When the assessee companypany was in possession of the Murli Hills as an agent of the Government, the Kalyanpur Lime Company filed a suit for specific performance.
Under that decree, he assessee companypany was also made liable to pay damages see the decision by this Court in Civil Appeals Nos.
The Government then re entered into possession.
In the alternative it claimed damages.
But as by that time the term of the, lease agreed upon between the State Government and the Kalyanpur Lime Company had companye to an end this Court instead of granting a decree for specific performance granted a decree for damages.
It is necessary to remember that in that suit a claim for damages was also made in the alternative.
The suit was decreed by the High Court on February 7, 1936 and the decree was affirmed by the Privy Council on November 19, 1937.
The Government leased the Murli Hills to the assessee for one year from September 22, 1949 to September 22 1950.
The Government refused to do so and informed the Kalyanpur Lime Company on June 2, 1949 that the Government has decided to lease Murli Hills to the assessee.
in January 1933, Kutchwar Lime Co. went into voluntary liquidation and the liquidators assigned the lease hold right to Subodh Gopal Bose in September 1933 without the permission of the State Government.
Thereafter Kalyanpur Lime Company repeatedly asked the Government to execute the lease as agreed to by it in 1934.
That suit was resisted by the State Government as well as by the assessee.
The Kalyanpur Lime Co. vacated the quarry in April 1936 after the Kutchwar Lime Company started companytempt proceedings.
665 of 1962.
The appeal of the Kalyanpur Lime Company was allowed by this Court and the suit decreed against both the defendants.
In that reference several questions of law were referred to the High Court for its opinion.
1170 and 1171 of 1965.
In the lease deed entered into between the parties, there was a clause preventing the lessee from assigning its rights to any third party without the companysent of the lessor.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated January13, 1966 of the Patna High Court in Misc.
On September 24, 1934 the Kutchwar Lime Co. sued the Government for a, declaration that the lease granted to it in 1928 had number been validly forfeited and for an injunction restraining the respondent from granting Murli Hills on lease to anyone else.
That suit was dismissed by the High Court.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The assignee took possession of the property on March 9, 1933 but was topped from working the quarry by the Government.
The litigation expenses in question relate to the protracted litigation in respect of Murli Hills.
The Government granted a fresh lease of those Hills to Kalyanpur Lime Company for a period of 20 years with effect from April, 1934.
Judicial Case No.
Jagadish Swarup, Solicitor General, B. B. Ahuja and B. D. Sharma, for the respondent.
The relevant facts as found by the tribunal may number be briefly stated.
The Government forfeited the lease of the Kutchwar Lime Company on March 23, 1933 and recentered into possession.
C. Chagla and R. Gopalakrishnan, for the appellant.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hegde J This appeal arises from the decision of the High Court of Patna in a reference under s. 66 1 of the Indian Income tax Act, 1922 to be hereinafter referred to as the Act .
1812 of 1967.
Those Hills were owned by the State of Bihar.
On April 1, 1928, the State Government gave a lease of those Hills to Kutchwar Lime Company for 20 years for the purpose of quarrying limestone therein.
Thereafter the Government appointed the assessee as the agent of the Government for working in the quarry with an understanding that the Murli Hills will be leased out to the assessee if the Government succeed in the litigation.
In that suit the Kalyanpur Lime Company imleaded the State of Bihar as well as the assessee as defendants.
Kutchwar Lime Company got possession of the Murli Hills and remained in possession until the lease expired on March 31, 1948.
