissed due to gross negligence and delay, as the order sought to be quashed was dated October 27, 1950, and the present petition was filed on February 11, 1957. The petitioners explained that they were misled by the observation of the learned Accountant Member of respondent No. 2, which led them to believe that they could seek relief in the manner they did in their first application under Articles 226 and 227. The court accepted this explanation and held that the delay was not due to gross negligence and was properly explained. Therefore, the delay was not a ground for dismissal of the petition.
Conclusion
The court quashed the order of respondent No. 2 dated October 27, 1950, and directed respondent No. 2 to dispose of the application dated February 13, 1950, on merits and according to law. There was no order as to costs.
-
1949 (3) TMI 18
Issues:
Interpretation of income under the Indian Income-tax Act for the financial year 1943-44.
Analysis:
The case involved an application by the assessee to refer certain questions of law arising from the Tribunal's order to the High Court under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act. The assessee, a firm dealing in hardware goods, had suffered a loss in speculation in the financial year ending 31st March 1940, which was credited to the account of a firm of brokers. Subsequently, a settlement was reached with the brokers in 1941, but this remission was not credited to the assessee's trading account. The main issue before the Tribunal was whether the remission amount should be included in the assessee's income for the financial year 1943-44. The Tribunal was divided in its opinion, leading to a reference to resolve the matter.
The President of the Tribunal, relying on precedent, held that the remission amount should be considered as income in the hands of the assessee as it arose from business and was not exempt under Section 4(3)(vii) of the Act. The President distinguished a previous case and emphasized that the reduction in liability must be considered as income. The point of difference was referred to another member who concurred with the President's view, resulting in the dismissal of the assessee's appeal.
The High Court, in its judgment, referred to a previous decision involving a similar scenario and held that if a liability allowed as a deduction is discharged by the remission of the creditor, it cannot be considered as income liable to tax. The Court distinguished another case where recovery of embezzled funds was treated as income, stating that in the present case, the remission amount was not received by the assessee as taxable income. The Court also cited a decision by the Nagpur High Court supporting their interpretation of the law.
In conclusion, the High Court answered the question of law in the negative, ruling that the remission amount of &8377; 16,544 was not the assessee's income for the financial year 1943-44 under the Indian Income-tax Act. The Court directed the Commissioner to pay the costs, and the reference was answered accordingly by both judges.
-
1949 (3) TMI 17
Issues:
Construction of Sections 30 and 31 of the Income-tax Act regarding the time limit for filing an appeal and the authority to admit appeals.
Analysis:
The judgment before the Bombay High Court dealt with the interpretation of Sections 30 and 31 of the Income-tax Act. The case involved an appeal by an assessee against an assessment made by the Income-tax Officer. The crucial issue was the time limit for filing the appeal, which was set at thirty days. In this case, the appeal was filed after the prescribed period had lapsed, making it out of time. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner refused to condone the delay, leading to a dispute about the competence of the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal.
The Court examined the statutory scheme under Sections 30 and 31 of the Act. It clarified that an assessee has a statutory right to file an appeal within thirty days without needing an order for admission from the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. However, if the appeal is filed after the time limit, the right to appeal lapses unless the delay is condoned. The Court emphasized that an appeal can only be entertained if the delay is condoned by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. Section 31 deals with appeals presented within the prescribed period or admitted after condonation of delay, outlining the procedure for hearing such appeals.
The Court rejected the argument that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's refusal to condone the delay amounted to confirming the assessment. It clarified that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner can only confirm an assessment if the appeal is presented within the stipulated time or after the delay is condoned. Since the appeal in this case was not admitted due to the delay not being condoned, the provisions of Section 31 did not apply. The Court distinguished this case from previous judgments of the Patna High Court, emphasizing that those cases involved admitted appeals, unlike the present situation.
Furthermore, the Court referred to a decision by the Allahabad High Court that aligned with its interpretation, stating that an order refusing to condone the delay is under Section 30, not Section 31. Consequently, the Court held that there was no appeal from the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's order under Section 30(2) of the Income-tax Act. The judgment was delivered by Chief Justice Chagla and Justice Tendolkar, with Justice Tendolkar concurring with the decision.
In conclusion, the Bombay High Court ruled that the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal against the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's order was not competent due to the failure to condone the delay in filing the appeal. The Court's interpretation of Sections 30 and 31 emphasized the importance of adhering to the statutory time limits for filing appeals in income tax matters.
-
1949 (3) TMI 16
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Court to make an order for public examination under Section 196 of the Companies Act.
2. Prima facie case of fraud against the appellant.
Detailed Analysis:
Jurisdiction of the Court to Make an Order for Public Examination:
The primary contention was whether the Court had the jurisdiction to order a public examination of a director under Section 196 of the Companies Act without a report under Section 177B(2). The argument presented by Sir Jamshedji was that the statutory jurisdiction of the Court could only be invoked after the official liquidator made a report under Section 177B(2). The Court, however, found that the report submitted by the official liquidator on 21st May 1948, which was pursuant to Sections 197, 196, 195, and 237, was sufficient. The Court noted that the report was aimed at obtaining an order under Section 196, and any omission of Section 177B was at most a clerical error. Furthermore, it was argued that the Companies Act in India did not explicitly require a report under Section 177B to invoke Section 196, unlike the analogous English law. The Court concluded that it was permissible for an order to be made under Section 196 based on the application of the official liquidator stating that a fraud had been committed.
Prima Facie Case of Fraud Against the Appellant:
The second contention was whether a prima facie case of fraud had been made out against the appellant. Sir Jamshedji argued that the official liquidator's report did not specifically allege fraud against his client. The Court, however, pointed out that the report detailed various instances of fraud and mismanagement, including the involvement of the appellant in the exclusive control and management of the Bank. The report highlighted that the Bank was run in a manner akin to a family affair, with significant fraudulent activities involving the Munjees and their allied concerns. The liquidator's report stated that the appellant, Sir Fazal Rahimtoola, was closely related to the Munjees and was involved in the management decisions that led to fraudulent transactions.
The Court emphasized that it is not necessary for the liquidator to explicitly state that a person is guilty of fraud; it is sufficient if the report sets out facts from which the Court can infer a prima facie case of fraud. The Court found that the liquidator's report and subsequent affidavits provided enough material to suggest that the appellant was privy to the fraudulent activities. The appellant's affidavit did not deny his involvement in the management or the fraudulent activities, nor did it provide any substantial defense against the allegations.
Practice of Making Ex Parte Orders:
The Court also addressed the practice of making ex parte orders for public examinations under Section 196. It was noted that while the practice in England allowed for ex parte orders, it was more prudent to adopt a practice where the official liquidator takes out a chamber summons and serves it upon the affected person. This ensures that the Court has all the necessary materials before making an order, thereby avoiding the pitfalls of ex parte orders that could involve serious liabilities for the affected person.
Conclusion:
The Court concluded that the order made by the learned Judge was discretionary and justified based on the materials presented. The appeal was dismissed with costs, affirming the jurisdiction of the Court under Section 196 and recognizing the prima facie case of fraud against the appellant.
-
1949 (3) TMI 14
Issues:
Appointment of a receiver in a company dispute, jurisdiction of the Court in appointing a receiver, management of the company's affairs, legality of appointing a receiver for managing agency business, consultation with company members before receiver appointment, legality of dispensing with services of the managing company, qualifications of the appointed receiver.
Analysis:
The judgment concerns a dispute between two individuals who established two companies and entered into a managing agency agreement. The disagreement led to a legal battle over the management of the companies, resulting in the appointment of a receiver. The first issue addressed was the jurisdiction of the Court in appointing a receiver for a company. The Court found that while the Companies Act provides mechanisms for mismanagement cases, appointing a receiver could be necessary in certain situations, especially when a party is unjustly deprived of management rights.
The next issue involved the propriety of appointing a receiver for the managing agency business of one of the companies. The Court clarified that the receiver was not replacing the company but acting as a manager, allowing the business to continue its operations. The Court rejected the argument that the managing agency agreement's terms required specific confidence in the managing company, stating that the agreement allowed for the assignment of management rights.
Another issue raised was the dismissal of an application without proper consideration. The Court acknowledged the importance of consulting the company members but noted that consulting the involved parties, who were in conflict, was equivalent to consulting the factions. The Court also addressed the legality of dispensing with the services of the managing company, emphasizing the lack of clear evidence supporting the termination of the agency agreement.
Lastly, the qualifications of the appointed receiver were challenged. The Court upheld the District Judge's decision, highlighting the receiver's experience and impartiality. It clarified that the receiver's powers were limited to those of the managing company and did not hinder the company's regular operations. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the appeals and revision petition, awarding costs to the contesting party.
-
1949 (3) TMI 13
Issues:
1. Legality and validity of the forfeiture of the plaintiff's shares by the defendant company.
2. Whether there has been any waiver of the illegality and invalidity of the forfeiture by the plaintiff's conduct.
Issue-wise Analysis:
1. Legality and Validity of the Forfeiture of the Plaintiff's Shares:
The court examined whether the forfeiture of the plaintiff's shares by the defendant company was carried out in compliance with the company's Articles of Association. The plaintiff, a shareholder in the defendant company, had defaulted on the third and fourth instalments of Rs. 1,250 each, despite having paid the first and second instalments. The defendant company issued several notices demanding payment, which the plaintiff did not comply with, leading to the forfeiture of his shares.
The lower court found multiple defects in the resolutions and notices issued by the company:
- The circular letters (Ex D-2 series) and the resolution (Ex. D-4) for the first call did not specify the amount, the person to whom, or the place where the payment was to be made, violating Art. 40 of the Articles of Association.
- The resolution (Ex. D-5) for the second call also failed to specify these particulars.
- The notices for the calls were not proved to have been served on the plaintiff.
- Further notices (Ex. D-8 series) did not contain required particulars under Art. 42.
- Resolutions (Exs. D-9 and D-11 (a)) were not considered valid resolutions for calls under Art. 40.
- Notices (Exs. D-10 and D-12) were defective as per Art. 42.
The lower court thus held the forfeiture invalid. However, the High Court disagreed, stating that the lower court's findings were unreasonable. The High Court presumed that the notices were duly posted and received by the plaintiff, who had shown conduct indicating receipt of prior notices. The court also held that the resolutions and notices were valid, referencing the Bombay High Court's decision in Dhunraj Keshrimal v. H.H. Wadia, which supported the presumption that the managing agents acted with the Board's sanction. The High Court found no irregularity or illegality in the forfeiture process.
2. Waiver of Illegality and Invalidity by Plaintiff's Conduct:
The High Court did not find it necessary to address the issue of waiver, as it concluded that the forfeiture was legally justified. The court assumed that even if there was no waiver, the defendant company had sufficient grounds for the forfeiture. The plaintiff's conduct, including his response to the final notice and partial payment, further supported the conclusion that he had received the prior notices and was aware of the calls for payment.
Conclusion:
The High Court overturned the lower court's judgment, finding that the defendant company had acted within its rights and in accordance with the Articles of Association in forfeiting the plaintiff's shares. The appeal was accepted, and the suit was dismissed with costs awarded to the appellant.
-
1949 (2) TMI 12
Issues Involved:
1. Application for administration pendente lite concerning a Will.
2. Judicial discretion under Section 247, Succession Act.
3. Necessity for appointing an administrator pendente lite.
4. Precedents and principles guiding the appointment.
5. Allegations against the executor named in the Will.
6. Appointment of an impartial administrator.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Application for Administration Pendente Lite Concerning a Will:
The application was for an administration pendente lite touching a Will, with the power to grant such administration conferred on the Court by Section 247, Succession Act. The court noted that the words "may appoint" indicate judicial discretion, which must be exercised on established legal principles.
2. Judicial Discretion Under Section 247, Succession Act:
The court emphasized that discretion under Section 247 is judicial, not arbitrary, and should be exercised based on established legal principles. The section replaces Section 34 of the Probate & Administration Act of 1881 and is based on the Court of Probate Act, 1857. English decisions are authoritative and can be relied on for exercising sound discretion under this section.
3. Necessity for Appointing an Administrator Pendente Lite:
The court examined the necessity for appointing an administrator pendente lite, stating that necessity arises when there are assets to be collected, no representative to collect them, and bona fide litigation regarding the title to representation. The principle is that during litigation over executorship, the estate is in a state of intestacy, necessitating the appointment of an administrator to collect and manage the assets.
4. Precedents and Principles Guiding the Appointment:
The court reviewed several English cases, such as 'King v. King' (1801), 'Rendall v. Rendall' (1841), and 'Bellew v. Bellew' (1865), to establish principles for appointing an administrator pendente lite. The court noted that the practice of granting administration pendente lite requires showing necessity, aligning with the Court of Chancery's practice of appointing receivers during bona fide litigation.
5. Allegations Against the Executor Named in the Will:
Serious allegations were made against the executor named in the Will, including conspiracy, fabrication of the Will, and mismanagement of the estate. The court emphasized that these allegations, whether true or not, indicated a bona fide litigation concerning the validity of the Will. The executor's involvement and the allegations against him necessitated the appointment of an impartial administrator.
6. Appointment of an Impartial Administrator:
The court concluded that an impartial administrator should be appointed to ensure the proper management of the estate. The general rule is that a party unconnected with the suit is the most proper person to be appointed administrator pendente lite. Given the allegations against the executor and the need for impartiality, the court appointed the Administrator General of Bengal as the administrator pendente lite. However, the court allowed for the possibility of appointing a mutually agreed-upon individual before the order was finalized, provided it did not prejudice any party's right to appeal.
Conclusion:
The court exercised its discretion to appoint an administrator pendente lite, considering the necessity to manage and collect the estate's assets during the litigation. The appointment aimed to ensure impartiality and prevent unnecessary costs and disputes, ultimately appointing the Administrator General of Bengal with an option for a consensual appointment before finalizing the order.
............
|
9911796707
