TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1944 (3) TMI 10
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r merchant in Madras under the style of The Chrome Leather Company. The business belonged to and was conducted by himself alone and the company name was no more than an alias for himself, but for the object he had in view he purported to treat the company as if it had an independent being. At the time of the transactions about to be narrated, Mr. Chamber's family consisted of his wife Ethel Mary Chambers, a son who is the present appellant, and two daughters, Phyllis Dora Chambers (Mrs. Michell) and Sheila Florence Chambers. His wife died in 1924. He married a second wife who died in 1927 leaving an infant son, who is respondent 4. In 1930 he married respondent 1 as his third wife. Respondents 1, 2 and 3 are the trustees and executors o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ccounts were opened in the names of the beneficiaries under the will of Mrs. Chambers, showing them as creditors in respect of shares in the amount which had stood to her credit at her death as apportioned by her will. Letters waiving payment of interest were signed by the beneficiaries under the will of Mrs. Chambers in 1931 in order to satisfy the company's auditors. In December 1932, Mr. Chambers caused the two lakhs which had been proportionately credited to the beneficiaries under the will of Mrs. Chambers as well as all the other similar credits in favour of his children and relations to be re-transferred to his own capital account in the company's books, and all the credit accounts were cancelled and closed. Mr. Chambers appe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat the legal requirements of a gift had not been satisfied and the appellant has not pursued this point on appeal to His Majesty. Gentle J. however, in the Court of first instance, was of opinion that a valid trust in favour of Mrs. Chambers had been created and he so decided. On an Original Side Appeal the contrary was held by Sir Lionel Leach C.J., and Horwill J. 6. The only question argued before their Lordships was whether a trust in favour of Mrs. Chambers had been effectually constituted. On this question their Lordships heard a persuasive argument by Mr. Wynn Parry but in their opinion the contention is untenable in law. In India the law of trusts is codified in the Trusts Act (2 of 1882) and when the provisions of that Act are con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....st. Such a subject-matter in their Lordships' opinion does not answer the requirements of Indian trust law, and immediately raises other and inextricable difficulties both of form and of substance. Thus, so far as the surplus assets of the business, if any, should consist of Immovable property, the provisions prescribed by Section 5 of the Act requiring a registered instrument in writing would require to have been observed and they have not been. There being no ascertained and appropriated trust fund the case for the constitution of a trust necessarily fails. But there are other insurmountable obstacles in the appellant's way, which are fully discussed by the learned Chief Justice in the light of the authorities on the subject. The ....