TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1965 (2) TMI 138
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ise those sums under a letter of authority issued by the appellant, and if the Government would raise any objection to the payment, the respondent would have the right to realise the dues from the personal property of the appellant. Some of the items of the loans in respect of which the award was made were secured on lands and ornaments. The award therefore provided : "The documents relating to debts obtained on lands and ornaments shall remain as before till the payment of the debts and they shall also remain as securities till then, and the Nawab Sahab shall have no right to transfer the land." 2. The award was signed by the arbitrator and also by the appellant and the respondent. 3. On the same day, the arbitrator filed the award in the Court of the District Judge, Ratlam. Notice of filing of the award under s. 14 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 was duly served on the parties, On March 9, 1957, an agent of the appellant filed a written submission accepting the award and requesting the Court to pass a decree in terms of the award. But on the same day, an application was made by another agent of the appellant intimating that steps would be taken for setting asid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m praying for vacating the order of transfer of the decree and for cancellation of the certificate issued under O. 21, r. 6(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure. By order dated March 15, 1958, the Court recalled the decree and cancelled the certificate as prayed for, on the ground that the amount receivable by the appellant on account of his privy purse was not attachable. The respondent preferred Appeal No. 33 of 1958 before the High Court against this order. By another order dated January 7, 1959, the District Judge, Ratlam dismissed certain objections of the appellant filed in Execution Case No. 2 of 1958. We are informed that the appellant filed before the High Court Appeal No. 13 of 1959 from this order. 5. Appeals Nos. 81 and 82 of 1957, 33 of 1958 and 13 of 1959 were heard and disposed of by the High Court by a common judgment on October 10, 1960. The High Court dismissed Appeals Nos. 81 and 82 of 1957 and 13 of 1959 preferred by the appellant and allowed Appeal No. 33 of 1958 preferred by the respondent. The appellant has referred to this Court Civil Appeal No. 568 of 1963 against the order of the High Court passed in Appeal No. 33 of 1958. He has also preferred Civil Appea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ding of Part IV, "Suit in Particular Cases", in which Sections 86 and 87B appear. Order 4, rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure provides that every suit shall be instituted by presenting a plaint to the Court or such other officer as it appoints in this behalf. In the context of s. 176 of the Government of India Act, 1935, Mahajan and Mukherjea, JJ, observed that the expression "sue" means the "enforcement of a claim or civil right by means of legal proceedings", see Province of Bombay v. K. S. Advani and others [1950] 1 SCR 621. But in the context of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908, Lord Russell of Killowen observed in Hansraj Gupta v. Official Liquidator, Dehra Dun-Mussorrie Electric Tramway Co. L.R. [1932] Ind Ap 13 : "The word 'suit' ordinarily means, and apart from some context must be taken to mean, a civil proceeding instituted by the presentation of a plaint." 9. And construing s. 86 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Shah, J. speaking on behalf of this Court observed in Bhagwat Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1964) ILLJ 33 SC : "The appellant is recognised under Art. 336(22) of the Constitution as a Ruler of an Indian State, but s. 86 in terms protects a ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e and a Ruler of such State may enjoy a wider immunity from legal proceedings other than suits under the rules of International Law recognised by our Courts, but the appellant is not now a Ruler of a sovereign State, and cannot claim immunity from proceedings other than suits. The second contention of Mr. Pathak must, therefore, be rejected. 11. The third contention of Mr. Pathak raises the question whether an amount payable to a Ruler of a former Indian State as privy purse is a political pension within the meaning of s. 60(1)(g), Code of Civil Procedure. The word "pension" in s. 60(1)(g), Code of Civil Procedure implies periodical payments of money by the Government to the pensioner. See Nawab Bahadur of Murshidabad v. Karnani Industrial Bank Ltd. L.R[1931] IndAp 215 And in Bishambhar Nath v. Nawab Imdad Ali Khan L.R[1890] IndAp 181, Lord Watson observed : "A pension which the Government of India has given a guarantee that it will pay, by a treaty obligation contracted with another sovereign power, appears to their Lordships to be, in the strictest sense, a political pension. The obligation to pay, as well as the actual payment of the pension, must, in such circumstan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... would be free of all taxes whether imposed by the Government of the United State or by the Government of India. Article XIII of the Covenant secured to the Ruler of each Covenanting State all personal privileges, dignities and titles then enjoyed by them. Article XIV guaranteed the succession, according to law and custom, to the gaddi of each Covenanting State and to the personal rights, privileges, dignities and titles of the Ruler. The Covenant was signed by all the Rulers of the Covenanting States. At the foot of the Covenant, it was stated that "The Government of India hereby concur in the above Covenant and guarantee all its provisions." In confirmation of this consent and guarantee, the Covenant was signed by a Secretary to the Government of India. 13. On the coming into force of the Constitution of India, the territories of Madhya Bharat became an integral part of India. Article 291 of the Constitution provided : "Where under any covenant or agreement entered into by the Ruler of any Indian State before the commencement of this Constitution, the payment of any sums, free of tax, has been guaranteed or assured by the Government of the Dominion of India to any Rul....