|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 63 Records
-
1960 (2) TMI 83
Issues:
Delay in making an application for special leave to appeal from an order of acquittal under Section 417(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code and the condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Analysis:
1. The primary issue in this case revolves around whether the delay in making an application under Section 417(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The interpretation of whether Sub-section (4) of Section 417 is a special law is crucial in determining the applicability of Section 5 for condonation of delay. The Court delves into the definition of a "special law" as one that applies to a particular subject or class of subjects, emphasizing that the provision in question applies only to applications for special leave to appeal from orders of acquittal, making it a special law within the meaning of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act.
2. The argument presented challenges the applicability of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, contending that the period prescribed by Sub-section (4) of Section 417 is not different from that laid down in the first schedule to the Limitation Act. The Court references previous judgments to support the view that the special law in question does prescribe a period of limitation different from the general provisions of the Limitation Act, thereby justifying the application of Section 29(2) in this scenario.
3. Another aspect of contention raised is whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act is relevant in determining the period of limitation prescribed by a special law. The Court clarifies that Section 5 comes into play after the period of limitation has expired, focusing on condoning delay rather than computing the period of limitation. The interpretation of the phrase "for the purpose of determining any period of limitation" is crucial in understanding the scope of Section 5 in relation to special laws like Sub-section (4) of Section 417.
4. The Court further addresses the argument that Section 29(2) only applies to provisions related to the computation of the period of limitation. It emphasizes that every provision in the Limitation Act is intended for determining the period of limitation, including Section 5 for condoning delay. The comprehensive analysis provided by the Court highlights the interplay between different sections of the Limitation Act and their relevance in cases involving special laws like Section 417 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
5. Lastly, the Court considers and contrasts the decisions of various High Courts on similar issues, ultimately disagreeing with the interpretations of the Madras and Andhra Pradesh High Courts. The Court concludes that the provision in question is a special law with a distinct period of limitation, warranting the negative answer to the question referred to the Full Bench.
In conclusion, the judgment extensively analyzes the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act in cases involving special laws like Section 417 of the Criminal Procedure Code, ultimately clarifying the conditions under which delay in making applications for special leave to appeal from orders of acquittal can be condoned.
-
1960 (2) TMI 82
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of attachment before judgment.
2. Validity of subsequent sale deed.
3. Passing of consideration in the sale deed.
4. Rights of the auction purchaser to challenge the sale.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of Attachment Before Judgment:
The appellate court found that the attachment before judgment was invalid due to the absence of a prohibitory order against the defendants in the money suit, prohibiting them from alienating the properties. The trial court had earlier found certain irregularities in the attachment process but did not consider them serious enough to invalidate the attachment. The appellate court, however, emphasized that the attachment was invalid due to procedural lapses under Order 21, Rule 54, C.P.C., such as the absence of a prohibitory order and lack of evidence of affixture of the copy of the proclamation in the Collector's Office.
2. Validity of Subsequent Sale Deed:
The trial court found the sale in favor of the plaintiff to be genuine and for consideration, thus passing a decree in favor of the plaintiff. However, the appellate court held that the sale was collusive and without consideration, thereby dismissing the plaintiff's suit. The appellate court's decision was based on the view that the attachment was invalid, and thus, the subsequent sale was void under Section 64, C.P.C.
3. Passing of Consideration in the Sale Deed:
The appellate court questioned the passing of consideration, relying on various circumstances and evidence. The court noted that:
- The plaintiff was closely related to the defendants.
- The sale deed did not mention any pressing circumstances for the sale.
- The sale occurred shortly after the land was attached.
- The plaintiff's financial position was questionable.
- Inconsistent statements made by the plaintiff regarding the mortgage of the suit plot.
- The plaintiff's witness, P.W. 4, was not considered reliable as he was acting on behalf of the defendants.
- P.W. 3's evidence was not taken into consideration by the appellate court, but his ignorance of the plaintiff's relationship with the defendants made him unreliable.
4. Rights of the Auction Purchaser to Challenge the Sale:
The appellate court held that the auction purchaser, defendant No. 5, could challenge the passing of consideration as he claimed through the judgment-debtors. If the attachment was valid, the subsequent sale to the plaintiff would be void, and defendant No. 5 could challenge the sale. However, if the attachment was invalid, defendant No. 5 could not challenge the passing of consideration as he would not be a successor-in-interest of the judgment-debtors.
Conclusion:
The appellate court's judgment was based on the finding that the attachment before judgment was invalid due to procedural irregularities. Consequently, the subsequent sale to the plaintiff was void under Section 64, C.P.C., and the question of passing of consideration did not arise. The appellate court also found that no consideration passed in the sale deed, supporting its decision with various circumstances and evidence. The appeal was dismissed with costs, upholding the appellate court's findings.
-
1960 (2) TMI 81
Issues:
1. Failure to announce sentence before judgment in criminal cases.
Analysis:
The judgment addresses the issue of announcing sentence before judgment in criminal cases. The revision cases involved a Sub-Magistrate who convicted the accused in multiple cases under the Madras Prohibition Act without writing, pronouncing, signing, and dating the judgments as required by the Code of Criminal Procedure. The District Magistrate raised a reference to set aside the convictions and sentences due to this procedural irregularity. The court highlighted the importance of pronouncing judgments in open court and emphasized that passing sentence before recording a judgment is illegal. The judgment cited various precedents to support the position that failing to follow these procedural requirements vitiates the conviction and sentence.
The court referred to past decisions where delays in writing and delivering judgments after conviction were deemed violations of procedural requirements, leading to convictions being set aside. It emphasized that judgments must be pronounced in open court, signed, and dated by the judge to ensure the legality of the conviction and sentence. The judgment reiterated that adherence to these formalities is crucial in criminal jurisprudence to prevent prejudice to the accused. It underscored that the principles of criminal jurisprudence do not allow for trying or sentencing individuals without following the prescribed procedures, including pronouncing judgments in open court.
Ultimately, the court accepted the references made by the District Magistrate, setting aside the convictions and sentences in the cases under review. The court did not order a re-trial but indicated that the Sub-Magistrate's behavior would be addressed administratively. The judgment concluded by highlighting the significance of adhering to procedural requirements in criminal cases to ensure the fairness and legality of the judicial process.
-
1960 (2) TMI 80
Issues Involved
1. Limitation of claims for damages.
2. Wrongfulness and good faith of detentions.
3. Bar under Section 44 of the Rajasthan Public Safety Ordinance.
4. Liability of the State for the Commissioner's order.
5. Acts of State and maintainability of the suit.
6. Validity of the plaintiff's notice.
7. Quantum of damages.
8. Relief entitlement.
Detailed Analysis
1. Limitation of Claims for Damages
The court examined whether the claims for damages were within the limitation period. The lower court held that the claim for damages for the second detention was not barred by Article 19 of the Limitation Act, while the claim for the first detention was barred. The appellate court agreed with the lower court's application of Article 19, which is specific to false imprisonment, over Article 2, which is more general.
2. Wrongfulness and Good Faith of Detentions
The plaintiff alleged that both detentions were illegal, wrongful, and mala fide. The lower court found both detentions wrongful and without lawful justification. The appellate court upheld this finding, noting that there was no reasonable or probable ground for the Commissioner to be satisfied that the plaintiff was likely to act in a prejudicial manner. The Commissioner's actions were not in good faith as defined by relevant legal standards.
3. Bar Under Section 44 of the Rajasthan Public Safety Ordinance
The lower court held that Section 44 did not protect the Government, as the term "person" did not include the Government. The appellate court disagreed, citing the Kotah General Clauses Act, which includes the Government in the definition of "person." However, the court found that the Commissioner's actions were not in good faith, thus Section 44 did not bar the suit.
4. Liability of the State for the Commissioner's Order
The State argued it was not liable for the Commissioner's actions. The appellate court found that the Commissioner was not an agent of the Government in the ordinary sense and acted under statutory powers. Therefore, the Government could not be held liable for the Commissioner's wrongful act, nor could it ratify the Commissioner's actions.
5. Acts of State and Maintainability of the Suit
The lower court held that the detentions were not "Acts of State" and the suit was maintainable. The appellate court did not specifically address this issue in detail but implicitly agreed by proceeding with the other issues.
6. Validity of the Plaintiff's Notice
The lower court found the plaintiff's notice under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code to be valid. The appellate court did not find any reason to overturn this finding.
7. Quantum of Damages
The lower court awarded damages for professional loss, mental worry, physical discomfort, and habeas corpus petition costs but disallowed the claim for loss of reputation. The appellate court found the lower court's discretion on the awarded amounts reasonable but disagreed on the loss of reputation, stating that preventive detention does entail loss of reputation. However, due to the finding on liability, this issue became moot.
8. Relief Entitlement
The lower court awarded Rs. 3,400/- in damages. The appellate court, however, dismissed the suit entirely, holding that the Government was not liable for the Commissioner's wrongful detention order.
Conclusion
The appellate court allowed the appeal, dismissed the suit, and directed that each party bear its own costs throughout. The court found that the Government was not liable for the Commissioner's actions, which were not performed as an agent of the Government but under statutory powers.
-
1960 (2) TMI 79
Issues:
- Interpretation of the proviso to section 24 (1) of the Income Tax Act regarding set-off of losses in speculative transactions against profits from other business activities.
Analysis:
The judgment in question involves a reference under section 66(1) of the Income Tax Act to determine whether the loss incurred in jobbing transactions can be set off against profits from brokerage activities under section 10 of the Act. The case revolved around the interpretation of the first proviso to sub-section (1) of section 24, inserted by the Finance Act, 1953. The proviso restricts the set-off of losses in speculative transactions against profits from other businesses. The assessee, in this case, operated both as a broker and a jobber, experiencing profits in brokerage but losses in speculation during the relevant period.
The court delved into the relevant sections of the Act, emphasizing that taxable income can accrue under various heads, including profits and gains of business. Section 10(1) mandates tax payment under this head, with subsequent provisions outlining allowances for computing such profits. Section 24 addresses the set-off of losses, with the proviso in question limiting the set-off of speculative losses against profits from other businesses involving speculation. The dispute arose from differing interpretations by tax authorities and the Appellate Tribunal regarding the application of this proviso.
The judgment extensively analyzed previous decisions, notably from the Bombay High Court, to interpret the proviso's scope and intent. The court highlighted that the proviso's wording change necessitated a fresh interpretation, as seen in a similar case before the Bombay High Court. The judgment emphasized the legislative intent behind the proviso, clarifying that it operates as a substantive provision governing the computation of profits and losses under the head of business, profession, or vocation.
The court rejected the contention that the proviso merely abridged the right to set off losses under different heads, asserting that it specifically dictates the quantum of profit or loss eligible for set-off under section 24(1). This interpretation aligns with subsequent decisions, including one by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, affirming the restrictive nature of the proviso. Ultimately, the court ruled that the loss in jobbing transactions cannot be adjusted against profits from brokerage activities due to the proviso's terms, upholding the view that the proviso functions as a substantive provision governing set-off calculations.
In conclusion, the court answered the reference by affirming that the loss in jobbing transactions cannot be set off against brokerage profits under section 24(1) due to the proviso's specific restrictions. The assessee was directed to bear the Commissioner's costs, concluding the matter definitively based on the interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act.
-
1960 (2) TMI 78
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Port Trust to exercise monopoly in handling export cargo.
2. Violation of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
3. Validity of the resolution passed by the Port Trust Board.
4. Pecuniary interest of a trustee in the resolution.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Jurisdiction of the Port Trust to exercise monopoly in handling export cargo:
The main contention was whether the Port Trust had the authority under the statute to monopolize the handling of export cargo. The Court referred to Section 39 of the Madras Port Trust Act, which empowers the Board to undertake services such as receiving, removing, shifting, transporting, storing, or delivering goods within the Board's premises. The Court concluded that the Board has the power to undertake these services and exclude others from performing them within the Port's premises. The provisions of Section 39(1) and Section 95(4) of the Act, which allow the Board to make by-laws for the exclusive conduct of operations, were deemed sufficient to validate the Board's actions. The Court distinguished the case from English precedents cited by the petitioner, noting the absence of a provision similar to Section 33 of the Harbours, Docks, and Piers Clauses Act, 1847, in the Madras Port Trust Act.
2. Violation of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India:
The petitioners argued that the resolution violated their right to carry on their business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The Court held that this right does not extend to carrying on business on another's premises without permission. Even if Article 19(1)(g) conferred such a right, Article 19(6) allows the State or a State-controlled corporation to carry on any trade, business, industry, or service to the exclusion of citizens. The Port Trust, being a State-controlled corporation, falls within this provision, and thus the resolution does not violate Article 19(1)(g).
3. Validity of the resolution passed by the Port Trust Board:
The resolution in question was challenged on the grounds that it was beyond the Board's statutory powers. The Court found that the resolution was within the Board's powers as conferred by Section 39 and Section 95(4) of the Madras Port Trust Act. The Board has the authority to undertake and exclusively conduct operations within the Port's premises. The Court also noted that the resolution did not conflict with the Sea Customs Act, which pertains to the levy of customs duties and does not grant any right to private agents to operate within the Port.
4. Pecuniary interest of a trustee in the resolution:
A minor issue was raised regarding Section 23-A of the Madras Port Trust Act, which prohibits trustees with a pecuniary interest from voting on related matters. It was argued that one trustee, being the President of the Port Trust Employees' Union, had a pecuniary interest. However, this contention was abandoned, and the Court did not find it necessary to address this issue in detail.
Conclusion:
The Court dismissed the writ petitions, holding that the Port Trust had the jurisdiction to exercise monopoly in handling export cargo within its premises, and the resolution did not violate Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The resolution was found to be valid and within the statutory powers of the Board. There was no order as to costs.
-
1960 (2) TMI 77
Issues Involved:
1. Compliance with Section 422 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. Alleged violation of Article 20(3) of the Constitution.
3. Justification for setting aside the acquittal by the High Court.
4. Severity of the sentence imposed.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Compliance with Section 422 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:
The appellant argued that the provisions of Section 422 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were not complied with, thereby vitiating the High Court judgment. The High Court admitted the State's appeal against the acquittal and issued notice to the appellant's advocates. The appellant's advocates had requested the High Court not to issue any summons as appearance had already been entered on behalf of the appellant. The High Court issued notice under Section 422 to the advocates and also intimated the Special Judge to inform the appellant. The High Court found that the appellant was fully apprised of the appeal. The Supreme Court held that Section 422 does not require notice to be served directly on the appellant but to be given to him, which was complied with in this case. The Court concluded that the appellant was aware of the appeal and had entered an appearance through his advocates, thus satisfying the requirements of Section 422.
2. Alleged Violation of Article 20(3) of the Constitution:
The appellant contended that his conviction was vitiated due to a violation of Article 20(3) of the Constitution, which states that no person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. The appellant argued that he was compelled to produce the money by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mr. Kaliyappan. The Court held that for Article 20(3) to apply, it must be established that the individual was accused of an offence and was compelled to be a witness against himself. The Court found that there was no formal accusation against the appellant at the time he was asked to produce the money and that the appellant was not compelled but voluntarily produced the currency notes. Therefore, the provisions of Article 20(3) were not attracted.
3. Justification for Setting Aside the Acquittal by the High Court:
The appellant argued that the High Court should not have set aside the acquittal unless there were compelling reasons and that the Special Judge's grounds for distrusting Mr. Kaliyappan's evidence were not specifically considered by the High Court. The Supreme Court reviewed the evidence and the judgments of both the Special Judge and the High Court. The Court held that the High Court's view that the Special Judge's judgment was perverse was correct. The Supreme Court found that the grounds given by the Special Judge for distrusting Mr. Kaliyappan's evidence were perverse and that Mr. Kaliyappan had no reason to concoct a false case. The Court agreed with the High Court that there was no real ground to disbelieve Mr. Kaliyappan's evidence and that the High Court was justified in setting aside the acquittal.
4. Severity of the Sentence Imposed:
The appellant argued that the sentence of 6 months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000 was severe, considering the circumstances, including his business and residence in Burma. The Supreme Court acknowledged the appellant's plea for mitigation of the sentence but held that judicially, the sentence imposed by the High Court was not severe for an offence involving an attempt to bribe a responsible public servant. The Court concluded that the sentence was appropriate and dismissed the appeal.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's conviction of the appellant under Section 165A of the Indian Penal Code and the sentence of 6 months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000. The Court found no merit in the appellant's arguments regarding non-compliance with Section 422 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, violation of Article 20(3) of the Constitution, and the severity of the sentence.
-
1960 (2) TMI 76
Issues:
Dispute over discharge permission under Section 33 of Industrial Disputes Act, Tribunal's refusal of permission, appeal under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, Special leave to appeal under Article 136, principles of natural justice, prima facie case of theft, Tribunal's evaluation of evidence, Manager's conclusion, Tribunal's adherence to legal principles, Tribunal's consideration of natural justice, Tribunal's assessment of Management's actions, Tribunal's standard of review, Tribunal's conclusion on guilt, adherence to legal precedents, Tribunal's view on evidence credibility, Tribunal's consideration of confession, Tribunal's assessment of witness credibility, Tribunal's evaluation of material evidence, Tribunal's assessment of Manager's decision-making process, Tribunal's consideration of principles of natural justice, Tribunal's assessment of potential victimization.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Discharge Permission Dispute:
The case involved a dispute over the Management's application for permission to discharge an employee under Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act while a reference was pending before an Industrial Tribunal. The application was opposed by the Workers' Union on behalf of the employee, alleging the charge of theft was false and the Manager's finding was arbitrary.
2. Tribunal's Refusal of Permission:
The Industrial Tribunal, after evaluating the evidence, concluded that no prima facie case of theft was established against the employee, leading to the refusal of permission for discharge. This decision was challenged through a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, which was dismissed by the High Court.
3. Legal Principles and Precedents:
The Supreme Court highlighted the legal principles guiding such cases, emphasizing that the Tribunal should not sit in judgment on the employer's action once a prima facie case is established. The Court referenced previous judgments to underscore the importance of fair enquiry, bona fide actions by the Management, and adherence to natural justice principles.
4. Tribunal's Evaluation of Evidence:
The Tribunal's assessment of evidence, including witness testimonies and material facts, was scrutinized by the Supreme Court. The Court observed that the Tribunal failed to apply the correct standard in determining whether a reasonable person could reach the conclusion of guilt based on the evidence presented.
5. Confession and Witness Credibility:
The Tribunal's handling of the confession, witness credibility, and material evidence was questioned. The Court noted discrepancies in the Tribunal's approach, emphasizing the importance of assessing whether the Manager's decision was reasonable based on the available evidence.
6. Natural Justice and Victimisation Concerns:
The Court addressed the issue of natural justice and potential victimization, concluding that the principles of natural justice were observed, and there was no evidence of victimization by the Management in this case.
7. Final Decision and Dismissal of Appeals:
Despite finding errors in the Tribunal's approach, the Supreme Court dismissed both appeals due to the appellant's undertaking not to enforce the discharge order. The Court refrained from granting permission for discharge, thereby ending the legal proceedings without costs.
This detailed analysis of the judgment showcases the intricate legal considerations, evidentiary assessments, and application of established legal principles by the Supreme Court in resolving the dispute over the discharge permission under the Industrial Disputes Act.
-
1960 (2) TMI 75
Issues Involved:
1. Construction of Section 100(1)(b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
2. Whether exhibits P-3 and P-4 contained allegations affecting the personal character and conduct of the first Respondent.
3. Burden of proof regarding the falsehood of the statements in exhibits P-3 and P-4.
4. Evidence of publication of the leaflets by the Appellant or with his consent.
5. Jurisdiction of the High Court in reversing the findings of fact by the Election Tribunal.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Construction of Section 100(1)(b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951:
The first contention raised by the Appellant was that the High Court wrongly construed Section 100(1)(b) of the Act, arguing that a corrupt practice committed by an agent without the consent of the returned candidate or his election agent should not fall within the mischief of that clause. However, the Supreme Court did not express any opinion on this question as the appeal could be disposed of on other grounds.
2. Whether exhibits P-3 and P-4 contained allegations affecting the personal character and conduct of the first Respondent:
The court examined the content of exhibits P-3 and P-4, which were leaflets published on 26th February 1957. The leaflets contained statements attributing acts of violence and murder to the first Respondent. The court held that these allegations related to the personal character and conduct of the first Respondent, as they accused him of instigating a murder and being guilty of violent acts in his political career. The court concluded that these statements were reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospects of the first Respondent's election, thus falling within the mischief of Section 123(4) of the Act.
3. Burden of proof regarding the falsehood of the statements in exhibits P-3 and P-4:
The High Court's judgment was scrutinized to determine whether it wrongly placed the burden of proof on the Appellant. The Supreme Court found that the High Court correctly applied Sections 101 and 102 of the Indian Evidence Act. The first Respondent had provided evidence denying the allegations and indicating a motive for the Appellant to make false statements. The Appellant failed to provide evidence to disprove the first Respondent's assertions or to show that he believed the statements to be true. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's finding that the Appellant made the allegations knowing them to be false.
4. Evidence of publication of the leaflets by the Appellant or with his consent:
The High Court discussed the evidence regarding the publication of the leaflets in paragraphs 51 and 52 of its judgment. Although the High Court did not explicitly state that the Appellant published the leaflets or did so with his consent, it accepted the evidence presented by the first Respondent. The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court had effectively accepted the case that the Appellant was responsible for the publication of the leaflets.
5. Jurisdiction of the High Court in reversing the findings of fact by the Election Tribunal:
The Appellant argued that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by reversing the Election Tribunal's findings of fact. The Supreme Court clarified that under Section 116A(1) of the Act, the High Court has the same powers, jurisdiction, and authority as it does in appeals from original decrees passed by civil courts. The High Court is entitled to re-evaluate the evidence and make its own findings. In this case, the High Court provided valid reasons for reversing the Tribunal's findings, particularly criticizing the Tribunal for not giving reasons to discard the evidence presented by the first Respondent. The Supreme Court found no error in the High Court's approach and upheld its decision.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's judgment that the Appellant's election was void due to the publication of false statements in exhibits P-3 and P-4, which affected the personal character and conduct of the first Respondent and were reasonably calculated to prejudice his election prospects. The High Court's jurisdiction to reverse the Tribunal's findings was upheld, and the burden of proof was correctly applied.
-
1960 (2) TMI 74
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the defendant was a tenant-at-will or a permanent tenant.
2. Whether the plaintiff was estopped from challenging the defendant's title.
3. Whether the defendant was entitled to compensation for improvements made on the property under Section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Whether the defendant was a tenant-at-will or a permanent tenant:
The primary issue was to determine the nature of the defendant's tenancy. The defendant claimed a permanent tenancy based on the long duration of the tenancy, the substantial nature of the structure built on the land, and the uniformity of the rent paid. However, the court found that Bulaki was inducted onto the land sometime between 1901 and 1904, after the Transfer of Property Act was enacted. According to Section 107 of the Act, a lease of immovable property from year to year, or for any term exceeding one year, or reserving a yearly rent, can only be made by a registered instrument. Since no registered instrument was created in favor of Bulaki or his successors-in-interest, the court held that the defendant could not claim a permanent tenancy. The court referenced the Privy Council decision in Ariff v. Jadunath Mazumdar, which supported this interpretation. Consequently, the court overruled the contention that the defendant had a permanent tenancy.
2. Whether the plaintiff was estopped from challenging the defendant's title:
The court considered the argument that the plaintiff was estopped from denying the defendant's permanent tenancy. The defendant's husband had purchased tenure rights under two sale deeds, which were recognized by the plaintiff. The plaintiff had mutated the name of the defendant's husband in his records and allowed the construction of a double-storeyed pucca house without objection. The court found that the plaintiff, by recognizing the sale deeds and allowing the construction, induced a belief in the defendant's husband that he had a permanent tenancy. The court cited the Special Bench decision in Dhanu Pathak v. Sona Koeri and the Full Bench decision of the Calcutta High Court in Chandra Kanta Nath v. Amjad Ali Haji to support the application of estoppel. The court concluded that the plaintiff was estopped from denying the defendant's permanent tenancy.
3. Whether the defendant was entitled to compensation for improvements made on the property under Section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act:
The defendant contended that she was entitled to compensation for the improvements made on the property, believing in good faith that she was absolutely entitled to it. However, the court found that the defendant did not claim absolute title but only a limited interest as a permanent tenant. The court examined whether a permanent tenant could claim relief under Section 51, which requires the transferee to believe in good faith that they are absolutely entitled to the property. The court referenced various judicial opinions, including decisions from the Madras, Allahabad, Bombay, and Calcutta High Courts, which held that the provisions of Section 51 do not apply to lessees or tenants. The court concluded that the defendant, being a lessee, could not claim compensation under Section 51.
Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed, and the decree of the lower appellate court was set aside. The decree of the learned Munsiff, which found in favor of the defendant's permanent tenancy and granted a modified decree for arrears of rent, was restored. The court held that the plaintiff was estopped from denying the defendant's permanent tenancy and that the defendant was not entitled to compensation for improvements under Section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act.
-
1960 (2) TMI 73
Issues:
Interpretation of sub-sections (6), (8), and (9) of section 18A of the Indian Income-tax Act regarding the chargeability of interest for failure to submit an income estimate and pay tax.
Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the interpretation of the provisions of section 18A of the Income-tax Act, specifically focusing on the payment of income tax in advance. The court outlined the obligation of both old and new assessees to estimate and pay advance tax, emphasizing the principle of "pay as you earn." The court highlighted that under sub-sections (6) to (8), an assessee may be liable to pay interest in certain circumstances, while sub-section (9) deals with penalties. The court clarified that interest is calculated during regular assessment proceedings, and failure to pay advance tax as required falls under sub-section (8), leading to interest liability. The judgment also addressed the argument raised by the assessee regarding the applicability of penalties under sub-section (9)(b) due to non-payment of advance tax without sending estimates. The court rejected this argument, stating that sub-section (8) applies when no advance tax is paid, and failure to comply with sub-section (3) triggers both interest under sub-section (8) and penalties under sub-section (9), subject to certain conditions.
The court further explained that before imposing penalties under sub-section (9)(b), the Income-tax Officer must ascertain that the failure was without reasonable cause. The judgment emphasized that even if non-payment of advance tax is due to accident or miscalculation, interest under sub-section (8) is applicable. The court justified the imposition of heavier penalties for deliberate defaults, highlighting that the legislation allows for such distinctions. Additionally, the court addressed the argument that sub-section (8) does not apply when no tax is paid, dismissing it by stating that if no advance tax is paid, interest is payable on the entire tax amount as per the provisions of sub-section (6).
In conclusion, the court answered the referred question in the affirmative, confirming the chargeability of interest under sub-section (8) for failure to submit income estimates and pay tax. The judgment left the parties to bear their own costs for the reference, providing a comprehensive analysis of the interpretation and application of the relevant provisions of the Income-tax Act in the case at hand.
-
1960 (2) TMI 72
Issues Involved
1. Quashing of penalties levied by the Income Tax Department.
2. Validity of the service of demand notices.
3. Nature of the Commissioner's jurisdiction under section 33A of the Income Tax Act.
4. Discretion of the Income Tax Officer under section 45 of the Income Tax Act.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis
1. Quashing of Penalties Levied by the Income Tax Department
The appeals were filed against the order quashing the penalties levied by the Income Tax Department. The respondent, a limited company, had defaulted on tax payments for the assessment years 1948-49 and 1949-50. The Income Tax Officer had levied penalties under section 46(1) after the company failed to pay the taxes within the stipulated time. The penalties were contested on the grounds that there was no proper order specifying the penalty before the demand notices were served and that the service of notices was invalid.
2. Validity of the Service of Demand Notices
The respondent argued that the service of demand notices was invalid as they were not personally served on the managing director but affixed to the business premises. The court found that the service by affixture was valid under Order XXIX, rule 2, of the Civil Procedure Code, which allows service on a corporation by leaving it at the registered office. The court noted that the managing director was bedridden, but other directors and staff were aware of the notices. Therefore, the service was deemed to have complied with legal requirements.
3. Nature of the Commissioner's Jurisdiction under Section 33A of the Income Tax Act
The court examined whether the Commissioner acted in a judicial or administrative capacity under section 33A. It was concluded that the Commissioner's jurisdiction under section 33A was administrative. The section provides a mechanism for the Commissioner to review and rectify mistakes made by subordinate officers. Unlike section 33B, which requires a hearing and allows for an appeal, section 33A does not confer a right to a hearing or appeal, indicating its administrative nature. The court cited precedents, including the Privy Council's decision in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Tribune Trust, to support this view.
4. Discretion of the Income Tax Officer under Section 45 of the Income Tax Act
The respondent contended that the Income Tax Officer should not have treated the company as a defaulter while an appeal was pending. The court held that section 45 provides the officer with discretion to stay the collection of tax but does not grant an absolute right to the assessee. The officer's refusal to stay the collection was not arbitrary or capricious, as the company had not paid any part of the tax despite warnings and opportunities to pay in installments. The court found no merit in the argument that the officer's discretion was improperly exercised.
Conclusion
The court disagreed with the lower court's judgment that there was no proper order specifying the penalty and that the service of notices was invalid. It also found that the Commissioner's jurisdiction under section 33A was administrative, not judicial, and thus not subject to removal on certiorari. The Income Tax Officer's discretion under section 45 was exercised appropriately. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, quashing the lower court's decision, but no order as to costs was made.
-
1960 (2) TMI 71
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the interests earned by the minor sons of the assessee were liable to be included in the total income of the assessee under section 16(3)(a)(ii) of the Indian Income Tax Act.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Interpretation of Section 16(3)(a)(ii) of the Indian Income Tax Act:
The primary issue was whether the interest earned by the minor sons of the assessee from their capital contributions in the partnership firm should be included in the total income of the assessee under section 16(3)(a)(ii) of the Indian Income Tax Act. This section mandates that in computing the total income of an individual, any income of a minor child arising directly or indirectly from the admission of the minor to the benefits of a partnership in a firm where the individual is a partner should be included.
2. Analysis of the Income Tax Officer's Assessment:
For the assessment years 1954-55 and 1955-56, the Income Tax Officer included the interest credited to the minor sons in the total income of the assessee. The minors were admitted to the benefits of the partnership under a deed dated 23rd March 1953. The assessee challenged this inclusion, arguing that the interest earned by the minors should not be taxed as part of his income.
3. Appellate Assistant Commissioner's Decision:
The Appellate Assistant Commissioner ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that the father could not be taxed on the interest received by the minors. The Commissioner directed that the minors should be assessed separately for the interest amounts.
4. Tribunal's Contrary View:
The Department appealed to the Appellate Tribunal, which reversed the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's decision. The Tribunal held that the interest accruing on the minors' capital in the partnership should be included in the father's total income, as it was a direct result of their admission to the benefits of the partnership.
5. Legal Interpretation and Strict Construction:
The judgment emphasized that section 16(3)(a)(ii) must be strictly construed since it imposes tax liability on an individual for someone else's income. The court clarified that any income arising directly or indirectly from the minor's admission to the partnership benefits should be included in the father's income.
6. Connection Between Interest and Partnership Benefits:
The court examined whether the interest earned by the minors on their capital was directly or indirectly due to their admission to the partnership benefits. It concluded that the interest was indeed a result of their capital contribution, which was only possible because of their admission to the partnership benefits.
7. Distinction Between Capital and Deposits:
The judgment distinguished between capital contributions and optional deposits by minors. It stated that if a minor's income arises from an obligatory capital contribution due to their admission to the partnership, it should be included in the father's income. However, if the income arises from optional deposits, it may not necessarily be included.
8. Reference to Previous Case Law:
The court referred to the case of Bhogilal Laherchand v. Commissioner of Income Tax, which dealt with optional deposits by minors. The court noted that in the present case, the minors' capital contributions were obligatory and thus different from optional deposits.
9. Partnership Deed Provisions:
The court examined the partnership deed, which indicated that the minors had contributed capital as a result of their admission to the partnership. Clause 3 of the deed showed that the minors' shares in the joint family assets were taken as their capital contribution. Clause 4 provided for interest on the capital, reinforcing the connection between the capital contribution and the minors' admission to the partnership benefits.
10. Conclusion and Final Decision:
The court concluded that the interest earned on the minors' capital contributions should be included in the father's total income, as it arose indirectly from their admission to the partnership benefits. The question of law was answered in the affirmative, and the Department was entitled to its costs, assessed at Rs. 100.
Separate Judgments:
Both judges, C.P. Sinha, C.J. and G. Mehrotra, J., delivered a unanimous judgment, agreeing on the interpretation and application of section 16(3)(a)(ii).
-
1960 (2) TMI 70
Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of Section 16(3)(a)(ii) of the Indian Income Tax Act.
2. Inclusion of interest earned by minor sons in the total income of the assessee.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Interpretation of Section 16(3)(a)(ii) of the Indian Income Tax Act:
The primary issue revolves around the interpretation of Section 16(3)(a)(ii) of the Indian Income Tax Act. This section stipulates that in computing the total income of an individual for assessment purposes, the income of a minor child arising directly or indirectly from the admission of the minor to the benefits of partnership in a firm where the individual is a partner should be included. The court emphasized that this provision must be strictly construed since it makes an individual liable to pay tax on someone else's income. The court clarified that any income arising directly or indirectly from the minor's admission to the partnership must be included in the father's income, not just the share of profits.
2. Inclusion of Interest Earned by Minor Sons in the Total Income of the Assessee:
The court examined whether the interest earned by the minor sons on their capital contributions to the partnership should be included in the father's total income. The assessee, a partner in a registered firm, had two minor sons admitted to the benefits of the partnership. For the assessment years 1954-55 and 1955-56, the Income Tax Officer included the interest credited to the minor sons in the father's total income. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, however, ruled that the father could not be taxed for the interest received by the minors, directing that the minors should be assessed separately for the interest amounts. The Tribunal, on appeal by the Department, held that the interest on the minors' capital formed part of the partnership profits and should be included in the father's income.
The court analyzed whether the interest income was a direct or indirect result of the minors' admission to the partnership. It concluded that the interest earned on the capital supplied by the minors was indeed a result of their admission to the benefits of the partnership. The court distinguished between cases where minors earn interest on optional deposits and cases where minors supply capital as part of their admission to the partnership. It was noted that the minors' supply of capital was a necessary consequence of their admission to the benefits of the partnership, and thus, any interest accruing on such capital should be included in the father's income.
The court referred to the case of Bhogilal Laherchand v. Commissioner of Income Tax, where it was held that interest on deposits made by minors, without any obligation under the partnership deed, could not be included in the father's income. However, the court found the present case different as the partnership deed explicitly showed that the minors contributed capital, and the interest on this capital was a direct result of their admission to the partnership.
The court also examined the partnership deed clauses, which indicated that the minors' shares in the joint family assets were taken as their capital contribution to the partnership. The court rejected the argument that fluctuating capital or potential overdrawing by partners negated the obligatory nature of capital contribution by the minors.
Conclusion:
The court answered the referred question in the affirmative, holding that the interest earned by the minor sons on their capital contributions to the partnership should be included in the total income of the assessee. The Department was entitled to its costs, assessed at Rs. 100.
Question answered in the affirmative.
-
1960 (2) TMI 69
Issues:
Interpretation of section 24(1) of the Income-tax Act regarding set-off of losses in speculative transactions against profits earned in other businesses.
Analysis:
The case involved a registered firm, which incurred a loss in speculative transactions and sought to set it off against profits earned in other businesses. The Income-tax Officer, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal held that the loss in speculative transactions cannot be set off against profits under the first proviso of section 24(1) of the Income-tax Act. The Tribunal referred the question of interpretation to the High Court.
The crux of the issue lies in the interpretation of the first proviso of section 24(1) of the Income-tax Act. The proviso states that losses in speculative transactions cannot be set off against profits in other businesses, except to the extent of profits in speculative transactions. The question arises whether this proviso applies only when setting off losses under different heads or also when computing profits under the head of "profits and gains of business, profession or vocation" under section 10.
The High Court analyzed the language of the proviso and previous judgments to determine its scope. The Court considered the principles of statutory interpretation and the legislative intent behind the proviso. The Court referred to cases where similar provisos were interpreted to govern the method of computation of profits and losses. The Court highlighted that the proviso modifies the computation of profits and gains of business, profession, or vocation under section 10.
The High Court referred to the judgments of other High Courts, such as the Bombay High Court and the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which held that the proviso in section 24(1) governs the computation of profits and losses under section 10. The Court emphasized that the proviso is a substantive provision dealing with the mode of computing profits and gains under the specified heads.
In conclusion, the High Court held that the proviso in section 24(1) applies to the computation of profits and gains of business, profession, or vocation under section 10. The Court agreed with the interpretation that the proviso governs the method of arriving at the resultant profits or losses in the computation process. Therefore, the Court answered the referred question in the negative, stating that losses in speculative transactions cannot be set off against profits earned in other businesses.
-
1960 (2) TMI 68
Issues:
1. Correctness of disallowance of interest on depreciation fund used as working capital in determining available surplus for bonus calculation.
Analysis:
The appeal before the Supreme Court concerned the correctness of disallowing a claim for interest on a depreciation fund of &8377; 2,27,000 used as working capital, affecting the calculation of available surplus for bonus distribution. The Industrial Tribunal disallowed the claim, stating that no return on the depreciation reserve used as working capital should be considered. However, the Supreme Court held that any reserve utilized as working capital should be entitled to a reasonable rate of return, following established principles. The Tribunal failed to consider whether the amount in the depreciation fund was actually used as working capital, leading to discrepancies in the claims made by the employer and the workers regarding the amount utilized. The Court emphasized the need for clear evidence to support claims of reserves being used as working capital, highlighting the importance of proving such assertions beyond mere balance-sheet entries.
The employer contended that the balance-sheet itself proved the utilization of the entire depreciation fund as working capital. However, the Court emphasized that balance-sheets prepared by companies are not automatically accepted as proof of such claims. The burden of proving the correctness of statements made in balance-sheets lies with the party asserting them, requiring relevant and acceptable evidence to support such claims. The Court referred to previous judgments emphasizing the need for clear proof and adequate opportunity for scrutiny in cases involving claims of reserves being used as working capital.
The Court rejected the employer's argument that the balance-sheet alone was sufficient evidence of the utilization of the depreciation fund as working capital. Without concrete evidence supporting the claim, the Court found no material on record to establish the actual utilization of the sum in the depreciation fund as working capital. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, declining the request for remand to adduce further evidence on the matter. The decision reaffirmed the principle that claims of reserves being used as working capital must be substantiated with clear and credible evidence to ensure fairness in bonus calculations and labor disputes.
-
1960 (2) TMI 67
Issues Involved:
1. Competence of the revisional application.
2. Applicability of the amended provision of Section 13(3)(a)(iii) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949.
3. Bona fide requirement of the landlord for reconstruction of the shop.
Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Competence of the Revisional Application:
The appellant contended that under Section 15(4) of the Act as it stood at the time when the proceedings commenced, the decision of the appellate authority was final and could not be questioned in any court of law. The appellant argued that the subsequent amendment allowing a revisional application could not retrospectively affect the pending proceedings. However, the Supreme Court, referencing the decision in Indira Sohanlal v. Custodian of Evacuee Property, Delhi, concluded that the finality prescribed by the earlier provision came into operation only after the order was made, not before. Therefore, the amended provision allowing revisional jurisdiction was applicable to the present proceedings.
2. Applicability of the Amended Provision of Section 13(3)(a)(iii):
The appellant argued that the amended Section 13(3)(a)(iii) should apply, which would prevent the landlord from obtaining an order of ejectment. The Supreme Court clarified that the amendment affected substantive rights and was not procedural. It is well-settled that amendments affecting vested rights operate prospectively unless expressly made retrospective. The Court found no reason to imply retrospective operation for the amendment. The Court noted that if the new provision were retrospective, all pending actions by landlords for possession would fail, a drastic consequence not intended by the Legislature. Thus, the amended provision did not apply to the pending proceedings.
3. Bona Fide Requirement of the Landlord for Reconstruction:
The High Court reversed the findings of the Rent Controller and the appellate authority, which had concluded that the landlord's claim for reconstruction was not bona fide. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court had the jurisdiction to examine the legality or propriety of the findings under Section 15(5), which is broader than the revisional power under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The High Court observed that there was no legal evidence to suggest that the landlord's requirement was not bona fide. The Supreme Court agreed, noting that the landlord had moved the Municipality with a reconstruction plan and obtained its sanction soon after purchasing the property. The Court found no substance in the argument that the landlord acted mala fide, affirming the High Court's conclusion.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's decision that the amended provision of Section 13(3)(a)(iii) did not apply retrospectively to the pending proceedings and affirming the bona fide requirement of the landlord for reconstruction. The appeal was dismissed with costs.
-
1960 (2) TMI 66
Issues: Validity of partnership for registration under Section 26A of the Indian Income Tax Act; Legality of partnership carrying on business without a dealer's license under the Bihar Mica Act; Entitlement to exercise powers under the Bihar Mica Act without endorsement on dealer's license.
Issue 1: Validity of partnership for registration under Section 26A of the Indian Income Tax Act
The case involved a partnership claiming registration under Section 26A of the Indian Income Tax Act for the assessment year 1950-51. The Income Tax Officer rejected the registration application, leading to an appeal. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld the rejection, citing the lack of a dealer's license in the partnership's name. However, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal overturned this decision, holding the partnership as valid and entitled to registration. The High Court concurred, emphasizing that a partnership, not being a legal entity, is not required to hold a dealer's license under the Bihar Mica Act. The judgment relied on the principle that a firm is an association of individuals, not a separate legal person, as established in the case of Dulichand Laxminarayan v. Commr. of Income Tax, Nagpur.
Issue 2: Legality of partnership carrying on business without a dealer's license under the Bihar Mica Act
The Income Tax Department argued that the partnership, dealing in mica, needed a dealer's license under Section 4(1)(d) of the Bihar Mica Act. The contention was that without this license, the partnership's object was unlawful, justifying the refusal of registration. However, the High Court rejected this argument, stating that Section 4(1)(d) does not mandate a partnership to hold a dealer's license. The judgment clarified that a partnership, being a collection of individuals, does not fall under the definition of a "person" under the Act. Therefore, the partnership's lack of a dealer's license did not render its activities unlawful, as long as the individual conducting the transactions held the necessary license.
Issue 3: Entitlement to exercise powers under the Bihar Mica Act without endorsement on dealer's license
The Income Tax Department contended that partners not endorsed on the dealer's license could not exercise powers under the Bihar Mica Act. However, the High Court held that as long as one partner possessed the license and had the authority to delegate powers to others, there was no illegality. The judgment emphasized that the Act did not expressly prohibit partnerships from engaging in mica dealing, provided the licensed partner conducted the transactions. The High Court upheld the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's decision, ruling in favor of the partnership's legality and entitlement to registration under Section 26A of the Indian Income Tax Act.
In conclusion, the High Court's judgment clarified the legal standing of partnerships in business dealings under the Bihar Mica Act and the Indian Income Tax Act, emphasizing that partnerships, as associations of individuals, have distinct legal characteristics regarding licensing requirements and business operations.
-
1960 (2) TMI 65
Issues Involved:
1. Allegations of corrupt practices in the election.
2. Adequacy of particulars in the election petition.
3. Jurisdiction and power of the Election Tribunal to review its own orders.
4. Impact of procedural defects on the validity of the election petition.
5. Evaluation of evidence regarding the alleged corrupt practices.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Allegations of Corrupt Practices in the Election:
The appellant contested the U.P. Legislative Assembly election and was declared elected. A voter (first respondent) challenged the election, alleging that the appellant and/or his agents committed corrupt practices by hiring vehicles to convey women voters to polling stations, which materially affected the election results.
2. Adequacy of Particulars in the Election Petition:
The first respondent's petition lacked specific details about the hiring of vehicles, such as the date, place, and names of the parties involved. The appellant contended that the absence of these particulars rendered the petition defective. The High Court, however, held that the omission did not cause prejudice to the appellant and that the petition substantially complied with Section 83(1)(b) of the Representation of the People Act, which requires full particulars of corrupt practices.
3. Jurisdiction and Power of the Election Tribunal to Review its Own Orders:
Initially, the Election Tribunal struck out the allegations due to insufficient particulars. However, upon review, it reversed its decision, allowing the petition to be amended to include more details. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's power to review its own orders and confirmed the amendment. The appellant did not appeal this decision.
4. Impact of Procedural Defects on the Validity of the Election Petition:
The Supreme Court noted that the Representation of the People Act does not mandate the dismissal of a petition for lacking particulars under Section 83. Instead, Section 90(5) allows the Tribunal to order amendments to ensure a fair trial. The Court emphasized that an election petition should not be dismissed in limine for procedural defects if the parties proceed to trial and evidence is led on the issues raised.
5. Evaluation of Evidence Regarding the Alleged Corrupt Practices:
The High Court found that the corrupt practice of hiring a vehicle to convey voters was established through evidence, including the testimony of the Presiding Officer and other witnesses. The Tribunal's dismissal of the petition was overturned by the High Court, which declared the appellant's election void. The Supreme Court, upon review, agreed with the High Court's assessment of the evidence, noting that the Tribunal had erred in rejecting credible testimony on fanciful theories.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's decision to declare the election void due to proven corrupt practices. The Court emphasized the importance of providing full particulars in election petitions but clarified that procedural defects should not automatically lead to dismissal if they do not cause material prejudice and if the parties proceed to trial.
-
1960 (2) TMI 64
Issues:
Assessment under Income-tax Act, Succession of business, Relief under section 25(4) of the Act.
Assessment under Income-tax Act:
The case involved a family business, assessed as an association of persons, engaged in timber and contract businesses. The family was assessed under the 1918 Act for both lines of business. The dispute arose when the family claimed relief under section 25(4) of the Income-tax Act for the contract business for the year 1943-44. The Department denied the relief, leading to an appeal to the Tribunal and subsequently to the High Court.
Succession of business:
The family business, which included a partnership with Arunachalam for contracts, continued after his death in 1927. A family arrangement in 1942 led to the cessation of the timber business and the continuation of the contract business as a partnership among family members. The Tribunal and the Department argued that there was no complete succession to the entire business, citing contracts taken over by Sandanasami independently. However, the High Court clarified that the partnership took over the entire contract business conducted by the family, satisfying the requirements of section 25(4).
Relief under section 25(4) of the Act:
The central issue was whether the family was entitled to relief under section 25(4) for the contract business. The Tribunal's view that section 25(4) applied only to one succession after 1939 was deemed erroneous by the High Court. The Court emphasized the continuity of the business from 1920 to 1942, dismissing the notion of a break in the business's existence. The Court concluded that the family met all requirements of section 25(4) and was entitled to the claimed relief, ruling in favor of the assessee.
In conclusion, the High Court determined that the family business qualified for relief under section 25(4) of the Income-tax Act for the contract business, rejecting the Department's denial of the relief. The judgment emphasized the continuity of the business from 1920, the complete succession to the partnership in 1942, and the family's compliance with the statutory requirements for relief.
|
9911796707
