In civil cases this principle was accepted by the Privy Council. A clear duty to act judicially is imposed by cl. In the course of its assessment to income-tax for the year 1948-49, the appellant claimed a deduction of the said sum of Rs. In our opinion, Bench at Lucknow ought not to have entertained the petition as it lacked the jurisdiction. They laid down the following conditions: (a) the body of Dersons must have legal authority; (b) the authority should be given to determine questions affecting the rights of subjects and (c) they should have a duty to act judicially.

The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, on appeal, confirmed the disallowance by the I. on the ground that there was as yet no accrued liability and on the further ground that as the development would be carried out in the future, the expenditure estimated at current prices could not be allowed. The express provisions of s. All the three conditions are satisfied in this case. We think it unnecessary in this case to express any opinion as to the effect of that order qua the revision in the High Court itself, but when the matter properly comes to this Court in appeal in such circumstances as this case it is open to this Court unless there is any statute which provides differently to review the order passed by the High Court as much as it would have been if the original order passed by the trial court had not been taken to the High Court in revision.

The section opens with a negative, 218 and says that no banking company shall employ any person; We now come back to s. The criteria to ascertain whether a particular act is a quasijudicial act or an administrative one have been laid down with clarity by Lord Justice Atkin in Rex v. (1), elaborated by Lord Justice Scrutton Rex v. 2-namely, the qualification in the clause 'save as hereinafter ex- pressly provided'. As pointed out above, in the income-tax return the assessee had claimed set off of unabsorbed investment allowance.

It was so held in Moheshur Singh v. Such an award may grant bonus to workmen, if certain conditions are fulfilled. (2) and authoritatively restated by this Court in Province of Bombay v. 2 can be of no assistance to the respondents. Thus, filing of the writ petition at Lucknow Bench was totally uncalled for and the propriety required that it should not have been entertained at Lucknow Bench. However, this request is declined as according to the High Court, provisions of Section 32 of the Act mandate that precedence has to be given to unabsorbed depreciation before allowing unabsorbed investment allowance.

See Alexander John Forbes v. Nothing would be more detrimental to the expeditious administration of justice than the establishment of a rule which would impose upon a party the necessity of appealing against every such order. 10 on the said authority. 24,809 in the computation of the profits and gains of its business. 10 must then override any other law for the time being in force, so far as banking companies are concerned. But they are all of them only aids for ascertaining the true intention of the legislature which is the determining factor, and that must ultimately depend on the context.

Under the ,said clauses authority is conferred on the Central Government or any other officer authorized in this behalf to cancel any licence granted under the Order and the cancellation of a licence certainly affects the rights of subjects. 10, the proper interpretation of which is the immediate problem before us. The Income-tax Officer disallowed that claim on the ground that the expenses had not been actually incurred in the year of account and also on the ground that the estimate had not been proved to be based on a consideration of the real expenses which the Company would have to incur for the purpose.

This argument, however, ignores an essential qualification embodied in s. He has to give to the affected party " reasonable opportunity of of being heard ". The Bengal Government (2) where a party had not appealed from the order of Sudan, Commissioner, granting a review of judgment. London County Council, Ex Parte Entertainments Protection Association Ltd. Ameeroonissa Begum (3) where an order of remand had not been appealed (1) [1953] INSC 46; [1954] S.

10 expressly provides that no banking company shall employ a person whose remuneration or part of whose remuneration takes the form of a share in profits, and I bonus' is both remuneration and a share in profits, then s. Merely because the transfer petition filed in this court for transfer of case was withdrawn and the direction was issued by the Chief Justice of High Court to decide at an early date, would not confer jurisdiction on Bench at Lucknow, all the questions had been left open to be agitated at the time of hearing.

In our opinion, it would make no difference as far as this Supreme Court of India Lawyers (click to find out more) is concerned whether an intermediate order complained of is passed by the trial court and is not taken to the High Court in revision or it is taken in revision to the High Court and is there confirmed. Shorn of all such details as are unnecessary for our purpose, the section says that no banking company shall employ any person, whose remuneration or part of whose remuneration takes the form of a share in the profits of the company.

" They (the rules) are well-known, and there is no need to repeat them. Electricity Commissioners, Ex Parte London Electricity Joint Committee Co. It is therefore clear that under (1) [1924] 1 K. The argument before us is that the provisions of the Banking Act are not to be interpreted in derogation of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, but in addition thereto. Is it purely an administrative act or is it a quasi-judicial act ? Except where the statute so requires it is not imperative upon a party to appeal against every error, defect or irregularity in any order by which he may conceive himself aggrieved under the penalty, if he does not So do, of forfeiting for ever the benefit of consideration by this Court.

The first question is, what is the scope of the enquiry under cl. " In Craies on Statute Law, 5th Edn. , the following passage appears, at p.