LexTHE STATE OF TRIPURA versus THE PROVINCE OF EAST BENGAL UNION OF INDIA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
- ' , 'i Supreme Court Reports VOL. II - 1951 THE STATE OF TRIPURA v • THE PROVINCE OF EAST BENGAL UNION OF INDIA-INTERVENER [SHRI HARILAL KANIA C.J., SAIYID FAZL ALI, PATANJALI SASTRI, MuKHERJEA AND CHANDRASH'llKHARA AIYAR JJ.) Indian Independence Act, 1947, s. 9-Indian Independence '\"(Legal Proceedings) Order, 1947, Art. 4-lndian /rzdependence (Rights, Property and Liabilities) Order, 1947, Arts. JO (2), 12 (2)-Notice on Ruler of State for return of income under Bengal Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1944-Suit for declaration of invali- dity of Act and injunction restraining Income-tax Officer from pro- ceeding with assessment-prtition of India pending suit-Pro-· perty falling within Province of East Bengal-/urisdiction of court in West Bengal to proceed with suit against Province of East Bengal-Interpretation of Orders-"Liability", "actionable wrong '1 other than breach of contract", meanings of-Torts and actionabie wrongs-Bengal Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1944, s. 65-Suit in civil court for declaration and injunction 1·estraining assessment proceedings-Maintainability. The Income-tax Officer, Dacca, acting under the Bengal Agricutural Income-tax Act, 1944, sent by registered post a notice to the Manager of an Estate belonging to the T ripura State but situated in Bengal, calling upon the latter to furnish a return '!.'. of the agricultural income derived from the Estate during the previous year. The notice was received by the Manager ;n the Tripura State. The State, by its then Ruler, instituted a suit in June, 1946, against the Province of Bengal and the Income-tax Officer, in the court of the Subordinate Judge of Dacca for ~ declaration that the said Act in so far it purporated to impose a liability to pay agricultural income-tax on the plaintiff was ultra vires and void, and for a perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants from taking any steps to assess the plaintiff. The .::f suit was subsequently transferred to the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Alipore. The partion of India under the Indian Inde- pendence Act took place on the 15th August 1947, and the 1950 December 1950 The State of Trip111tJ •• ne Provin,;e of EtvtBenzal 2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1951] Province of East Bengal in which the Estate was situated, was substituted as a defendant in the place of the Province of Bengal ·"' on an application made by it, and in its written statement it contended that the court of Alipore which was situated in W•st Bengal had no jurisdiction to proceed with the suit. The High Court of Calcutta, reversing the order of the Subordinate Judge of Alipore held that the provisions of the Indian Independence (Legal Proceedings) Order, 1947, and the Indian Independence (Rights, Property and Liabilities) Order, 1947, did not apply to the case and, as the matter was accordingly governed by the rules of international law, the court of Alipore had no jurisdiction to y proceed with the suit : . Held per KANIA C. J., PATANJALI SAsni, MuKHEIJEA and CHANDRASEKHARA AIYAR )J. (FAZL Au J, concum'ng)-Thc suit was not one with respect to any property transferred to East Bengal by the Indian Independence (Rights, Property and Liabi- lities) Order, 1947, nor was it a suit irr respect of any "rip.ts" transferred by the said Order, inasmuch as the Province of East Bengal obtained the right to levy income-iax not by means of any transfer under the said Order, but by virtue of sovereign rights .,. which were preserved by s. 18 (3) of the Indian Independence Act, 1947, and Art. 12 (2) of the said Order had no application to the case. Held per KANIA C. J., PATANJALI SASTRr, MUKHEJ.Jl!.\ AND CttANDRASEKHARA AIYAll JJ. (FAzL ALI J. tlissenting-(i) Since the object of the Indfan Independence (Rights, Property and Liabilities) Order, 1947, was to provide for the initial distribution of rights, properties and liabilities as between the two Dominions and their Provinces, a wide and liberal constrUction, as far as the '>- language used would admit, should be placed upon the Order, so as to leave no gap or lacuna in relation to the matters sought to be provided for. The words "liability in respect of an actionable wrong" should not therefore be understood in the restricted sense of liability for damages for completed acts, but so as to cover the liability to be restrained by injunction from completing what on the alleg
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.