Just a moment...

Top
Help
AI Drafter

Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.

Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review

The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.

• Review the issues identified by the AI
• Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required


Step 2 – Draft Generation

Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.

• Relevant statutory provisions
• Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations
• Issue-wise legal analysis
• Practical arguments and supporting content
• Professionally structured draft ready for further review.

Try Now
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

1988 (2) TMI 466

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... An Arbitrator was appointed who in due course rendered an award in favour of the contractor. The contractor instead of instituting an appropriate proceeding in Uttar Pradesh where the contract was executed and the work was carried out, instituted a proceeding on the original side of the Delhi High Court. By this proceeding the contractor prayed for making the award a rule of the Court under sections 14 and 17 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940. The respondent raised a plea to the effect that the Delhi High Court had no Jurisdiction inasmuch as the cause of action had arisen at a place in Uttar Pradesh and that the contract was also executed at Bareilly in Uttar Pradesh. The learned Single Judge negatived this plea. The respondent Union of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ess or worked for gain through the Director of Supplies and Disposals, New Delhi to confer jurisdiction on the courts at Delhi. The answer has to be in the negative. The expression "voluntarily resides" in Section 20 is significant. It necessarily refers to natural persons and not to legal entities. Likewise, the expressions "carries on business" or "personally works for gain" do not refer to functions carried on by the Union of India in discharge of its executive powers conferred by Article 298 of the constitution. While Article 299 of the Constitution provides that all contracts made in the exercise of the executive power of the Union shall be expressed to be made by the President Clause (2) of this Article states that the President shall....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....' contractor for certain villages in the district of Nalgonda. A penalty of Rs. 9,767/8- was imposed on him by the Excise Superintendent for the alleged tapping of 145 toddy and 500 Sindhi trees without paying the excise duty. After he failed in his appeal to the Collector and the Excise Commissioner and his representation to the Minister, he filed a suit at Hyderabad impugning the levy of penalty as ultra vires, illegal and void. It was urged that as the Government enjoyed monopoly in regard to 'abkar' business it should be deemed to be carrying on business at Hyderabad within the sweep of Section 20 C.P.C. The contention was rejected. The Court said: We consider that in gathering the revenues from various sources, the Gover....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....961 SCR (1) 158). In this case at the instance of the Corporation of Calcutta, summons under Section 488 of Bengal Act III of 1923 as substituted by the later Act XXXIII of 1951 were issued by the Director of Rationing and Distribution representing the Food Department of the Government of West Bengal. The offence complained of was the "using or permitting to be used" certain premises for purposes of storing rice without a licence. By way of preliminary objection the contention raised was that the prosecution was not maintainable in law. An argument was raised on behalf of the Corporation that the State as recognised by Article 300 of the Constitution was a legal person and was capable of having rights and was subject to obligations, and the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sel for the appellant has urged that the Delhi High Court has not properly appreciated the ratio of the decision of this Court in Union of India v. Laddu Lal Jain A.I.R. 1964 (3) SCR 624. We are unable to accede to this argument. We concur with the view of the High Court that the decision in Laddu Lal Jain's case is inapplicable in the back drop of the facts of the present matter. In Laddu Lal Jain's case the Court was concerned with the activity carried on by the Railway Administration which was held to be "business" activity. The Supreme Court has drawn a distinction between the commercial activities of the State on the one hand and the discharge of the sovereign functions of the State on the other. The decision in that matter has....