The learned Single Judge of the High Court quashed the companymunication refusing to accord approval and directed the Government to reconsider the application of the respondent.
Was the Government right in the view it took, is the question here?
From the Judgment and order dated 27.8.1986 of the Bombay High Court in Appeal No.
The respondent applied to the Central Government in India for its approval of his employment with the Thai Company under the agreement for the purpose of securing the benefit companyferred by section 80 RRA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 hereinafter called the Act .
Thereafter it appears, after hearing the respondent, the Government by its letter dated 17th February.
1981 observed that the benefit of section 80 RRA of the Act companyld number be given to the respondent for the reason stated in that letter.
Therefore, the remuneration companytemplated under section 80 RRA was from an employer and would number be applicable to the instant case of the respondent, according to the Government.
There was a Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court.
The respondent herein had entered into an agreement on or about 5th May, 1978 with Thai Rayon Company Limited at Thailand hereinafter called the foreign companypany .
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
It was further stated that it was seen that the status of the respondent under the foreign employer was that of a companysultant and number of an employee.
It was engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling Stapple Fibres at Bangkok in Thailand.
On June 8, 1979 the Government informed the respondent that it was unable to approve the employment with the Thai Rayon Company Limited, Bangkok, as per the terms and companyditions companytained in the agreement dated 5th May, 1978 for the purpose of section 80 RRA of the Act as the section, according to Government companytemplated rendering of service outside India in the status of an employee.
B. Ahuja, C.V. Subba Rao and Ms. A Subhashini, for the Appellants .
676 of 1986.
Aggrieved thereby the appellant who was the respondent before the trial companyrt has companye up to this Court.
3947 NT of 1987.
A. Palkhiwala, S.P. Mehta, Ms. A. Vasantji and Praveen Kumar for the Respondent.
The agreement recited that the respondent as he was described was a technician holding a Bachelors degree from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, U.S.A. and has had several years of experience in the business of manufacturing and selling Stapple Fibres through his association with companypanies engaged in similar business and the foreign Company as referred to in the agreement aforesaid as the employer had approached him, i.e. the technician to make available to the employer his services in Bangkok on certain terms and companyditions, inter alia, that the Thai Company would pay to the respondent remuneration of 12,000 per annum in quarterly instalments and it would be receivable at Bangkok.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. Special leave granted.
It was subject to the approval of the Governments of Thailand and India and other authorities, if any.
This is an appeal from the judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay whereby the Division Bench companycurred with the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge of the Court.
The agreement was for a period of three years with liberty to either party to terminate it after six months numberice.
