It may be men tioned in passing that the assessment of the plaintiff was proceeded with by the Agricultural Income tax Officer, Comilla Range East Bengal , who, by his order dated the 22nd December, 1947, imposed on the plaintiff a tax of Rs.
C. Sen Gupta Ajit Kumar Dutta, with him for the Appellant.
1,34,326 7 0 for 1945 46, but the recovery of the amounts has been deferred under orders of the Court pending the decision on the preliminary issue.
It was stated that the Province of East Bengal appeared only to companytest the jurisdiction of the Court.
Both the plaintiff and defendant in this case were engineers and held patents for the manufacture of certain types of engines.
On the 10th December, 1947, the Province of East Bengal was substituted as the defendant in the place of the Province of Bengal which had ceased to exist, and the writ ten statement filed on behalf of the former was accepted.
1,79,848 12 0 for 1944 45 and Rs.
After the creation of the new Province, a petition was filed on the 9th December, 1947, on behalf of the Province of East Bengal, drawing the attention of the Court at Alipore to the fact that the Province of West Bengal, which forms part of the territories of the Dominion of India, was taking numberinterest in the suit and asking the Court to accept a written statement which was also filed along with the petition, and in which the only plea taken was that the Alipore Court had numberjurisdiction to hear the suit or make any order of injunction against the Province of East Bengal or defendant No.
The last paragraph of the written statement was to the following effect The Province of East Bengal appears only to companytest the jurisdiction of the companyrt and it submits that the suit should be dismissed on that ground.
In the written statement it was pleaded that inasmuch as the Province of East Bengal was a Province of the Dominion of Pakistan and that defendant No.
The appellant was thereafter granted a certificate under section 205 1 of the Government of India Act, 1935, and on the basis of it he has preferred this appeal.
Later on, the Province of East Bengal was irapleaded as a defendant in the suit and the name of the Income tax Officer of Dacca was removed from the category of defend ants.
While the suit was still pending, the new Province of East Bengal, which forms part of the territories of the Dominion of Pakistan, came into existence on the 15th August, 1947, as a result of the Indian Independence Act, 1947, and it appears that the whole of Chakla Roshanabad Estates falls within that Province.
2 was a Revenue officer of that Province, the Court had numberjurisdiction to hear the suit or make an order of injunction against the defendants.
As pointed out by the Federal Court in Midnapore Zemindary Co. Ltd. v. The Province of Bengal and ,Others 1 , the orders promulgated on the 14th August, 1947, by the Governor General of India before the partition in exercise of the powers companyferred under s. 9 of the Indian Independ ence Act, 1947, and companytaining provisions specially designed to remove the difficulties arising in companynection with the transition to the new situation created by the partition are binding on both the Dominion of India and the Dominion of Pakistan.
1 of the Schedule to this Order shall be companytinued in that tribunal as if the said Act had number been passed, and that tribunal shall companytinue to have for the purposes of the said proceedings all the jurisdiction and powers which it had immediately before the appointed day Effect shall be given within the territories of either of the two Dominions to any order or sentence of any such Special Tribunal as aforesaid and of any High Court in appeal or revision therefrom as if the order or sentence had been passed by a companyrt of companypetent jurisdiction in that Dominion and by article 12 2 of the latter Order Where any Province from which property, rights or li abilities are transferred by this Order is, immediately before the transfer a party to legal proceedings with re spect to that property or those rights or liabilities the Province which succeeds to the property, rights or liabili ties in accordance with the provisions of this Order shall be deemed to be substituted for the other Province as a party to those proceedings and the proceedings may companytinue accordingly.
For a perpetual injunction to restrain the defend ants from taking any steps to assess the plaintiff to agricultural income tax.
1 in the suit, had ceased to exist with effect from 15th August, 1947, and in lieu thereof two new Provinces, namely, the Province of East Bengal and the Province of West Bengal had companye into existence and that, inasmuch as the Province of West Bengal was taking numberinterest in the suit, it was necessary in the interests of East Bengal that the suit should be companytested and that a written statement should be put in on its behalf for such companytest.
By another written statement filed on the same day defendant No.
On the 15th July, 1945, the suit was transferred to the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Alipore in the District of 24 Parganas, by an Order of the Calcutta High Court.
Before the defendants filed their written state ments the suit was transferred by the High Court to the Court of the District Judge, 24 Parganas, and was again transferred from that Court to the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Alipore.
Among such Orders those relevant to the present companytroversy are the Indian Independence Legal Proceedings Order, 1947, and the Indian Independence Rights, Property and Liabilities Order, 1947.
It applied to the whole of Bengal and purported to bring under charge the agricultural income of, inter alia, every Ruler of an Indian State.
Dec. 4.
Thereupon the Subordinate Judge framed a preliminary issue on the question of jurisdiction and, as stated al ready, found it for the plaintiff relying on s. 9 of the Indian Independence Act and article 4 of the Indian Inde pendence Legal Proceedings Order, 1947.
APPELLATE JURISDICTION Case No.
1 1949 F.C.R. 309.
With that statement of the position we entirely agree.
It was accordingly prayed that the delay should be companydoned and the written statement which was filed with that petition should be accepted.
The plaintiff brought an action against the de fendant alleging that the latter had threatened to bring legal proceedings against several persons who were actual or intending purchasers of engines from the plaintiff assert ing that the engines manufactured by the plaintiff were infringements of the defendants patent.
The judgment of Kania C.J., Patanjali Sastri j. and Chandrasekhara Aiyar J. was delivered by Patanjali Sastri J. Fazl Ali and Mukherjea JJ.
The Bengal Agricultural Income tax Act was passed by the Provincial Legislature of Bengal in 1944.
Faiyaz Ali, Advocate General of East Bengal B. Sen and Noor ud din, with him for the Respondent.
The reliefs sought were a declaration that the Bengal Agricultural Income tax Act 1944, in so far as it purported to impose a liability to pay agricultural income tax on the plaintiff as a Ruler of an Indian State was ultra vires and void and that, in any case, the numberice served by the Agricultural Income tax Officer, Dacca Range, was void and numberassessment companyld be made on the basis of such numberice, and a perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants from taking any steps to assess the plaintiff to agricultural income tax.
Thereupon, the State, by its then Ruler, Maharaja Sir Bir Bikram Bahadur, instituted the suit in question on 12th June, 1945, against the Province of Bengal and the Agricultural Income tax Officer, Dacca Range, in the Court of the First Subordinate Judge, Dacca, companytest ing the validity of the numberice and the proposed assessment on the grounds that the Provincial Legislature of Bengal had numberauthority to impose tax on any income of an Indian State or its Ruler and that, in any case, the Income tax Officer, Dacca Range, had numberauthority or jurisdiction to issue the said numberice to the Manager of the Estate outside British India.
IV of 1949.
By article 4 of the former Order All proceedings pending immediately before the appointed day in any of the special tribunals specified in company.
The Subordinate Judge then proceeded to try the question of jurisdiction as a preliminary issue, and decided that by virtue of the provisions of the Indian Independence Legal Proceedings Order, 1947, read with section 9 of the Indian Independence Act, 1947, the Court had jurisdiction to try the suit against the new Province.
The cause of action of the suit was alleged to have arisen in the town of Dacca within the jurisdiction of the Court on 28th February, 1945, when the numberice was issued.
The numberice was received by the Manager at Agar talla in Tripura State.
Appeal from a judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta Harries C.J. and Chakravarthi J. dated 30th November, 1948, in Civil Revision Case No.
C, Setalvad, Attorney General for India, S. M. Sikri and V.N. Sethi, with him for the Intervener.
Acting under the provisions of that Act, which came into force on 1st April, 1944, the Income tax Officer, Dacca Range, sent by registered post, a numberice to the Manager of the Zemindari Estate called Chakla Roshanabad belonging to the Tripura State but situated in Bengal outside the territories of that State, calling upon him to furnish a return of the total income derived in the previous year from lands in the Estate used for agricultural purposes.
The ruler who brought the suit having died, the plaint was amended by the substitution in his place of his son and heir in June 1947, and the suit was pending in that Court when the partition of India took effect on the 15th August, 1947 On 9th December, 1947, the Province of East Bengal filed a petition stating that the Province of Bengal, the original defendant No.
712 of 1948.
One of the points raised on behalf of the appellant before the High Court was that the Province of East Bengal had submitted to the jurisdiction of the Subordinate Judges Court, but this point was negatived.
Thereupon, the respondent the Province of East Bengal moved the High Court at Calcutta under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the order of the Subordinate Judge, and a Bench of the High Court companysisting of Harries C.J. and Chakravarthi J. allowed the application and set aside the order of the Subordinate Judge, giving effect to the objec tion of the respondent that the Court at Alipore was number companypetent to try the suit against the Province of East Bengal.
