SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1944 Supreme(Mad) 106

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Leach, C.J.
A. Jainulabdeen
Versus
Commr. of Income-tax
Decided On : 17.03.1944

An order appointing managing agents, made in accordance with an agreement between the parties, does not constitute an order of the court within the contemplation of Section 41.

Headnote:

Section 41 - Court Order - The court held that an order appointing managing agents, made in accordance with an agreement between the parties, did not constitute an order of the court within the contemplation of Section 41.

Fact of the Case:

The court considered the appointment of managing agents, which was made at the request of the parties, and whether it constituted an order of the court under Section 41.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the appointment of managing agents, made in accordance with an agreement between the parties, did not qualify as an order of the court under Section 41.

Issues: The issues involved the interpretation of Section 41 and whether the appointment of managing agents, made at the request of the parties, constituted an order of the court.

Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that an order passed on the terms agreed upon by the parties, even if involving a minor, remained an agreement between the parties and not an order of the court within the contemplation of Section 41.

Final Decision: The court answered the first question in the negative, and as a result, the second question did not arise. The Commissioner of Income Tax was awarded costs of Rs. 250.

JUDGMENT

Leach, C.J.

1. In view of the decision of the Privy Council in I.L.R. (1939) 2 Cal. 300, l the answer to the first question must be in the negative. Their Lordships there held that an order of the Court appointing managers of an estate, the order being made in accordance with an agreement entered into between the parties, did not bring the case within the section. In the present case the order appointing M. Gulam Dastagir Sahib and Hajee K. Gulam Khader Sahib as managing agents was passed at the request of the parties. Mr. P.R. Srinivasan has suggested that this case is distinguishable from Kesher Deo v. I.T. Commr., Bengal because here one of the parties is a minor. The fact that the law requires the Court to give leave to a guardian to enter into a compromise on behalf of a minor does not alter the position. All- that the Court does in such a case is to see that the proposed compromise is in the interests of the minor. An order passed on the terms agreed upon will still remain an agreement between the parties and not an order of the Court within the contemplation of Section 41. As we have answered the first question in the negative, the second question does not arise. The Commissioner of Income Tax will have his costs, Rs. 250.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top