With that point we are. It shows that the second respondent thought that the matter raised for his decision was simple; Subsequently the second respondent proceeded against the first respondent under s. 33 of the Arbitration Act would lie in the circumstances of this case and therefore the provisions of s. The High Court held that the plaintiff had failed to prove that the words used by him at the time of the making of the second demand of Talab-E-Ishtashad were sufficient to draw the attention of the witnesses to the specific properties in respect of which he was demanding his right of pre-emption.
We shall therefore confine the appellant to these two points only and proceed on the assumption in the same manner as has been done by the High Court, namely, that an application under s. Learned counsel for appellant, however, wanted to raise before us other points arising out of s. No particulars were however furnished and no inspection was allowed; but on that very date when they had this interview with Mr. Emphasis was laid on the word ” assessment ” in the arguments, and it was contended that it denoted not merely the order of assessment, but included ” all steps taken for the purpose of levying of tax and during the process of taxation.
, or, in other words, eluded the notice of the Income- tax Officer. 14A of the Act” and issued a notice in that behalf on June 18, 1954. The second was, when income could be said to have escaped assessment. In substance the said section provides inter alia that if a public servant accepts any gratification whatever other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act, he is guilty of accepting illegal gratification.
, whether the Trial advocates Supreme Court of India acted lawyers in Supreme Court of India accordance with law in granting leave to the plaintiff to amend his plaint so as to include the alternative prayer for pre-emption in respect of 8 annas odd share of Tauza No. In the course of its judgment, the High Court made the following observations:- On a reading of the order however, it is quite clear to us that paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4 do not state the grounds of the order.
1130 instead of 4 annas odd share as originally claimed and also whether the suit was bound. , Talab-E-Mowashibat and Talab-E-Ishtashad is accepted at its face value the requirements of the law have not been fulfilled. 7 of the Protocol Act. 2 of the English Prevention of Corruption Act, 1916 (6 Geo. The first respondent showed cause but the second respondent was not satisfied with the explanation given by the first respondent, and so he directed the first respondent to deposit the said amount into the Government treasury and produce the proof of payment before him within a month of the receipt of his order.
Sundaram to give them particulars and that they might be permitted to inspect the papers. , not concerned in this case. 2,11,222-9-6 which had been recovered by him as sales tax from the dealers should not be forfeited to Government. , however, did not confine the phrase to such a narrow meaning. , that even if the evidence as regards the performance of the two Talabs i. Even if they were, they would be of no assistance to the plaintiff as the plaintiff had failed to show that it was on January 2, 1944, that he received the information about the same.
64) which uses the words “any money, gift, or other consideration “. In this connection reliance has been placed on the corresponding provision contained in s. We express no opinion whether this view of the learned judges of the High Court is correct or not. Where again the trial judge omits to properly weigh or take into account 664 important considerations bearing on the credibility of witnesses or the probability of their version, which point the other way, it is the duty of the court of appeal to reverse the findings of the trial Court.
Sundaram the first respondent made the order of cancellation. The argument is that in prescribing the condition precedent for raising a presumption the Legislature has advisedly used the word ” gratification ” and not money or gift or other consideration. to fail because there was 680 no prayer for pre-emption for the Dakhili villages of Tauza No. Section 4(1) requires the presumption to be raised whenever it is proved that an accused person has accepted ” any illegal gratification (other than legal remuneration) or any valuable thing.
” This clause does not include the receipt of trivial gratification or thing which is covered by the exception prescribed by sub-s. By this notice the first respondent was called upon to show cause why the entire amount of Rs. ), which, by its order dated January 8, 1958, discharged the Rule. This order was passed on February 10, 1955. The matter was heard by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court (Guha Roy and H.
35 of the Arbitration Act would be attracted. Once this decision is reached it is unnecessary to consider the further question whether any ceremonies were performed at all on 2nd, 3rd or 4th January, 1944, as stated by the plaintiff and his witnesses. We also express no opinion on the two other questions, viz. ” It was also contended that ” escaped ” meant that the income must have eluded observation, search etc. We do not think that the appellant should be permitted to raise at this late stage any new point in addition to the two points which were urged before the learned Single Judge and which only have all along been raised in the appeal to the High Court and advocates in Supreme Court of India the appeal before this Court.
It is unnecessary for us therefore to decide the further question that appears to have been raised, viz. The use of the 599 word gratification emphasises that it is not the receipt of any money which justifies the raising of the presumption; Held, that on a construction of the notices they bad the effect of discharging the workmen, and did not amount to a declaration The removal of the name of a worker from the Roll of the company was a formality which the notices said had been kept pending and this did not prevent the discharge having taken effect.