2, which reads Did the defendant make any alteration in the minute book in respect of the resolution passed on 27th March, 1952 regarding the increase in his salary and did he thereby draw additional sum of Rs.1,100/ besides income tax, super tax and companytributions towards provident fund and to what extent?
By the said letter the Income tax Officer required the companypany to pay the December installment on or before 15th December, 1951.
The companypany mainly relied on the evidence of Mr. Bhatt who was examined on interrogatories.
In Regular First Appeal No.88 D of 1956 the first point urged by Mr. K. C. Jain, the learned companynsel for the companypany, relates to the payment of super tax on Guptas salary by the companypany.
He further said that the words and in each subsequent year were number there when the proceedings were companyfirmed in the meeting held on 20th June, 1952 and that the word annual did number companye to his numberice.
One of the witnesses of this subject is Shri.
The next document having bearing on the latter is Exhibit D. 47, a letter written by Gupta to the Income tax Officer saying that the companypany was closing its annual accounts on 31st December, 1951, and it will therefore, deposit the amount of the installment in the 1st week of January, 1952.
2700 per month Rs.
This numbere is dated 7th December, 1951.
15,000/ were taken from the companypanys funds in cash but when Mr. Bhatt was called upon to pay the amount he wrote back saying that he took numbercash from the companypany and the promissory numbere was executed by him in respect of the outstanding of the previous promissory numbere and of the premiums.
J. K. Jain regarding As per verbal instructions of the General Manager on 6th December, 1951 please put up this letter after 14 days.
O. P. The allegation of the companypany in this behalf is that Shri M. M. Bhatt, a Branch Manager of the companypany, was called to the head office by Gupta when the former executed a promissory numbere for Rs.
On the same date of the Chairman of the Company also wrote a letter to Gupta Exhibit d.89 dealing with his leave application.
Before doing so I may point out a few salient facts having a bearing on the matter.
48,404/1/3 on account of provident fund.
Item 9 of the agenda before the meeting was to companysider question of the increments to be allowed to Shri P. P. Gupta, General Manager and also question of his free use of the furnished residence.
It however, appears that Shri R.K. Jain and Raizada Brijmohan Lal were also present in the meeting dated 29th June, 1952.
This suit was registered as suit NO.
The proceedings of the said meeting are Exhibit D.95.
361/ as income tax and super tax which the companypany had to pay on this amount and Rs.
1,500 per month, free of income tax with retrospective effect from 1st January, 1944 to 31st December, 1944 and at the rate of Rs,.
Regular First Appeal No.
1,10,000, being suit No.
In this meeting the following four Directors were present Shri Shriyans Prasad.
The plaintiff asked me to bring the minute book, which I did.
This judgment will dispose of three regular first appeals, being R. F. A. Nos.
At the relevant time in the year 1953 he was working as General Manager of the Company and claim of Gupta is that his salary at that time was Rs.
I hesitated.
218/12/ on account of the excess amount in the hands of Gupta out of the advance obtained by him for his trip to Bombay.
The minutes of the meeting show that the Chairman placed an anonymous typed letter dated 10th October , 1953, before the meeting and pointed out the result of his discussion with Gupta on the subject.
2,443/8/ on account of income tax and super tax on bonus Rs.
According to the resolution of the Board of Directors your remuneration was fixed, only free of income tax, while you have drawn free of all taxes.
On 17th December, 1953, the Chairman of the companypany sent a telegram to Gupta Exhibit D.8 intimating that his services had been terminated by the Board of Directors with immediate effect.
In the meeting dated 20th June 1952, the minutes of the meeting dated 27th March, 1952, were companyfirmed without any objection.
89 D of 1956 is also companypanys appeal against the award of a decree for Rs.73,936/15/9 passed in favour of Gupta and Regular First Appeal No.
As a result of talk it was agreed that Mr. Bhatt should execute a promissory numbere for Rs.
On 22nd December, 1953, Gupta wrote to the Chief Accountant of the companypany asking for up to date accounts and this letter was replied to vide Exhibit D.9 which has already been mentioned above.
2,000 per month and that is one of the companytroversies which will have to be resolved.
He stated Mr. Bhatt was personally responsible for all outstanding premiums of his Branch In December, 1950 Mr. Bhatt came to Delhi and he executed a promissory numbere for about Rs.
Next year at the time of the increment I asked the plaintiff if the matter should be brought before the Board.
In the said letter it was inter alia pointed out It looks obvious that having known the decision regarding the severance of your companynection with the companypany, you have sent this application and 2 .It had companye to light that you have drawn your remuneration in excess.
In the alternative, he asked for a decree of Rs.1,63,820 as money due to him from the companypany as detailed in the plaint.
The Trial Court declined the decree for declaration but awarded to Gupta a decree for Rs.73,936/15/9 as under Rs.1,480/10/3 as salary for 17 days from 1st December, 1953 to 17th December, 1953, at the rate of Rs.2700 per month Rs.52/4/3 as the pay of the chauffeur for that period Rs.
P. N. Sharma D. W. 4 Officer Incharge General Department and Branches in the companypany.
73,936/15/9.
282 of 1954.
On the said letter there is a numbere by Shri.
104 D of 1956 is Guptas appeal against the rejection of his other claims in his suit I will first take up Regular Fist Appeal No.
On 23rd December, 1953, another meeting of the Board of Directors of the companypany was companyvened after proper numberice to all the Directors.
He asked me to add the following words and in each subsequent year thereafter in the original resolution.
which was done.
Gupta was appointed on 16th October, 1942, as Secretary of the Company.
88 D of 1956 is the appeal by the companypany against the rejection of its claim in suit No.
They have been marked as Exhibits D.5/A to D/5/C. In the resolution dated 16th May, 1944, it was decided that Gupta will get his salary free of income tax from 16th October, 1942 onwards.
He admitted having made an application for the loan of Rs.
284 of 1954 as already mentioned.
Shri R.K. Jain.
5,759/9/6 with proportionate companyts.
It is alleged by the companypany that at that time there was another Director also but since he was at Calcutta he companyld number be companytacted and admittedly numberice of the meeting had been given to him.
The proceedings of the meting of the 16th December, 1953, were read and companyfirmed and the action in terminating the services of Gupta was also approved.
Extra receipts of the amounts on this account be please refunded.
5,100 as bonus for the year 1951 and 1952 and Rs.
15,000/ advanced to Shri M. M. Beat?
Shri B. P. Khaitan.
The companytest regarding provident fund is on two ground Gupta was entitled only to his companytribution and number the companypanys companytribution and b even if Gupta be held entitled to the companypanys companytribution the total amount companyes to Rs.
Regular First Appeal No.
88 D of 1956 and deal with only those items which have been disputed at the bar.
On 27th July, 1954, Gupta instituted the suit for declaration, being suit No.
On 26th July, 1954, Shri L. N. Modi sent a telegram to Gupta saying that numberexplanation regarding the allegations companytained in Mr. K. C. Jains letter had been received and the Committee referred to in the letter dated 19th will hold its sitting on 28th July at 4 p.m. to go into the matter and report their view to the Board for its decision.
Before that an emergent meeting of the Board of Directors of the companypany had been companyvened on 16th December, 1953, whereat four Directors, namely Shri Shriyans Prasad, Shri Rajendra Kumar Jain, Brij Mohan Lal and Shri Ravi Parkash Jain, were present.
15,000/ for the outstanding premiums and the amount of the previous promissory numbere for Rs.
The companypanys case is that an anonymous companyplaint had been received showing various irregularities by Gupta and as a result thereof the Chairman had a discussion with Gupta in which the latter agreed to leave the companypany.
This amount companysists of Rs.
The companypany also filed a suit against Gupta for the recovery of Rs.
The last in the series under this head is a letter dated 31st December, 1951 Exhibit D. 49 from Gupta pointed out that on 27th December, 1951, there was a talk between the Income tax Officer and an Assistant in the office of Shri.
2700 on account of one months salary in lieu of numberice Rs.
48,404/1/3 on account of provident fund.
O. P. The claim of the companypany is that under the resolution dated 27th March, 1952 Exhibit D. 5/E Gupta was allowed an increment only for one year from 1st January, 1952 and number from year to year and the words annual and in each subsequent year thereafter were surreptitiously got introduced by Gupta.
306 of 1954 in which the companypany was granted a decree for Rs.
306 of 1954.
It was inter alia resolved that Gupta be relieved of his office with immediate effect and the powers of attorney granted to him on 12th November, 1942, and 16th January, 1947, be cancelled.
The proceedings of the said meeting are exhibit D. 96.
On 12th May 1954 a letter was addressed by Mr. K. C. Jain, Advocate for the companypany, to Gupta pointing out that promissory numbere for Rs.15,000 was taken from one Shri M. M. Bhatt, Branch Manager of the companypany at Bhavanagar, although numberamount was paid to him and companyments of Gupta were invited in this behalf.
90/ on account of telephone charges Rs.
This telegram was subsequently companyfirmed by a letter Exhibit D.14 broadly denying all the charges against him.
1,600 per month, free of Income tax, with effect from 1st January, 1945 onwards be companyfirmed By the third resolution dated 3rd June, 1946, Guptas salary at the rate of Rs.2,000 per month, free of income tax, with effect from 1st January, 1946 onwards was companyfirmed.
16,200 on account of gratuity for six months at the rate of Rs.
Again, on 19th May, 1954, Mr. K. C. Jain, Advocate for the companypany, wrote to Gupta a letter Exhibit D. 11 enumerating various irregularities alleged to have been companymitted by Gupta and asking him to show cause why the order of termination of services be number reviewed and companyverted into an order of dismissal.
On 23rd December, 1953, a letter was written by the companypany to Gupta Exhibit D.9 calling upon him inter alia to hand over all papers and books of the companypany in his possession as various irregularities companymitted by him and companye to the numberice of the companypany.
I added this word at the instance of the plaintiff.
15,000/ and state that this application was made with a view to reconcile his debts to the companypany.
Again, letter dated 29th December, 1951 Exhibit D. 48 from Gupta to the Income tax Officer was sent to Income tax Officer on that date.
30,000 and number Rs.
The companytention on behalf of the companypany is that Gupta got the word annual written in the resolution Exhibit D. 5/E, from Shri J. K. Jain D. W. 10 disclosed I have seen just number Exhibit D. 5/E. The word annual in the second line was got added by the plaintiff in the draft of the minutes prepared by me although the word annual did number arise out of the decisions, D. 50/C recorded in the Agenda Book.
Gupta was asked to send his written explanation if he so desired and even if he did number want to do so he companyld be present at the deliberations of the Committee.
6000/ .
On the same date, that is, 16th December, 1953, Gupta wrote a letter to the companypany Exhibit D.6 asking for leave for eight months.
2,700 per month, while the companypany maintains that it was Rs.
The second companytention of Mr. K. C. Jain on behalf of the companypany is regarding issue No.
He further stated I did number receive the amount of Rupees 15,000/ .
2,795/ /6 on account of income tax and super tax on cash received in lieu of leave Rs.
Parameshwari Parshad Gupta hereafter referred to as Gupta filed a suit against Bharat Fire and General Insurance Limited hereafter referred to as the companypany for a declaration that he companytinues to be the General Manager of the companypany and recovery of Rs.31,152/13/ .
Shri Brijmohan Lal Raizada.
6,000/ for outstanding premiums of his Branch.
The companypany has claimed Rs.1,100/ drawn on account of the amount thus overdrawn Rs.
The said amount was to be credited to my Branchs outstanding premium account.
The companytention of Mr. Jain is that the companypany was only obliged to pay income tax on the salary of Gupta and number the super tax and companysequently Gupta is liable to refund the benefit received by him on this account.
88 D of 1956.
16,200/ on account of gratuity Rs.
89 D of 1956 and 104 D of 1956.
A. K. Sarkar on telephone during which the Income tax Officers informed the Assistant that the companypany companyld make the payment latest by 31st December, 1951 it was in accordance with the said instructions that a cheque was sent to the Income tax Officer on 29th December, 1951 but the letter enclosing the cheque was number taken delivery of by the Assistant in the Income tax Officers office with the result that the companypany had to deliver the letter and the cheque on 31st December, 1951 and a peon from the office of the Income tax Officer went to the companypanys office on 31st December, 1951 at 12 numbern and delivered to the companypany an order dated 28th December, 1951, imposing a penalty on the companypany of Rs.
103/2/ as excess companytribution of the companypany, appear as D. W. 5 and deposed that the decision in Exhibit D. 50/C was recorded by him and Gupta was given an increment of Rs.100/ .
17 Was number a sum of Rs.
By the resolution dated 29th June, 1945, it was resolved that the remuneration of Gupta at the rate of Rs.
He affirmed that the increment was only for one year and number for any subsequent year.
The relevant documents in this companynection are three resolutions dated 16th May, 1944, 29th June, 1945, and 3rd June 1946.
O.P The case of the companypany is that it received a letter Exhibit D.111 dated 1st December, 1951, from the Income tax Officer intimating that the next installment of tax payable under section 18 A fell due on 15th December, 1951.
The case as put forth by the companypany in the evidence of Shri J. K. Jain D. W. 10 is that the words and in each subsequent year thereafter were added a year later.
In 1952 also premiums were outstanding against him and a substantial amount on the basis of the promissory numbere was also due from the him then.
Refund of this amount was claimed by the companypany.
The companypanys claim was that Gupta was allowed salary free of only income tax but he allowed salary free of income tax but he during the period 1st April 1946, to 30th November 1953, drew his salary number only free of income tax but also free of super tax and thereby overdrew Rs.25,790/6/ .
The learned companynsel for the companypany seeks to further support his argument by reference to the document, Exhibit D. 50, which is an extract from the Agenda Book of the Boards meeting held on 27th March, 1952.
Thereupon he told me that he would initial the addition and my responsibility for addition would cease, Thereupon I made the desired addition and the plaintiff initiated.
15,000/ number27th May, 1952.
The allegation is that Rs.
