4 of 1938 , by adding a new section 42B by which the insurers were prohibited after the expiration of seven years from the companymencement of Act No.
Mr. Premchand D. Parikh 3 annas in the rupee.
Mr. Khambatta 3 annas in the rupee.
Nathubhai Patel died in 1949, and it is stated that the firm thereafter companysisted of Chhotalal Bhaichand and his wife, Bai Lalitaben.
He withdrew from the firm, and the old firm was reconstituted from January 1, 1953, though the deed of partnership was executed on April 22, 1953.
By this deed, the partnership companysisted of three persons with shares as follows Bai Manibai mother of Chhotalal Bhaichand 5 annas in the rupee.
Contracts between an insurer and a principal agent were also required to be in writing, and the model terms companytained in Part I of the Sixth Schedule to the Act were to be deemed to be incorporated in and form part of every such companytract.
67 of 1950, from appointing, or transacting any insurance business in India through a principal agent.
67 of 1950 , came into force, which amended the Insurance Act 1938 No.
Two minor sons of Chhotalal Bhaichand, Jayant and Harshad, were also admitted to the benefits of the partnership to the extent of 1 1/2 annas in the rupee, each.
In that firm, in addition to Bhaichand Vora and Chhotalal Bhaichand, one Nathubhai Patel was also a partner.
The case of the firm is that Chhotalal Bhaichand, realising that the business of principal agents was to companye to an end after the expiry of sever years, looked for other sources of employment and accepted a job as assistant manager of the New India Assurance companypany.
On appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, registration of the firm was ordered.
In June 1950, the Insurance Amendment Act, 1950 No.
The firm then applied for a reference of the questions arising from the Tribunals order, and suggested as many as 18 questions.
The facts leading up to the appeal may be stated shortly.
In the years that followed, the business of the firm was treated as the sole business of Chhotalal Bhaichand to which numberobjection was taken, because, as is number explained, the income of the wife would, in any event, have been included in the income of Chhotalal Bhaichand under section 16 3 of the Income tax Act.
Bhaichand Vora died in 1948, and the two surviving partners companytinued as the firm.
The Tribunal, in spite of this finding, restored the order of the Income tax Officer.
On further appeal to the Tribunal, the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was, in its turn, set aside, and the Tribunal reached the companyclusion that Manibai and the two minor sons were number the real partners of the new firm, but that the partnership companysisted of Chhotalal Bhaichand and two others.
The Income tax Officer by his order dated September 30, 1954, declined registration, holding that the firm belonged solely to Chhotalal Bhaichand had number made by formal transfer of the business to the new partners, that the deed stated that neither Khambatta number Premchand claimed any interest in the goodwill of the business, that there was numberconsideration for which Bai Manibai, the mother of Chhotalal Bhaichand the assessee , and his two minor sons became entitled to the income from the business, and that the reason that the goodwill was reserved for her because the business had been started by her late husband was fallacious.
Hidayatullah, J. This appeal with special leave has been filed by Messrs. Bhaichand Amolukh Co. referred to in this judgment as the firm against the judgment and order of the High Court of Bombay, by which the High Court asked for a reference on question of law but declined to include therein a question or questions which, the firm companytended, also arose out of the Tribunals order.
One Bhaichand Amolukh Vora, father of Chhotalal Bhaichand, started a firm in 1910, to work as principal agents for a number of insurance companypanies.
