" The dispute between the appellant Banks and their employees related, inter alia, to the question whether the provisions of the Banking Companies Act, 1949, prohibit the grant Of bonus to bank employees. 1,50,000 and reject the same in regard to the sum of Rs. D-3 was executed by the three transferors. 2,91,000, and accordingly he treated the sum as the appellant's secreted profits from business and included it in its total income. Section 10(1)(b)(11) of the Banking Companies Act, 1949 provided:" No banking company shall employ any person whose remuneration or part of whose remuneration takes the form .

89 on the ground that the said rule was inapplicable to the sale held by the receiver. 25,000 were to be conveyed. Held, that the Tribunal had been influenced by the suspicions, conjectures and surmises which were freely indulged in by the Income-tax Officer, and had arrived at its conclusion, as it were by a rule of thumb, without any proper materials before it and that its finding could not be sustained; that having accepted the appellant's books of account it was not open to the Tribunal to accept the explanation of the appellant in part as to Rs.

On April 29, 1959, the Division Bench dismissed the appeal and refused to grant certificate to the appellants to file an appeal in this Supreme Court of India Advocate. We have already found that the examination for acetone was not made and there was no mention of acetone breath either by Dr. 39,500 that the properties were conveyed. The Labour Appellate Tribunal took the view that s. 30,000 to discharge their liability to the Imperial Bank; and the liability to the transferees and their relations and ,friends amounted to Rs.

The Income-tax Officer came to the conclusion that the appellant had all these probable sources from which it could have earned the sum of Rs. 2 override the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, so far as banking companies are concerned, and prohibit the award of bonus to employees of Banks. Sanyal, for the appellants, has raised for our decision is that the courts below were in error in refusing to give relief to the appellants under 0.

It is for this amount of Rs. The appellants then filed an appeal against the order of the learned judge before a Division Bench of the High Supreme Court of India Lawyers and obtained an order for stay of delivery pending the decision of the appeal. By the final sale deed, the Dhanraj Lane house was also agreed to be conveyed and that house was valued at Rs. The transferors were evidently in straitened circumstances and immediately needed Rs. On the date on which the deed was executed, also an agreement Ex.

That is how this appeal has come before us; and the main point which Mr. of a share in the profits of the company. On appeal, it was contended for the appellant Banks that bonus as awarded by the Industrial Courts is remuneration within the meaning of s. Miss Aneeja, which would have been present if the acidosis was so advanced. 2,g1,000 on January 19, 1946, and the explanation given by the appellant was that these notes formed part of its cash balances including cash balance in the Almirali account, but it was rejected by the Income-tax Officer relying on the following circumstances: (1) that the appellant's food grains licence had been cancelled for the accounting year for its failure to keep proper stock accounts, (2) that the appellant was prosecuted under the Defence of India Rules but had been acquitted having been given the benefit of doubt, (3) that the appellant was a speculator, and as such could easily have earned amounts far in excess of the value of the high denomination notes encashed, (4) that notwithstanding the fact that the period was very favourable to the food grains dealers the appellant had declared a loss for the assessment year I944-45 UP to 1946-47, though it had the benefit of a large capital on hand, and (5) that the appellant was one of the premier grain merchants of Sahibganj, a place which had gained sufficient notoriety for smuggling foodgrains.

10 of the Act did not stand in the way of granting bonus to bank employees, because bonus according to it was not a share in the profits of the company. That agreement recited that the sale deed was to be executed for past debts and for paying off the debts cheques were taken from the transferees and the transferees were put in possession of the houses sold. Mehta then referred to the examination of the urine for sugar and acetone, and stated that the examination for sugar was insufficient to determine the presence of Ketonuria, which is another name for the acidosis which results Lawyer in Supreme Court of India coma.

The appellants 26 202 then applied for and obtained special leave from this Supreme Court India advocates, on May 20, 1959. 10,000 and the Chawl valued at Rs. A request was then made that the transferees should not get the deed registered for two months or at least for eight to fifteen days, because the transferees had (1) (1924) L. 2 of the Banking Companies Act, 1949, and that it was also a share in profits, and therefore, the express provisions of s.