SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
4th August, 1959.
S.R. DAS, C.J.I., N.H. BHAGWATI AND M. HIDAYATULLAH, JJ.
M/s. Godrej and Co., Appellants
Versus
The Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City, Bombay, Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 183 of 1956.
Advocate Appeared
A. V. Viswanatha Sastri, Senior Advocate (M/s. S. N. Andley and J. B. Dadachanji, Advocates of M/s. Rajinder Narain and Co.), for Appellants; M. C. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India (M/s. K. N. Rajagopal Sastri and D. Gupta, Advocates with him), for Respondent.
Judgement
DAS, CJI. : This is an appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of Bombay delivered on September 11, 1953, on a reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under S. 66 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, whereby the High Court answered the referred question in the affirmative and directed the appellant to pay the costs of the respondent.
2. The appellant, which is a registered firm and is hereinafter referred to as "the assessee firm" was appointed the managing agent of Godrej Soaps Limited (hereinafter called the "managed company"). It has been working as such managing agent since October 1928 upon the terms and conditions recorded originally in an agreement dated October 28, 1928, which was subsequently substituted by another agreement dated December 8, 1933, (hereinafter referred to as "the Principal Agreement ). Under the Principal Agreement the assessee firm was appointed Managing Agent for a period of thirty years from November 9, 1988. Clause 2 of that Agreement provided as follows :
"The Company shall during the subsistence of this agreement pay to the said firm and the said firm shall receive from the company the following remuneration, that is to say :
(a) A commission during every year at the rate of twenty per cent, on the net profits of the said company after providing for interest on loans, advances and debentures (if any) working expenses, repairs outgoings and depreciation but without any deduction being made for income-tax and super-tax and for expenditure on capital account or on account of any sum which may be set aside in each year out of profits as reserve fund.
(b) In case such net profits of the Company after providing for interest on loans, Advances and debentures (if any), working expenses, depreciation, repairs and outgoings and after deduction therefrom the commission provided for by sub-clause (a) shall during any year exceed a sum of rupees one lac the amount of such excess over rupees one lac up to a limit of rupees twenty four thousand.
(c) In case such net profits of the Company after providing for interest on loans, advances and debentures (if any) working expenses, depreciation, repairs and outgoings and after also deducting therefrom the commission provided for by sub-clause (a) shall during any year exceed a sum of rupees one lac and twenty four thousand one half of such excess over rupees one lac and twenty four thousand shall be paid to the firm and the other half to the shareholders."
Some of the shareholders and directors of the managed company felt that the scale of remuneration paid to the assessee firm under Cl. (2) of the Principal Agreement was extraordinarily excessive and unusual and should be modified. Accordingly negotiations were started for a reduction of the remuneration and, after some discussion, the assessee firm and the managed company arrived at certain agreed modifications which were eventually recorded in a special resolution passed at the extraordinary general meeting of the managed company had on October 22, 1946. That resolution was in the following terms:
"Resolved that the agreement arrived at between the managing agents on the one hand and the directors of your Company on the other hand, that the managing agents, in consideration of the Company paying Rs. 7,50,000 as compensation, for releasing the Company from the onerous term as to remuneration contained in the present managing agency agreement should accept as remuneration for the remaining term of their managing agency ten per cent, of the net annual profits of the Company as defined in S. 87C, sub-section (3) of the Indian Companies Act in lieu of the higher remuneration to which they are now entitled under the provisions of the existing managing agency agreement be and the same is hereby approved and confirmed.
Resolved that the Company and the managing agents do execute the necessary document modifying the terms of the original managing agency agreement in accordance with the above agre
Relied on : The Commissioner of Income-tax, Hyderabad, Deacon v. M/s. Vazir Sultan and Sons
referred to : Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd. v. Commr. Of Income-tax
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.