Contempt of Court – Administrative Delay – No Wilful Disobedience – High Court had found the District Magistrate of Bhagalpur guilty of contempt for delay in executing an order to release a detenu – Supreme Court held that since the District Magistrate was away on tour and unaware of the order, he could not be held personally liable – Lack of intention to disobey was a material factor – Held: No personal guilt for contempt established [Paras 4, 7].

Responsibility of Executive Officers – Duty to Execute Court Orders – High Court was justified in criticising the delay in executing its release order – Gross negligence in the District Magistrate’s office in processing the order was noted – However, individual liability of the Magistrate not established due to absence of knowledge or intent – Held: The office may be at fault, but individual officer not personally in contempt without proof of knowledge and deliberate inaction [Paras 4-6, 7].

Apology in Contempt – Not an Admission of Guilt – The District Magistrate tendered an unqualified apology through the Advocate General – Supreme Court clarified that an apology tendered in the context of delay by subordinates should not be treated as a confession of personal guilt – Apology accepted but not equated to culpability [Paras 3, 7].

Judicial Authority – Power under Article 215 – High Court has jurisdiction to proceed in contempt even against government officers – But exercise of contempt power must be cautious when personal knowledge or intent is not proven – Held: Contempt jurisdiction should distinguish between systemic administrative failures and wilful disobedience by individuals [Paras 6-7].

Decision – Appeal Allowed in Part – Though the appeal was formally dismissed, Supreme Court declared that the District Magistrate was not personally guilty of contempt – Rule discharged with clarification that no personal contempt was committed – Matter closed with hope that State ensures timely compliance in future [Paras 7].

Civil Law - Will – Testamentary Construction – Effect of Multiple Contingencies – Appeal arose from a suit for possession by adopted son claiming that life interest given to one daughter (Nagammal) did not carry remainder to the second daughter (Gnanambal) – Held: Provisions of paragraph 5 of the will granting remainder to Gnanambal and her children remained effective despite change in adoption contingency – Disposition upheld in favour of appellant [Paras 6, 13-14].

Construction of Wills – Intention of Testator – Paramount Principle – Court reiterated settled rule that primary aim is to ascertain the testator’s intention from the language of the will read as a whole – Courts must place themselves in testator’s position and interpret in light of surrounding circumstances – Held: Paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 were intended to operate under all contingencies – Will to be read harmoniously, not as distinct and self-contained parts [Paras 10, 13].

Doctrine of Intestacy – Not to Be Presumed Without Ambiguity – Presumption against intestacy only arises in case of ambiguity – Where intention is clear, plain language governs – Held: High Court erred in holding that failure to repeat the remainder clause in later paragraph created intestacy – Testamentary intention was clearly against intestacy [Paras 11, 15].

Bequest to Heirs – Life Estate and Remainder – Kothangudi Property – Will granted life estate in Kothangudi to elder daughter Nagammal and remainder to younger daughter Gnanambal and her children on condition of payment to granddaughter Alamelu – Held: Will did not limit applicability of this clause to only one adoption contingency – Full clause remained effective irrespective of whether adopted son was from daughter’s line or from nephews’ [Paras 13-14].

Interpretation – Reference to Later Clauses – Cross-reference Does Not Exclude Earlier Disposition – Reference to paragraph 5 in paragraph 13 of the will did not limit the former’s effect – Even if paragraph 13 only re-stated part of paragraph 5, it did not nullify the remainder clause – Held: Entire clause of paragraph 5 must be given effect [Paras 13-14].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Disposition in Favour of Appellant Upheld – Supreme Court reversed High Court’s decree and restored the trial court’s dismissal of suit – Appellant Gnanambal declared entitled to Kothangudi property after Nagammal’s death – Decree for recovery by adopted son set aside [Paras 16-17].

Commission Agent – Breach of Duty – Failure to Insure Goods – Agent Liable – The appellant, acting as a commission agent, failed to insure 92 bales of goods as per instructions of the respondents – The goods were destroyed in the Bombay Dock explosion – Respondents claimed damages for breach of agency duty – Held: The appellant, having failed to act according to directions and debited insurance charges as if policy existed, was liable for the resulting loss under Sections 211 and 212 of the Indian Contract Act [Paras 1–5, 12–14, 17].

Measure of Damages – Government Ordinance and Agent’s Liability – Ordinance Does Not Create New Liability – The Bombay Explosion (Compensation) Ordinance, 1944, provided full compensation for insured goods and partial compensation for uninsured ones – Appellant recovered only partial compensation – Held: Ordinance merely quantified damages and did not alter or create liability – The agent was bound to place principal in the same position as if goods had been insured – Hence, the remaining loss was directly recoverable from the agent [Paras 14–17, 19].

Remoteness of Damage – Direct and Natural Consequence – Not Remote – The appellant argued that government intervention broke the chain of causation – Rejected – Held: The failure to insure was the proximate cause of the unrecoverable loss – The Ordinance was only a mechanism to assess damages and did not render the loss remote or indirect [Paras 13–17].

Section 18 of the Ordinance – No Bar to Counter-claim – Suit Maintainable – Appellants contended that Section 18(2) of the Ordinance barred all claims for explosion-related damages – Rejected – Held: The respondents’ claim was not for explosion damage per se but for breach of agency duty, and therefore Section 18(2) did not apply [Paras 20–21].

Dissent – No Direct Loss – Damage Too Remote – Patanjali Sastri, J. dissented – Held: Since the usual fire insurance policy excluded damage caused by explosion, no compensation could have been recovered even if the goods were insured – The Ordinance could not retroactively create liability where none existed – The loss was too remote to be compensable under Sections 212 and 73 of the Indian Contract Act [Paras 22–31].

Appeal – Dismissed – Majority Upholds Agent’s Liability – The Supreme Court, by majority (Kania C.J. and Das J.), dismissed the appeal and upheld the respondent’s counter-claim – Agent’s breach directly led to loss, and compensation under the Ordinance would have been payable had insurance been taken – Costs awarded to respondents [Paras 32–33].

Taxation Law - Income Tax – Residence of Hindu Undivided Family – Section 4A(b) of the Income Tax Act – Assessee Held Resident – The appellant, karta of a Hindu Undivided Family domiciled in Ceylon, claimed that the control and management of the family affairs was wholly outside British India – Despite permanent residence in Ceylon, the appellant frequently visited British India, attended to litigation and income tax proceedings, and initiated new partnerships in India – Held: The onus to prove that control and management was wholly outside British India was on the assessee and not discharged – The family must be deemed to be resident in British India for the relevant year [Paras 1–5, 10–13].

Meaning of Control and Management – “Head and Brain” of Affairs – Test of Residence – The Court adopted English common law principles to interpret “control and management” – Held: The expression refers to the real directing power, which must function with some degree of permanence – Mere physical presence or temporary activity in British India is not sufficient to constitute residence, but acts indicating control of affairs are relevant to determine situs of management [Paras 6–9, 11–12].

Onus of Proof – Failure to Discharge Burden – Assessment Upheld – The burden to establish that control and management was situated wholly outside British India rested on the assessee – No correspondence or documentary evidence was produced to show that instructions regarding Indian affairs were issued from Colombo – In absence of proof to the contrary, the presumption of residence in India stood [Para 13].

Limited Scope – Decision Restricted to Assessment Year 1942-43 – The Court clarified that the finding was based on failure of evidence in respect of a particular assessment year and that the appellant was free to adduce proper evidence in future assessments to establish residence outside British India [Para 13].

Appeal – Dismissed – Assessee Failed to Displace Statutory Presumption – Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s view that the Appellate Tribunal erred in holding the HUF as non-resident – The appeal was dismissed with costs [Paras 14–16].

Civil Writ - Challenge Constitution to the validity of the Sholapur Spinning and Weaving Company (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1950 - Maintainability – Locus Standi – Article 32 – Company vs Shareholder Rights – Petition Not Maintainable Where Shareholder Challenges Law Affecting Company Alone – An individual shareholder cannot invoke Article 32 to challenge legislation that allegedly violates the rights of the company unless he establishes direct infringement of his own fundamental rights – Held: Company and shareholder are separate legal entities – Petitioner's ownership of one share does not entitle him to challenge deprivation of the company’s property [Paras 44-47, 84-86].

Right to Property – Articles 31(1) and 31(2) – No Deprivation or Acquisition – The Sholapur Act did not result in “acquisition” or “taking possession” of the shareholder’s property under Article 31(2) – Shareholders retained full ownership of shares and right to dividends – Restrictions on voting rights and winding up proceedings did not amount to deprivation of property – Held: No compensation required as there was no acquisition or taking over under Article 31(2) [Paras 54-58, 76-82].

Right to Hold Property – Article 19(1)(f) and Reasonable Restrictions – Restrictions on voting, winding up proceedings do not violate Article 19(1)(f) – Held: Such restrictions, even if they amount to limitation on enjoyment of property, are reasonable in public interest and valid under Article 19(5) – No violation of the shareholder's fundamental rights [Paras 59-62].

Equal Protection – Article 14 – Valid Classification – Sholapur Act Not Discriminatory – Selection of single company valid if based on intelligible differentia – Onus lies on petitioner to prove arbitrary selection – Held: Mismanagement and impact on essential commodity production justified legislative intervention – Absence of proof of similarly situated companies not being subject to such legislation – No violation of Article 14 [Paras 8-21, 63-67].

Legislative Competence – Entry 43, Union List – Regulation of Companies – Act Valid – The Sholapur Act falls within the legislative competence of the Union under Entry 43, List I (Union List) – The legislation was concerned with regulation of a trading corporation and thus intra vires – Held: Argument of lack of competence rejected [Paras 68-69, 75].

Decision – Petition Dismissed – Majority of the bench held that the petitioner failed to establish violation of fundamental rights – No interference warranted under Article 32 – However, minority view (Justice Das and Justice Sastri) dissented holding that Article 14 was violated – Held: No dispossession under Article 31, and classification under Article 14 was valid – Petition dismissed with costs [Paras 4, 22, 35, 69, 93-94].

Note: This Judgment has been overruled by : Parshotam Lal Dhingra Vs. Union of India (UOI), AIR 1958 SC 36 : (1958) 1 LLJ 544 : (1958) 1 SCR 828

Specific Performance – Consent of Lessor – Whether Agreement Contingent – Agreement Not Contingent – Parties concluded a binding contract by correspondence; obligation to obtain lessor’s consent was a substantive term cast on defendant, not a condition precedent to formation of contract – Specific performance rightly decreed notwithstanding absence of prior consent [Paras 4–8, 15].

Leasehold Assignment – Covenant “Consent not to be unreasonably withheld” – Effect – Such words qualify lessee’s covenant against assignment and relieve it where consent is unreasonably withheld for a respectable/responsible assignee – Plaintiff proved respectability/responsibility; lessor’s refusal without reason held unreasonable – Defendant could validly assign without consent; decree sustained [Paras 9, 11, 14–15].

Pleadings – Raising Point of Unreasonable Withholding – No Surprise – Plaintiff’s stance foreshadowed in plaint averring respectability/responsibility; defendant’s own admissions and evidence considered – Court competent to determine reasonableness inter se parties though not binding on lessor (who was not a party) [Paras 10–11].

Appellate Procedure – Additional Evidence – Order 41 Rule 27 CPC – Permissible Where Appellate Court Requires It – High Court rightly directed examination of Maharaja (lessor) “to clear up the matter”; exercise falls squarely within O.41 R.27 discretion – No interference warranted [Para 12].

Contract Construction – Consent Term for Purchaser’s Benefit – Waiver – The stipulation that defendant obtain written consent before completion was introduced by purchaser and operated for purchaser’s protection – Purchaser could waive and insist on performance; defendant could not rely on absence of consent to avoid contract – Any title defect accepted by purchaser [Para 13].

Risk of Lessor’s Action – Not a Bar to Specific Performance – Possible damages/forfeiture concerns do not defeat decree where defendant failed to condition his obligation on obtaining consent and assignee is respectable/responsible; damages against assignor speculative – Specific performance appropriately ordered [Para 14].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Decree for specific performance (with provision to proceed without prior lessor consent) affirmed; costs to respondent [Para 15].

Family Law - Hindu Succession – Proof of Daughtership – Oral vs Documentary Evidence – Finding of Natural Daughtership Upheld – Plaintiffs (alleged reversioners) disputed that Binodini was the natural daughter of Govind Ballab; Trial Court leaned on loose “account sheets” and almanac entries to negate daughtership; High Court preferred credible oral evidence (including D.W.3, an eyewitness at birth) and rejected the papers – Held: Oral evidence of birth trustworthy; plaintiffs’ documents lacked probative value; Binodini treated as and was the natural daughter – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1–4, 6].

Accounts & Almanacs – Evidence Act Sect. 34 & Sect. 90 – Loose Sheets Not “Books of Account Regularly Kept”; §90 Presumption Inapplicable – Exhibit 32 series comprised loose sheets produced from Receiver’s custody; not a regularly kept book; genuineness/date not proved (torn numeral; fresh ink) – Presumption under §90 (as to signatures/handwriting of documents 30+ years old) not attracted; almanac loose leaves with blanks lacked reliability and were susceptible to substitution – No compelling evidentiary weight to displace oral proof [Paras 3–4].

Hearsay Exceptions – Evidence Act §32 – Not Engaged – Entries relied on were not shown to fall within Sect. 32 clauses; absent proof of authorship and regular course, the sheets could not be received under Sect. 32 to prove dates of births; hence rejection sustained [Paras 3–4].

CPC Sect.149 – Deficient Court-Fee on Appeal – Amendment and Make-Up of Court-Fee Permissible; Limitation Plea Does Not Defeat Discretion – High Court rightly allowed amendment deleting expansive relief and permitted payment of requisite ad valorem court-fee; decree under appeal being declaratory, fee issue was primarily between State and appellants; exercise of §149 discretion could ignore limitation objections; no injustice caused [Para 5].

Decision – Appeal dismissed with costs – High Court decree (dismissing plaintiffs’ suit) affirmed; preliminary objection on court-fee fails [Paras 5–6].

Registration – Compromise Decree – Lease / Agreement to Lease – Section 17(1)(d) & 17(2)(vi) – Decree Not Requiring Registration – Suit compromised in 1923 adjusting prior pattas: royalty to Singhs reduced and minimum lowered – Deoshis to pay enhanced royalty to Singhs and hold 500 bighas under them – Entire arrangement conditional on Singhs paying Rs. 8,000 to Kumar within two months – Held: Compromise did not operate as a present demise but created, at most, a contingent under-lease dependent on payment – A contingent agreement is outside §17(1)(d); though within §17(1)(b) it is exempt under §17(2)(vi) (as it then stood) – Decree admissible and suit decreed; appeal dismissed with costs [Paras 3–8].

Scope of §17(2)(vi) (pre-1930) – Compromise covering property beyond suit subject – Protected – Prior to the 1929/1930 amendment, the exception extended to compromise decrees even if they comprised immovable property beyond the suit land – Hence no registration needed merely because the compromise also touched the remaining 5,300 bighas [Paras 5, 7].

Nature of Transaction – Not mere rent variation nor assignment of reversion – Legal Effect – The compromise did more than alter royalty; it brought Singhs and Deoshis into a new legal relationship of lessor–under-lessee for 500 bighas – However, as execution/possession were expressly barred unless Rs. 8,000 was paid within time, there was no present and immediate interest created – Therefore not a “lease” or “agreement to lease” within §17(1)(d) [Paras 4, 6–7].

Decision – Appeal dismissed with costs – High Court’s decree affirmed on different reasoning – Compromise decree did not require registration and was rightly acted upon [Para 7–8].

Execution Limitation – Fraud and twin regimes – CPC Sect. 48(2) vs Limitation Act Sect. 18 – Decree-holder proved judgment-debtor’s fraudulent concealment of ownership of “Prabhat” newspaper – Held: Fraud attracted CPC Sect.48(2) giving a fresh 12-year window for execution from the fraud period – However, Limitation Act bar under Art. 182 still applies unless Sect.18 is satisfied – Fraud preventing execution is distinct from fraud keeping the decree-holder from knowledge of the right to apply – On facts Sect.18 not attracted – Application beyond 3 years from prior dismissal is time-barred under Art. 182 [Paras 7–9, 11–19, 22–24].

Conditional Decree – Court-fee stipulation – Not a condition postponing enforceability – Final decree directing plaintiff to pay deficit court-fee before execution is executable from date of decree – Payment within decree-holder’s control – No deferred start for limitation [Para 5].

Section 14(2) Limitation Act – Insolvency proceedings – No exclusion – Insolvency petition to adjudicate debtor is a different proceeding seeking different relief from execution – Time not deductible under Sect.14(2) [Para 5].

Third-Party Creditor’s Steps – No saving of limitation – Attachment/execution attempts by decree-holder’s creditor (Tendulkar) do not keep alive the decree for the decree-holder – Subsequent application beyond 3 years from 09-09-1940 is barred under Art. 182 [Para 6].

Indivisibility of Right to Apply – Property-specific concealment insufficient for Sect.18 – Right to apply for execution is single and indivisible – Concealment of one asset does not postpone limitation for the whole decree under Sect.18 – Decree-holder knew of right to apply and of other assets – Failure to proceed within triennium is fatal under Art. 182 [Paras 18–21].

Harmonious Construction – CPC Sect.48 and Limitation Act – Sect.48 imposes outer cap of 12 years (extendable for fraud/force under Sect.48(2)) – Limitation Act (Art. 182) requires triennial steps; only Sect.18 can shift the starting point for applications – Equity cannot override the statutory scheme [Paras 22–25].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Fraud under Sect.48(2) proved, but no saving under Sect.18; current execution barred by Art. 182 – Costs to respondent [Paras 15–16, 22–26].