Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1949 This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA Law of Competition PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2025 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 2 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 281 to 300 of 3103 Records

• 1948 (2) TMI 21
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Validity of the adoption of Raja Somasekhara Royal to the Javalagiri Zemindar.
  2. Validity of the adoption of the respondent by the senior widow of the late Raja.
  3. Order as to costs passed by the High Court.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Validity of the Adoption of Raja Somasekhara Royal to the Javalagiri Zemindar:
  The appellant claimed that Raja Somasekhara Royal was validly adopted to the Javalagiri Zemindar by his widow, Umabai, and thus ceased to be a member of the Punganur family. The appellant needed to establish both the factum and the validity of this adoption. The Subordinate Judge held that Raja Somasekhara had been validly adopted, but the High Court disagreed, stating that the appellant had not proved that Umabai had the authority of her husband to adopt. The High Court found it impossible to hold on the oral evidence that Venkata Mahipal had authorized Umabai to adopt. The High Court also rejected certain documentary evidence (Exs. JJJ, KKK, LLL, and MMM) as inadmissible, which purported to support the claim of authority to adopt. The Privy Council agreed with the High Court's conclusion, noting that the documents were copies of copies and not originals, and there was no satisfactory evidence that the originals ever existed. Additionally, Umabai's conduct and assertions of authority were deemed insufficient to establish the validity of the adoption.
  
  2. Validity of the Adoption of the Respondent by the Senior Widow of the Late Raja:
  The appellant admitted the factum of the respondent's adoption by the senior widow of the late Raja but contended that it was invalid for lack of the husband's authority and the consent of the nearest sapindas. The Subordinate Judge held that the adoption was valid due to the oral authority given by the late Raja. However, the High Court held that the oral authority was not established and that the requisite consent of the nearest sapindas was not obtained, thus deeming the adoption invalid. Since the High Court found the adoption of Raja Somasekhara invalid, the question of the respondent's adoption did not arise for consideration. The respondent, being the only brother's son of the late Raja, was deemed the nearest heir and entitled to succeed to the zamindari.
  
  3. Order as to Costs Passed by the High Court:
  The High Court observed that the plaintiff had succeeded on almost every point except the validity of Raja Somasekhara's adoption and that the defendant's evidence was held to be untrue. Therefore, it ordered that each party bear their own costs throughout both the appeal and cross-objections. The respondent filed a cross-appeal against this order. The Privy Council found that the High Court had given sufficient reasons for its order and advised that the cross-appeal be dismissed but without costs.
  
  Conclusion:
  The appeal was dismissed with costs, and the cross-appeal regarding costs was also dismissed but without costs. The Privy Council upheld the High Court's findings that Raja Somasekhara's adoption was invalid and that the respondent, as the nearest heir, was entitled to the zamindari.

  ---

• 1948 (2) TMI 20
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Whether the order of the Collector dated 30th April 1947 and the order of the Commissioner in appeal dated 26th August 1947 are ultra vires.
  2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from enforcing the orders passed by the Collector and the Commissioner.
  
  Issue 1: Ultra Vires Orders
  The plaintiff challenged the orders of the Collector and the Commissioner under the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947, arguing that these orders were ultra vires and without jurisdiction. The plaintiff contended that the term "occupation" in Section 11(3) of the Act should be interpreted as "residence," thereby limiting the landlord's right to evict tenants only for residential purposes. The Court examined the statutory language and definitions within the Act, particularly focusing on the term "occupation." The Court noted that the Act's scope includes both residential and non-residential buildings, as defined in Section 2 of the Act. The Court concluded that "occupation" should be understood in its ordinary dictionary sense, meaning the actual use of the property for its intended purpose, which in this case was running a cinema house. Therefore, the orders of the Collector and the Commissioner were not ultra vires as they were within the jurisdiction conferred by the Act.
  
  Issue 2: Permanent Injunction
  The plaintiff sought a permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from enforcing the orders passed by the Collector and the Commissioner. The Court found that the plaintiff's argument hinged on a narrow interpretation of "occupation" as "residence." However, since the Court determined that "occupation" includes non-residential use, such as running a cinema house, the plaintiff's basis for seeking an injunction was unfounded. The Court also addressed additional contentions raised by the plaintiff, including the procedural validity of the application before the Controller and the scope of the eviction order. The Court ruled that these arguments were either procedurally barred or lacked substantive merit. Consequently, the Court denied the request for a permanent injunction.
  
  Conclusion
  The Court dismissed the suit with costs, holding that the orders passed by the Collector and the Commissioner were not ultra vires and that the plaintiff was not entitled to a permanent injunction. The Court emphasized that the term "occupation" in the relevant statutory provision should be interpreted broadly to include both residential and non-residential uses, thereby validating the eviction orders for the purpose of running a cinema house.
  
  Separate Judgment by M. Prasad, J.
  M. Prasad, J. concurred with the judgment, emphasizing that the word "occupation" must be construed in the context of the Act, which applies to both residential and non-residential buildings. He highlighted that the landlords' requirement to run a cinema show themselves falls within the meaning of "occupation" under Section 11(3) of the Act. Therefore, the landlords' actions were in compliance with the statutory provisions, and the plaintiff's suit was rightly dismissed.

  ---

• 1948 (2) TMI 19
  
  The High Court of Bombay allowed the revision application, setting aside the lower court's order to impound documents after the decree was signed. The court held that such action was not permissible under the Stamp Act and granted jurisdiction under Section 115, Civil P.C. The application for revision was allowed, and parties were to bear their own costs.

  ---

• 1948 (2) TMI 18
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Validity of the execution sale.
  2. Alleged suppression of processes and grossly inadequate sale price.
  3. Validity of the confirmation order post-restoration of an application under the Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act.
  4. Limitation period for filing the application to set aside the sale.
  5. Applicability of Section 34 and Section 35 of the Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act.
  6. Whether the application for setting aside the sale was barred by limitation.
  7. Whether a second appeal lies from an order refusing to set aside a sale under Section 174(3) of the Bengal Tenancy Act.
  
  Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Validity of the Execution Sale:
  The appeal challenges the validity of an execution sale conducted on January 8, 1943, where the property was sold to the respondent for Rs. 424-10-3. The appellant contended that the sale processes were suppressed and the property was sold at a grossly inadequate price. However, the trial court found that all processes had been duly served and dismissed the application as barred by limitation. The appellate court affirmed this decision, finding no material irregularity or fraud affecting the sale.
  
  2. Alleged Suppression of Processes and Grossly Inadequate Sale Price:
  The appellant argued that the sale should be set aside due to suppression of processes and the property being sold for an inadequate price. The trial court and the appellate court both found that the sale proclamation and concise statement were duly served. The appellate court noted that no evidence was provided regarding the value of the land at the time of the sale, and the low price was not caused by any fraud or irregularity. Therefore, the appellant's allegations were unsubstantiated.
  
  3. Validity of the Confirmation Order Post-Restoration of Application Under the Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act:
  The appellant contended that the confirmation order was void because the restoration of the application under the Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act revived the notice under Section 34 with retrospective effect. The trial court and appellate court found that the application before the Debt Settlement Board was dismissed on June 11, 1944, and the sale was confirmed on July 28, 1944. The restoration of the application on October 8, 1944, did not affect the validity of the confirmation order as no fresh notice under Section 34 was issued to the executing court.
  
  4. Limitation Period for Filing the Application to Set Aside the Sale:
  The appellant's application under Section 174(5) of the Bengal Tenancy Act and Sections 47 and 151 of the Civil Procedure Code was filed on December 8, 1944, more than six months after the sale. The trial court and appellate court held that the application was barred by limitation. The appellant could not invoke Section 18 of the Limitation Act as there was no fraud on the respondent's part. The courts also found that Section 52 of the Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act did not apply as the appellant was not debarred from making the application during the pendency of her case before the Debt Settlement Board.
  
  5. Applicability of Section 34 and Section 35 of the Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act:
  The appellant argued that the sale and confirmation order contravened Sections 34 and 35 of the Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act. The appellate court found that the sale was held before the application under the Act was made, and the notice under Section 34 reached the executing court only after the sale. Therefore, the sale was not affected by either section. The restoration of the application did not revive the notice under Section 34 with retrospective effect, and the confirmation order was valid.
  
  6. Whether the Application for Setting Aside the Sale Was Barred by Limitation:
  The appellate court held that the appellant's application under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code was within the three-year limitation period. However, the application under Section 174(3) of the Bengal Tenancy Act was prima facie out of time. The appellant could not invoke Section 18 of the Limitation Act, and the exclusion of time under Section 52 of the Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act was not applicable. Therefore, the application was barred by limitation.
  
  7. Whether a Second Appeal Lies from an Order Refusing to Set Aside a Sale Under Section 174(3) of the Bengal Tenancy Act:
  The appellate court noted that no second appeal lies from an order refusing to set aside a sale under Section 174(3) of the Bengal Tenancy Act. However, the appellant's application also impugned the confirmation order under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code, which raised a question relating to the execution of the decree. As the order passed thereon would operate as a decree, a second appeal was competent.
  
  Conclusion:
  The appeal and application for revision were both dismissed. The appellant's application was barred by limitation, and no material irregularity or fraud was proved in the execution sale. The confirmation order was valid, and neither Section 34 nor Section 35 of the Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act affected its validity. The respondent was awarded costs for the appeal, but no order for costs was made for the application for revision. Leave to appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent was refused.

  ---

• 1948 (2) TMI 17
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Nature of the sums received (capital or income).
  2. Applicability of Case VI of Schedule D for tax assessment.
  3. Interpretation of the agreement as an assignment or a license.
  4. Distinction between capital receipts and revenue receipts.
  5. Impact of the Copyright Act, 1911 on the case.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Nature of the sums received (capital or income):
  The primary issue was whether the sums received by the respondent in respect of film rights were capital or income receipts. The Crown argued that the amounts were "annual profits or gains" under Case VI of Schedule D, while the respondent contended they were capital receipts. The special commissioners initially decided in favor of the Crown, stating the sums were of a revenue nature, being paid and received on account of royalties. However, the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords disagreed, concluding the sums were capital receipts. The House of Lords emphasized that the respondent had assigned part of her copyright, which amounted to a sale of property, not merely a license to use it. Therefore, the sums received were considered capital receipts, not taxable as income.
  
  2. Applicability of Case VI of Schedule D for tax assessment:
  The Crown's alternative claim was that the amount received fell under Case VI of Schedule D, which pertains to "annual profits or gains not falling under any of the foregoing Cases, and not charged by virtue of any other Schedule." The House of Lords rejected this claim, stating that the transaction was a sale of property, not an ongoing source of income, and thus did not generate annual profits or gains. The Court held that the consideration received by the respondent did not fall within the ambit of annual profits and gains under Case VI of Schedule D.
  
  3. Interpretation of the agreement as an assignment or a license:
  A significant point of contention was whether the agreement constituted an assignment of copyright or merely a license to use the copyright. The House of Lords concluded that the agreement was an assignment, not a license. The respondent transferred ownership of part of her copyright to the purchaser for a specified period, which amounted to a sale of a capital asset. This interpretation was crucial in determining the nature of the sums received as capital receipts rather than income.
  
  4. Distinction between capital receipts and revenue receipts:
  The judgment highlighted the distinction between capital receipts and revenue receipts. Capital receipts arise from the sale of a capital asset, while revenue receipts are generated from the use or exploitation of an asset. The House of Lords emphasized that the respondent's transaction was a sale of a capital asset (part of her copyright), and the sums received were capital in nature. This distinction was critical in determining the taxability of the amounts received.
  
  5. Impact of the Copyright Act, 1911 on the case:
  The Copyright Act, 1911, played a significant role in the judgment. The Act allows for the assignment of copyright either wholly or partially, and either for the whole term or for any part thereof. The House of Lords noted that the respondent's transaction was a partial assignment of her copyright, which resulted in a transfer of ownership. This legal framework supported the conclusion that the sums received were capital receipts, as the respondent had parted with part of her property, not merely granted a license for its use.
  
  Conclusion:
  The House of Lords dismissed the appeal, concluding that the sums received by the respondent were capital receipts from the sale of a part of her copyright, not annual profits or gains taxable under Case VI of Schedule D. The Crown was ordered to pay the respondent's costs. The judgment clarified the distinction between capital and revenue receipts and emphasized the importance of the specific terms of the agreement and the provisions of the Copyright Act, 1911, in determining the nature of the sums received.

  ---

• 1948 (2) TMI 16
  
  Issues:
  Competency of a woman to act as karta of a joint family under Hindu law.
  
  Analysis:
  
  The case involved a reference under Section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act, concerning the competency of Mrs. Kesar Bai to enter into a partnership contract in her representative capacity as karta of an undivided family. The dispute arose after the demise of her husband, Radhavallabh, who had a partnership business with his brothers. Following his death, a new partnership agreement was made, designating Kesar Bai as a partner in her capacity as the family manager. The Income-tax Officer initially refused registration, questioning Kesar Bai's competency as the manager of the joint family. However, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal upheld the partnership's validity, leading to the current reference.
  
  The contention raised was whether a woman, specifically Kesar Bai, could act as karta of a joint family under Hindu law. The argument against her competency was based on the traditional view that only males could hold the position of manager in a joint Hindu family. However, the Tribunal disagreed with this assertion, highlighting the evolving status of women in Hindu society. The Tribunal emphasized that antiquated views regarding women's roles have been reformed by legislative acts and judicial decisions, acknowledging the changing landscape of gender equality in modern times.
  
  The Tribunal referenced legal precedents to support its decision. It noted that under the Dayabhaga law, a widow can become a coparcener with male heirs and subsequently act as the karta of the joint family. While the Mitakshara law traditionally excludes females from coparcenary rights, the Tribunal held that such exclusion does not automatically disqualify a woman from managing a joint family estate. Citing past judgments, the Tribunal affirmed that any adult member, regardless of gender, can be the manager of a joint Hindu family, emphasizing the rights and responsibilities that come with such a position.
  
  In conclusion, the Tribunal determined that Mrs. Kesar Bai was indeed competent to act as the karta of the joint family comprising herself and her minor sons. By affirming her managerial role, the Tribunal upheld the validity of the partnership agreement in question. The decision underscored the progressive shift in Hindu law towards recognizing women's rights and capabilities in managing joint family affairs.

  ---

• 1948 (2) TMI 15
  
  Issues:
  Determining whether the offense disclosed is under Section 403 or Section 406 of the Penal Code.
  
  Analysis:
  The judgment was issued in response to a Rule questioning the sentence imposed on the accused, arguing that the offense disclosed falls under Section 403 and not Section 406 of the Penal Code. The case involved a complainant who was a goldsmith and an accused who borrowed ornaments for a marriage ceremony but failed to return them. The key argument was whether the accused's actions constituted criminal misappropriation under Section 403. The court examined the nature of entrustment and possession of property under Sections 403 and 405. It was established that in cases of criminal misappropriation (Section 403), the property must come into the possession of the accused in a neutral manner, while in cases of criminal breach of trust (Section 405), the property is entrusted to the accused. In this case, the ornaments were handed over to the accused in confidence for a specific purpose, indicating an entrustment relationship. The court concluded that the accused was entrusted with the ornaments and failed to return them as promised, constituting an offense under Section 406. Consequently, the Rule was discharged, and the accused was ordered to surrender to bail, serve the remaining sentence, pay a fine, and comply with the compensation order.
  
  Judges' Agreement:
  Both judges, Arthur Trevor Harries and Blank, concurred with the decision and agreed that the accused's actions amounted to a breach of trust under Section 406 of the Penal Code. The judgment emphasized the importance of distinguishing between criminal misappropriation and criminal breach of trust based on the manner in which the property is possessed by the accused. The court's analysis focused on the principles outlined in the Penal Code and previous legal precedents to determine the appropriate classification of the offense in question. The accused's failure to return the borrowed ornaments despite explicit promises constituted a violation of the trust placed in him by the complainant, leading to the dismissal of the Rule and upholding of the original sentence and compensation order.

  ---

• 1948 (2) TMI 14
  
  Issues:
  Breach of agreement for employment as managing agents - Privity between company and firm - Recognition of firm as distinct entity - Claim for damages for breach of agreement - Refusal to amend plaint for implied agreement - Application of Section 87B(c), Companies Act.
  
  Analysis:
  
  1. Breach of agreement for employment as managing agents:
  The appellant claimed damages for breach of an agreement made in 1907 to employ the firm as managing agents of the company. The agreement stipulated that the firm would act as secretaries, treasurers, and agents of the company as long as both entities existed and conducted business. However, the company contended that the agreement had terminated due to changes in the composition of the firm. The trial court and the High Court dismissed the suit on the grounds that the appellant was not a party to the original agreement and, therefore, could not enforce its rights or obligations.
  
  2. Privity between company and firm:
  The courts in India upheld the dismissal of the suit, emphasizing that the original agreement was made between the company and specific individuals who were no longer part of the firm when the claim was brought. This lack of privity between the company and the reconstituted firm, which included the appellant, was a crucial factor in denying the appellant's claim for damages.
  
  3. Recognition of firm as distinct entity:
  The appellant argued that under the Indian Partnership Act, a firm is recognized as a separate entity from its members. However, the courts clarified that while a firm may have a distinct personality, changes in its composition can impact the continuity of that entity. The law does not confer perpetual succession on a firm, and in this case, the original agreement was with specific individuals who were no longer part of the firm.
  
  4. Refusal to amend plaint for implied agreement:
  The appellant sought to amend the plaint to include an alleged implied agreement between the company and the appellant in 1922. The courts refused the amendment, noting that any claim based on the implied agreement would be time-barred. The absence of a plea of estoppel against the company and the focus on the breach of the original agreement were key factors in denying the request to amend the plaint.
  
  5. Application of Section 87B(c), Companies Act:
  The appellant relied on Section 87B(c) of the Companies Act, which deals with the transfer of office by a managing agent. However, the courts held that this section did not apply to the case at hand. While the appellant was considered an original partner for the purposes of a specific proviso in the Act, it did not confer original partner status concerning the managing agents' agreement. Therefore, the court dismissed the appeal, affirming the decisions of the lower courts.
  
  In conclusion, the appeal was dismissed, and the appellant's claim for damages for breach of the agreement was rejected based on the lack of privity between the company and the reconstituted firm, the recognition of the firm as a distinct entity subject to changes in composition, and the inapplicability of the Companies Act provision cited by the appellant.

  ---

• 1948 (2) TMI 13
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Validity of certain provisions of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922-1939.
  2. Jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer to make the assessment.
  
  Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Validity of Certain Provisions of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922-1939:
  
  The appellant company challenged the validity of the provisions of Sections 4A(c) and 4(1)(b)(ii) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922-1939, which included income arising outside British India in the total income for tax assessment. The appellant argued that this legislation, having an extra-territorial operation, was ultra vires the Central Indian Legislature.
  
  The judgment clarified that the relevant provisions of the Income-tax Act were Sections 3, 4, 4A, and 64. The court focused on whether the charging section (Section 3) was effective in law when applied to companies that met the statutory definition of residence, as it included income arising outside British India.
  
  The court determined that the charging section imposes a tax on the income of the "previous year," not the year of assessment, and that the liability to tax arises by virtue of the charging section alone. The fact of residence or non-residence of a company is established by the close of the previous year.
  
  The court stated that the power to legislate on taxes on income under the Government of India Act, 1935, includes the power to tax income with a sufficient territorial connection. The court concluded that deriving the major part of its income from British India gives a company a sufficient territorial connection to justify taxation on its total income, including income from outside British India.
  
  2. Jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer to Make the Assessment:
  
  The appellant contended that the assessment was not made by the proper officer under Section 64 of the Income-tax Act. The appellant argued that since it took no active part in the partnership business, it did not carry on business at the partnership place of business, and thus, the Additional Income-tax Officer, Companies Circle, Bombay, lacked jurisdiction.
  
  The court dismissed this contention, stating that the essence of partnership is that each partner is an agent of the others for carrying on the partnership business. The failure of any partner to take part in the management does not mean they are not carrying on business as a partner. Therefore, the Additional Income-tax Officer had jurisdiction to make the assessment.
  
  Conclusion:
  
  The court answered all four questions in favor of the respondent, the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay District. The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant company was ordered to pay the costs of the appeal.
  
  Appeal Dismissed.

  ---

• 1948 (2) TMI 12
  
  Issues Involved
  1. Jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the application.
  2. Locus standi of the petitioners to maintain the application.
  3. Validity of the winding-up order.
  4. Allegations of collusion and suppression of service.
  5. Application for stay of winding-up proceedings.
  
  Detailed Analysis
  
  1. Jurisdiction of the Court to Entertain the Application
  The primary issue is whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain the application to set aside the winding-up order. According to section 202 of the Companies Act, re-hearings and appeals from orders made in the winding-up of a company must be conducted in the same manner and subject to the same conditions as appeals from orders made in cases within the Court's ordinary jurisdiction. The Court concluded that re-hearing under section 202 is akin to an appeal and must be initiated through a memorandum of appeal and brought before the appropriate appellate Court. Therefore, the High Court, as the company Court, lacks jurisdiction to entertain the application as a re-hearing or appeal.
  
  2. Locus Standi of the Petitioners to Maintain the Application
  The petitioners did not give notice of intention to appear at the hearing of the winding-up petition under rule 58 or file any affidavit under rule 59, nor did they seek leave of the Court at the time of the hearing. As a result, they did not become parties to the proceedings. The right to appeal or seek re-hearing is generally available only to parties to the proceedings. The Court referred to several judicial decisions, including *Security Insurance Company's Case* and *Rustomji v. Official Liquidator of the Peoples and Amritsar Banks Ltd.*, to support the conclusion that non-parties to the proceedings cannot maintain an appeal or re-hearing without leave of the Court.
  
  3. Validity of the Winding-Up Order
  The petitioners argued that the winding-up order was obtained through collusion and suppression of service. The Court examined the sequence of events leading to the winding-up order, including the statutory notices, the presentation of the petition, and the service of the petition on the company. The Court found no evidence of collusion between the petitioning creditor and Manabendra. The statutory notices were duly sent, and the petition was served on the company's registered office. The advertisements were also published as directed by the Court. The Court concluded that the winding-up order was validly obtained.
  
  4. Allegations of Collusion and Suppression of Service
  The petitioners alleged collusion between Manabendra and the petitioning creditor, Shiva Prosad, and suppression of service of the petition on the company. The Court found no evidence to support these allegations. The statutory notices were sent to the company's registered office, and the petition was served on an employee of the company. The Court noted that the petitioners had not provided sufficient evidence to prove that the company had no employee named Ram, who allegedly received the petition. The Court concluded that the allegations of collusion and suppression of service were unfounded.
  
  5. Application for Stay of Winding-Up Proceedings
  The petitioners also sought a stay of the winding-up proceedings under section 173 of the Companies Act. The Court noted that this section presupposes a valid winding-up order and requires proof that all proceedings in relation to the winding-up ought to be stayed. The Court considered various factors, including the absence of a balance sheet since 1944, the lack of ordinary general meetings, the conviction of a partner of the managing agents for bribery and black-marketeering, and ongoing disputes between factions. The Court concluded that the petitioners had not provided sufficient information or material to justify staying the winding-up proceedings.
  
  Conclusion
  The application to set aside the winding-up order was dismissed on the grounds that the High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the application as a re-hearing or appeal, and the petitioners did not have the locus standi to maintain the application. The allegations of collusion and suppression of service were found to be unsubstantiated. The application for stay of the winding-up proceedings was also dismissed as the petitioners failed to provide sufficient justification for the stay. The petitioners were ordered to pay the costs of the liquidator, Manabendra, and the petitioning creditor.

  ---

• 1948 (2) TMI 9
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the application.
  2. Applicant's entitlement to certified true copies of documents.
  3. Applicant's right to inspection of documents.
  4. The status of the applicant as a member of the company.
  5. Discretion of the Court in granting relief.
  
  Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the application:
  The primary issue raised was whether the High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the application. The applicant sought certified true copies and inspection of various documents from the company. The company, represented by Mr. M.N. Banerjee, contended that only the Court authorized to impose penalties under the Indian Companies Act could enforce compliance with the Act's requirements. This contention was based on an interpretation of several sections of the Act, including sections 31, 31A, 32, 36, 76, 82, 83, 87, 91A, 91C, 117, 123, 124, 125, 131A, 134, 135, and 137. However, the Court held that the true principle of statutory interpretation is to give words their ordinary natural meaning unless the statute provides a special meaning. The Court concluded that the words "the Court" in the relevant sections refer to the High Court having jurisdiction where the registered office of the company is situated, thus affirming its jurisdiction to entertain the application.
  
  2. Applicant's entitlement to certified true copies of documents:
  The applicant initially sought certified true copies of various documents, including balance sheets, profit and loss accounts, and directors' reports. However, the Court noted that there is no provision in the Indian Companies Act entitling any person to certified true copies. The applicant's counsel conceded this point and agreed to accept ordinary copies instead. The Court, therefore, did not grant the request for certified true copies but considered the request for ordinary copies.
  
  3. Applicant's right to inspection of documents:
  The applicant sought inspection of several documents under clauses (c), (d), (e), and (g) of the summons. The Court examined the relevant sections of the Indian Companies Act to determine the applicant's rights as an outsider (non-member). It was found that:
  - Under Section 87(3) and (5), the applicant could inspect documents mentioned in sub-clause (c) but was not entitled to copies.
  - Under Section 124, the applicant could inspect the register of mortgages (sub-clause (d)) but was not entitled to copies.
  - Under Section 36, the applicant could inspect and obtain copies of the register of members (sub-clause (e)).
  - Under Section 32, the applicant could inspect and obtain copies of the annual list and summary (sub-clause (g)).
  
  The Court granted the applicant inspection of the documents referred to in sub-clauses (c), (d), (e), and (g) and ordered the company to provide copies of the documents in sub-clauses (e) and (g) upon payment of the requisite fees.
  
  4. The status of the applicant as a member of the company:
  The company contended that the applicant was no longer a member because his shares had been forfeited and re-allotted due to an alleged lien. The applicant disputed this, arguing that the forfeiture was ultra vires, illegal, and void. The Court noted that the issue of the applicant's membership status was already pending in a separate suit filed by the applicant against the company. Given the complexity of the factual and legal issues involved, the Court declined to express any opinion on the applicant's membership status in this summary application. Consequently, the Court did not grant any relief concerning documents that were available only to members.
  
  5. Discretion of the Court in granting relief:
  The company argued that the Court had discretion to deny the applicant's request for copies and inspection, especially since the applicant was familiar with the records from his time as a director. The Court, however, held that the relevant sections of the Act confer an absolute and unqualified right to inspection and copies for certain documents, and the enabling word "may" should be read as a compulsory directive. The Court also stated that the applicant's motive for seeking the documents was irrelevant if he had a legal right to them. The Court granted the applicant inspection and copies of the documents he was entitled to under the Act and awarded him costs of the application as of a motion.
  
  Conclusion:
  The High Court of Calcutta held that it had jurisdiction to entertain the application, granted the applicant inspection and copies of certain documents as an outsider, and awarded costs to the applicant. The Court declined to rule on the applicant's membership status, deferring that issue to the pending suit.

  ---

• 1948 (1) TMI 26
  
  Issues:
  Appeal against acquittal under Clause 18(2), Cotton Cloth and Yarn (Control) Order, 1943; sufficiency of prosecution sanction under Section 23 of the Order.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Appeal Against Acquittal:
  The appellant appealed against the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, which set aside his acquittal by the City Magistrate of Sholapur and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment and a fine under Clause 18(2), Cotton Cloth and Yarn (Control) Order, 1943.
  
  2. Sufficiency of Prosecution Sanction:
  The key issue revolved around the sufficiency of the prosecution sanction under Section 23 of the Cotton Cloth and Yarn (Control) Order, 1943. The sanction given by the Government of Bombay specified the appellant as the person to be prosecuted and the clause allegedly contravened but did not detail the acts constituting the contravention.
  
  3. High Court's Decision:
  The High Court held that the burden of proving the requisite sanction rested on the prosecution and required proof that the sanctioning authority was aware of the facts forming the basis of the prosecution. The Court concluded that the sanction was valid based on the evidence presented.
  
  4. Privy Council's Analysis:
  The Privy Council disagreed with the High Court's interpretation, emphasizing that the sanction must be given in respect of the facts constituting the offense charged. While the facts need not be explicitly stated in the sanction, the prosecution must prove, through extraneous evidence if necessary, that the sanctioning authority was aware of the facts.
  
  5. Compliance with Clause 23:
  The Privy Council clarified that the sanction is a condition precedent to prosecution, and the authority must have knowledge of the case's facts. Merely naming the person and specifying the provision breached is insufficient if the authority is unaware of the alleged acts constituting the offense.
  
  6. Jurisdiction and Sanction:
  The giving of sanction confers jurisdiction on the Court to try the case, and the charge need not mirror the exact terms of the sanction. However, the offense charged must align with the offense covered by the sanction.
  
  7. Cure of Defect:
  The respondent argued that any defect in the sanction could be cured under Section 537 of the Criminal Procedure Code. However, the Privy Council rejected this argument, stating that a defect in jurisdiction cannot be rectified under this provision.
  
  8. Decision and Recommendation:
  The Privy Council advised allowing the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order, and restoring the City Magistrate's acquittal. The Council found the sanction invalid due to lack of proof of the facts constituting the offense charged, rendering the trial court without jurisdiction.

  ---

• 1948 (1) TMI 25
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Vicarious liability of the master for the acts of the servant.
  2. Application of mens rea in statutory offences.
  3. Interpretation of the Motor Spirit Rationing Order, 1941, and Act XXIV of 1946.
  4. Precedents and legal principles regarding absolute prohibition and mens rea.
  
  Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Vicarious Liability of the Master for the Acts of the Servant:
  The primary issue was whether accused No. 1, the owner of the petrol pump, could be held vicariously liable for the unauthorized supply of petrol by his servant (accused No. 3) without his knowledge. The prosecution argued that accused No. 1, as the master, was liable under Sections 7 and 8 of Act XXIV of 1946 read with Clauses 5 and 22 of the Motor Spirit Rationing Order, 1941, despite the absence of mens rea. The court examined the definition of "supplier" and the absolute prohibition imposed by the Motor Spirit Rationing Order, 1941, concluding that the supplier must comply with the order's provisions.
  
  2. Application of Mens Rea in Statutory Offences:
  The court considered whether mens rea was an essential element for the offence under the Motor Spirit Rationing Order, 1941, and Act XXIV of 1946. The prosecution cited the decision in Emperor v. Mahomed Bashir, which held that the master is criminally liable for the acts of his servant in cases of absolute prohibition. However, the court referred to the Privy Council's decision in Srinivas Mall Bairoliya v. Emperor, which clarified that not all offences with absolute prohibition exclude mens rea. The Privy Council emphasized that only a limited and exceptional class of minor offences could be committed without a guilty mind.
  
  3. Interpretation of the Motor Spirit Rationing Order, 1941, and Act XXIV of 1946:
  The court analyzed the provisions of the Motor Spirit Rationing Order, 1941, and Act XXIV of 1946. It noted that Section 7 of Act XXIV of 1946 provided for punishment for contravening orders made under Section 3, which included the Motor Spirit Rationing Order, 1941. The court highlighted that the offences under the Defence of India Rules, replaced by Act XXIV of 1946, were not minor and quasi-criminal, as they carried severe penalties, including imprisonment for up to three years.
  
  4. Precedents and Legal Principles Regarding Absolute Prohibition and Mens Rea:
  The court reviewed various precedents and legal principles regarding mens rea and absolute prohibition. It referred to English cases and earlier decisions of the Bombay High Court, noting that offences where mens rea was not essential were typically minor and quasi-criminal. The court concluded that the offence in question did not fall within this limited category. It also cited Halsbury's Laws of England, which stated that mens rea is generally necessary unless explicitly excluded by statute.
  
  Conclusion:
  The court concluded that the conviction of accused No. 1 was not justified, as the offence under the Motor Spirit Rationing Order, 1941, and Act XXIV of 1946 required mens rea. The court emphasized the importance of protecting the liberty of the subject and ensuring that an innocent person is not punished. It noted that if the legislature intended to impose vicarious liability without mens rea, it should have explicitly provided for it in the statute. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and directed the acquittal and discharge of accused No. 1.

  ---

• 1948 (1) TMI 24
  
  Issues Involved
  1. Whether the sum derived from the sale of Sal trees in the forests can be treated as agricultural income under Section 2 of the Bengal Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1944.
  
  Issue-wise Detailed Analysis
  
  1. Definition and Scope of Agricultural Income
  The primary issue is whether the income derived from the sale of Sal trees can be classified as "agricultural income" under Section 2 of the Bengal Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1944. Agricultural income is defined in Section 2(1) of the Act, which includes:
  - (a) any rent or revenue derived from land used for agricultural purposes and assessed to land revenue.
  - (b) any income derived from such land by agriculture, or by processes ordinarily employed by a cultivator to render the produce fit for market.
  
  2. Interpretation of Agriculture
  The term "agriculture" is not explicitly defined in the Act. Various dictionary definitions and legal interpretations were considered to understand its scope. The term is broader than "cultivation" and includes activities such as tillage, husbandry, and farming. The court emphasized that the definition should be interpreted in the context of the Act and not based on other statutes.
  
  3. Judicial Precedents
  The court referred to several judicial precedents to determine whether the income from forest trees can be considered agricultural income:
  - Raja Mustafa Ali Khan v. Commissioner of Income-tax: The Judicial Committee held that income from forest trees growing naturally without human intervention is not agricultural income.
  - In re Moolji Sicka & Co.: Income from tendu leaves, which involved human intervention in the form of pruning and plucking, was considered agricultural income.
  
  4. Human Intervention and Regular Operations
  The court examined whether there was sufficient human intervention in the forest operations:
  - The forest consisted mainly of Sal trees sold for fuel and posts.
  - The forest was divided into blocks, and trees were sold when about 15 years old.
  - New shoots grew from stumps after cutting, and the ground was kept free from undergrowth.
  - Forest guards protected the new shoots from damage by cattle and men.
  
  5. Application of Human Efforts
  The court noted that the assessee carried on "regular operations in forestry," which involved human efforts such as guarding new shoots and removing undergrowth. These activities were considered significant, although they did not involve traditional agricultural practices like tilling or sowing.
  
  6. Land Used for Agricultural Purposes
  The court concluded that the land was used for agricultural purposes due to the regular forestry operations. The term "agriculture" was interpreted in its wider sense, which includes forestry operations requiring skill and labor.
  
  Conclusion
  The court held that the income from the sale of Sal trees in this particular case could be treated as agricultural income under the Bengal Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1944. The question referred to the court was answered in the affirmative. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.
  
  Separate Judgment
  - DAS, J.: Agreed with the judgment and the reference was answered accordingly.

  ---

• 1948 (1) TMI 23
  
  Issues:
  Interpretation of Sections 2(h) and 15(a) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939.
  
  Analysis:
  The judgment revolves around the proper construction of Sections 2(h) and 15(a) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939. The petitioner, a dealer in silver wares and gold jewels, was convicted under Section 15(a) for not including the value of 15,322-1/8 tolas of silver in his tax return. The petitioner argued that the transaction was not a sale but a barter, citing the definition of "sale" in the Sale of Goods Act. However, the court held that the definition of "sale" under the General Sales Tax Act is broader and includes transactions where consideration is not solely money. The court emphasized that the transfer of goods for cash or other valuable consideration constitutes a sale under the Act, even if it does not align with the Sale of Goods Act's definition of sale.
  
  The judgment delves into whether the quantity of silver received by the petitioner, along with cash for making charges, qualifies as "other valuable consideration." The court determined that when a finished silver article is exchanged for an equivalent weight of silver and cash, the transaction constitutes a sale under the General Sales Tax Act. The court rejected the argument that "other valuable consideration" should be limited to specific forms of payment like promissory notes, bills of exchange, or hundis, emphasizing that silver itself holds value as a metal, making the transaction taxable under the Act.
  
  The judgment also addresses the issue of whether the petitioner wilfully submitted an untrue return. The court analyzed the term "wilful" in the context of Section 15(a) and distinguished it from criminal intent. The court held that the omission of the silver value in the return was not due to inadvertence but a deliberate decision based on the petitioner's belief that it was not taxable. The court clarified that "wilfully" in this context does not require a criminal intent but excludes cases of inadvertence or mistake. The court referenced legal precedents to support its interpretation of "wilful" in the context of tax offenses.
  
  Ultimately, the court upheld the petitioner's conviction under Section 15(a) and deemed the imposed fine of Rs. 200 appropriate considering the business turnover. The judgment concluded by dismissing the revision and affirming the conviction based on the petitioner's deliberate omission in the tax return, highlighting the distinction between wilful neglect and a wilful submission of an incorrect return.

  ---

• 1948 (1) TMI 22
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Application for winding-up of Darjeeling Bank, Ltd.
  2. Scheme of amalgamation with Mahaluxmi Bank, Ltd.
  3. Allegations against the managing director B. Mukherjee.
  4. Compliance with procedural rules.
  5. Validity of demand notices.
  6. Effect of sanctioned scheme on winding-up petition.
  7. Merits of the winding-up application.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Application for Winding-Up of Darjeeling Bank, Ltd.:
  The petitioner, a creditor of Darjeeling Bank, Ltd., sought the winding-up of the company due to its inability to pay debts, alleging commercial insolvency and mismanagement. The company responded by proposing a scheme of amalgamation with Mahaluxmi Bank, Ltd., to settle its liabilities.
  
  2. Scheme of Amalgamation with Mahaluxmi Bank, Ltd.:
  The company proposed a scheme to transfer its assets and liabilities to Mahaluxmi Bank, Ltd., which would pay creditors partly in shares and partly in cash over a period. This scheme was presented to the court and creditors for approval. However, the Mahaluxmi Bank, Ltd., later declined the amalgamation proposal, which was not disclosed to the petitioner until much later.
  
  3. Allegations Against Managing Director B. Mukherjee:
  Serious allegations were made against the managing director, B. Mukherjee, including mismanagement, placing relatives in key positions, buying properties with company funds, and allowing unsecured overdrafts. These allegations were supported by evidence and were a significant factor in the petition for winding-up.
  
  4. Compliance with Procedural Rules:
  Mr. Chaudhuri, representing the company, raised technical objections regarding non-compliance with procedural rules, such as the form of the petition and the addressing of demand notices. The court found these objections insufficient to dismiss the petition, condoning any irregularities due to the circumstances.
  
  5. Validity of Demand Notices:
  The demand notices were addressed to the general manager rather than the company, which Mr. Chaudhuri argued was non-compliant with section 163. The court held that this did not invalidate the petition, as the petitioner could still prove the company's inability to pay its debts.
  
  6. Effect of Sanctioned Scheme on Winding-Up Petition:
  Mr. Chaudhuri argued that the sanctioned scheme precluded the winding-up petition. The court disagreed, stating that failure to comply with the scheme's terms, such as non-payment of instalments, allowed the petitioner to proceed with the winding-up petition. The scheme did not create a new debt but modified the original debt's payment terms.
  
  7. Merits of the Winding-Up Application:
  The court considered whether the petitioner had made out sufficient grounds to proceed with the winding-up application. The failure of the amalgamation scheme and non-compliance with the sanctioned scheme's terms were significant factors. The court found that the company's inability to carry out the scheme, coupled with the managing director's mismanagement, justified proceeding with the winding-up petition.
  
  Conclusion:
  The court directed the hearing of the winding-up petition, ordered advertisements, and appointed a provisional liquidator to safeguard the company's assets and investigate the allegations against the management. The managing director's actions and the company's failure to comply with the sanctioned scheme were critical in the court's decision to allow the winding-up application to proceed.

  ---

• 1948 (1) TMI 19
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Sanction of a scheme of arrangement under-section 153 of the Indian Companies Act.
  2. Compliance with Court's directions and statutory requirements.
  3. Feasibility and practicality of the proposed scheme.
  4. Investigation into the management and financial affairs of the company.
  5. Allegations of misleading the Court and creditors.
  6. Winding-up of the company.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Sanction of a Scheme of Arrangement:
  The company, Calcutta Industrial Bank, Ltd., applied for sanction of a scheme of arrangement under-section 153 of the Indian Companies Act. The scheme proposed various provisions for the payment of liabilities, including:
  - Payment of sundry liabilities in full.
  - Secured creditors to be unaffected to the extent of their securities.
  - Conversion of certain liabilities into current accounts to be paid within four months.
  - Creditors to give up arrears of interest and not entitled to future interest.
  - Payment of 80% of the principal amount due to creditors in installments over three years.
  - Allotment of fully paid-up shares for 20% of the principal amount due.
  - Reshuffling of the board of directors to include representatives from creditors and shareholders.
  
  2. Compliance with Court's Directions and Statutory Requirements:
  The Court found non-compliance with its directions, particularly the failure to make the report of Mr. D.N. Guha Roy available for inspection at the head office at least a fortnight before the creditors' meeting. Although the report was sent to the company's solicitors, there was no immediate facility for inspection at the head office. Additionally, allegations were made that many creditors did not receive notice of the meeting, and there were issues with the conduct of the meeting, including noise, disturbances, and the presence of outsiders.
  
  3. Feasibility and Practicality of the Proposed Scheme:
  The Court scrutinized the financial details and found discrepancies between the figures presented in the petition and those in Mr. D.N. Guha Roy's report. The trial balance sheet showed an excess of assets over liabilities, whereas Mr. Guha Roy's report indicated a significant deficit. The Court was not convinced that the proposed scheme was feasible, particularly given the company's limited cash and bank balances and the substantial establishment expenses.
  
  4. Investigation into the Management and Financial Affairs:
  The Court noted that the company had declared dividends in violation of section 277K of the Companies Act and had not called up or realized Rs. 1,42,000 due on subscribed capital despite financial difficulties. The management's handling of the Eastern Agency account, which involved large share speculations and a substantial debit balance, was particularly concerning. The Court emphasized the need for a thorough investigation into this account and the company's overall management.
  
  5. Allegations of Misleading the Court and Creditors:
  The Court found that the company had misled the Court by presenting inaccurate figures showing an excess of assets over liabilities. The discrepancies between the figures in the petition and those in Mr. Guha Roy's report were significant, amounting to over Rs. 10 lacs. The Court concluded that the creditors and shareholders were not fully informed of these discrepancies, which impacted their decision to approve the scheme.
  
  6. Winding-up of the Company:
  Given the findings, the Court refused to sanction the proposed scheme and dismissed the company's application under section 153. The Court made a winding-up order, appointing an official liquidator to take charge of the company's assets and convene meetings of creditors for appointing a committee of inspection. The company's application for vacating the order for the appointment of a provisional liquidator was also dismissed.
  
  Conclusion:
  The Court concluded that the proposed scheme was not feasible or practical and that the approval of the creditors and shareholders was obtained by withholding material facts. The management's handling of the company's affairs, particularly the Eastern Agency account, called for a thorough investigation. Consequently, the Court refused to sanction the scheme, dismissed the company's application, and ordered the winding-up of the company.

  ---

• 1948 (1) TMI 18
  
  Issues:
  Jurisdiction to make an order under section 173 of the Companies Act, 1929 before the company is in winding-up status.
  
  Analysis:
  The judgment revolves around the question of whether the court has jurisdiction to make an order under section 173 of the Companies Act, 1929 before the company is actually in the process of winding-up. The judge notes the historical evolution of this provision, tracing it back to the Companies Act of 1862. The essence of the section is to allow the liquidator to review transactions entered into by the company post the commencement of winding-up. The judge highlights the purpose of the section, emphasizing that any transaction entered into during this period should be subject to review by the liquidator once a winding-up order is made. The judge expresses reluctance in adjudicating on incomplete facts and anticipates the role of the liquidator in reviewing such transactions. The judge opines that the section does not empower the court to make conditional orders in the absence of a winding-up order.
  
  The judgment references the case of Carden v. Albert Palace Association [1886] to draw a distinction, where the court made an order in an action and winding-up simultaneously due to the presence of all interested parties. However, the judge in the current case concludes that unless there is an ongoing winding-up process, the court lacks the authority to make orders under section 173. The judge asserts that the jurisdiction lies with the liquidator post his appointment in case a winding-up order is made. The judge highlights the uncertainty surrounding the current status of the company, as a potential winding-up is contingent on the outcome of the petition. Ultimately, the judge concludes that without a definitive winding-up process in progress, the court cannot exercise jurisdiction under section 173 of the Companies Act, 1929.
  
  In conclusion, the judgment delves into the interpretation and application of section 173 of the Companies Act, 1929 concerning the court's jurisdiction to make orders before the actual commencement of the winding-up process. The judge emphasizes the role of the liquidator in reviewing transactions post a winding-up order and asserts that the court's authority is contingent upon the existence of an ongoing winding-up process. The judgment underscores the limitations of the court in making orders under section 173 in the absence of a definitive winding-up status of the company.

  ---

• 1948 (1) TMI 17
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Applicability of the stay order under section 153 (5) of the Companies Act.
  2. Whether the proceedings before the Chief Presidency Magistrate fall within the ambit of the stay order.
  3. Determination of the complainant's status as a creditor of the bank.
  4. Examination of the allegations in the petition of complaint to establish the nature of the alleged offence.
  5. Legal implications of entrustment and the ownership of the shares.
  
  Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Applicability of the stay order under section 153 (5) of the Companies Act:
  The petitioners argued that the proceedings before the learned Magistrate were covered by the stay order issued under section 153 (5) of the Companies Act. The stay order, issued on 20th May 1947, stated, "the commencement and/or continuation of all suits and proceedings against the said company, its directors and officers in the meantime be and the same are hereby stayed." The petitioners contended that this broad order should encompass the criminal proceedings initiated by the opposite party.
  
  2. Whether the proceedings before the Chief Presidency Magistrate fall within the ambit of the stay order:
  The Court noted that section 153 (5) of the Companies Act pertains to proceedings against the company alone. However, Edgley, J.'s order included directors and officers, which was interpreted to mean directors and officers in their representative capacity, not in their personal capacity. The Court emphasized that the proceedings before the Magistrate could only be stayed if they related to matters adjustable under section 153, which involves issues between the company and its creditors or members.
  
  3. Determination of the complainant's status as a creditor of the bank:
  The opposite party claimed that he was not a creditor but had merely kept shares in safe custody with the bank. The Court examined whether the opposite party could be considered a creditor based on the facts alleged. The Court concluded that a person holding specified chattels for safe custody does not qualify as a debtor, whether present, contingent, or prospective. The Court rejected the broad proposition that any pecuniary claim entitles one to be a creditor under section 153.
  
  4. Examination of the allegations in the petition of complaint to establish the nature of the alleged offence:
  The petition of complaint alleged that the petitioners, as officers of the bank, induced the opposite party to open a current account and purchase shares through the bank, which were to be held in safe custody and delivered on demand. Despite repeated requests, the shares were not delivered, leading to allegations of fraudulent conversion and breach of trust. The Court analyzed whether the complaint alleged a criminal breach of trust in respect of specific shares or merely a fraudulent operation of the banking account.
  
  5. Legal implications of entrustment and the ownership of the shares:
  The Court considered whether the shares became the opposite party's property upon purchase by the bank and whether there was a legal entrustment of these shares for safe custody. The Court noted that the complainant's allegations suggested that the shares were purchased and debited to his account, but there was no evidence of actual delivery or transfer of ownership. The Court concluded that further proceedings were necessary to determine whether the shares were specifically entrusted to the bank and whether the complainant was a creditor or merely a depositor of specific chattels.
  
  Conclusion:
  The Court decided to remit the case to the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate to proceed until it could be determined whether there was a legal entrustment of specific shares that had become the complainant's property. If such entrustment was established, the case would proceed further. If not, the proceedings would remain stayed. The Court clarified that this decision was limited to the application for stay and did not preclude the petitioners from challenging the validity of the proceedings on other grounds.

  ---

• 1947 (12) TMI 11
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Necessity of consent from the Governor under Section 270(1), Government of India Act.
  2. Applicability of Section 197, Criminal Procedure Code.
  3. Maintainability of the appeal under Section 205(1), Government of India Act, 1935.
  4. Definition and interpretation of "judgment, decree or final order" under Section 205(1), Government of India Act, 1935.
  
  Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Necessity of Consent from the Governor under Section 270(1), Government of India Act:
  The appellant contended that the prosecution could not be launched without the consent of His Excellency the Governor of Madras. This was based on the argument that the evidence for the charge of conspiracy under Section 120B IPC was the same as that for criminal breach of trust and other charges, which required the Governor's consent. The High Court overruled this objection, holding that no such consent was necessary for the charge under Section 120B IPC.
  
  2. Applicability of Section 197, Criminal Procedure Code:
  The appellant argued that the proceedings were against Section 197, Criminal Procedure Code, read with Section 271, Government of India Act, 1935. The contention was that as a motor licensing officer, the appellant was a government servant who could not be removed by the District Collector without the sanction of the Provincial Government or a higher authority. The High Court rejected this argument, stating that the appellant did not satisfy both conditions required under Section 197, Criminal Procedure Code.
  
  3. Maintainability of the Appeal under Section 205(1), Government of India Act, 1935:
  A preliminary objection was raised regarding the maintainability of the appeal. The Court examined whether the appeal was from a "judgment, decree or final order" of the High Court. The Court referred to various judicial interpretations, including Salaman v. Warner, Bozson v. The Altrincham Urban District Council, and Ramchand Manjimal v. Goverdhandas Vishandas Ratanchand, to ascertain the meaning of "final order." The Court concluded that an order is final if it finally disposes of the rights of the parties. The Court held that the order from the High Court did not finally dispose of the rights of the parties but left them to be determined by the Courts in the ordinary way.
  
  4. Definition and Interpretation of "Judgment, Decree or Final Order" under Section 205(1), Government of India Act, 1935:
  The Court discussed the meaning of "judgment, decree or final order" in the context of both civil and criminal cases. It referred to the definitions in the Civil Procedure Code and various English and Indian judicial decisions. The Court emphasized that in criminal proceedings, a "judgment" indicates the final order in a trial terminating in the conviction or acquittal of the accused. The Court concluded that the order in question was not a "judgment" or "final order" as it was an interlocutory order made on a preliminary objection in the course of a criminal trial. The Court upheld the preliminary objection and dismissed the appeal, stating that the order did not meet the criteria of a "final order" or "judgment" under Section 205(1), Government of India Act, 1935.
  
  Conclusion:
  The appeal was dismissed as the order from the High Court was not considered a "judgment, decree or final order" under Section 205(1), Government of India Act, 1935. The Court's interpretation of these terms was consistent with established judicial precedents, and the appellant's arguments for a broader interpretation were rejected.

  ---

1 ....111213141516171819........ 156