INDIAN INSTITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES

(A Premier Law College)

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

CASE LAW : SREE RAM DURGA v. Settlement

Commission AIR 1989 SC 1038
GUIDED BY :

MS. RANJANA DEY

SUBMITTED BY :-

VITO K SHOHE

BA LLB

5th SEMESTER

Roll no.08

1
IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

IN THE MATTER OF
SHREERAM DURGA PRASAD
V.
SETTLEMENT COMMISSION

Memorial filed on behalf of DEFENDANT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT

2
 TABLE OF CONTENT
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

 CASES REFERRED
 BOOKS REFERRED
 Websites

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

STATEMENT OF FACTS

ISSUES RAISED

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

PRAYER

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT

3
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

1. & - And

2. S. - Section

3. Hon’ble - Honorable

4. SLP – Special Leave Petition

5. HC – High Court

6. SC – Supreme Court

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT

4
 INDEX OF AUTHORITY
STATUTES REFERRED :-

1. The Constitution of India,1950.

2. The Finance Act, 1979
3. The Income Tax Act, 1961.

CASES REFERRED :-

CASE PAGE NO.

1. State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei and Ors., [1967] 9

2 SCR 625
9
2. Ridge v. Baldwin, [1964] A.C. 40
3. Anisminic Ltd. v. Foreign Compensation Commission,
[1969] 2 A.C. 147
9

WEBSITE:-

1. Indian Kanoon.
2. Manupatra.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT

5
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The appeal is filed before this Hon’ble Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India,
1950.

136. Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court

(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion, grant
special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any
cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of India

(2) Nothing in clause ( 1 ) shall apply to any judgment, determination, sentence or order

passed or made by any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed
Forces.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT

6
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The defendant had applied to the Settlement Commission for settlement of his
assessment for the assessment years 1948-49 to 1975-76 under the Income-tax Act,
1961 on 22nd January, 1977.
2. The Commissioner objected the proposals under section 336 for settlement for the
years 1948-49 to 1959-60, but agreed for the settlement of the later years.
3. The commission accordingly made an order on 24th August,1977 rejecting the
application for the settlement for the years 1948-49 to 1959-60.
4. The appellant thereupon applied to the commission to recall its order since the same
had been made without furnishing him any opportunity of hearing. But the application
was left pending.
5. When sub-section (1A) was inserted to Section 245D , the appellant applied to the
commission to permit him to contest the objections of the commissioner contending
that these should be dealt with the amended provisions of Section 245D (1A).
6. On 7th August,1987 the Settlement Commission accepted the first part of the
contentions holding that the applicant was entitled to a re-hearing since its order of
24th August,1977 had made in violation of the principles of natural justice and also
expressed provisions of Section 245 D (1) provision.
7. But still it rejected the second part of the submission on the view that the application
for settlement would have to be disposed of in accordance with law which prevailed
on 24th August,1977.
8. It further held that since the commissioner had objected only to some of the years
under settlement the entire application would have to be rejected.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT

7
 ISSUES INVOLVED

1. Is this petition maintainable under the Court of Law?

2. Whether the order passed on 24th of August, 1977 by the Settlement Commissioner was
valid?
3. Whether the appellant had a right to be heard on the objections of the Commissioner?

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT

8
 ARGUMENTS

1. Is this petition maintainable under the court of law?

2. Whether the appellant had a right to be heard on the
objections of the Commissioner?
3. Whether the order passed on 24th of August,1977 by
the Settlement Commissioner was valid?

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT

9
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1 Is this petition maintainable under the court of law?

Learned counsel for the petitioner humbly submits that the present petition is
maintainable under Article 136 of the Indian Constitution,1950 since:
(i) SLP can be filed against any judgment of High Court within 90 days from
the date of the judgment. However, there is flexibility at the discretion of
the SC. Or it can be filed within 60 days against the order of the HC
refusing to grant the certificate of fitness for appeal to SC.
And this is an appeal against the judgement and order of the Settlement
Commission dated 7th August,1987.
(ii) An aggrieved party can approach the Supreme Court, for clarification of
any constitutional or legal issue involved in any civil, criminal or other
type cases, through article 136.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

10
 2 Whether the order passed on 24th of August,1977 by
the Settlement Commissioner was valid?

The learned counsel on behalf of the defendant humbly submits that, the defendant had
applied to the Settlement Commission as aforesaid on 22nd January, 1977. On 12th August,
1977 the Commissioner had tendered the objections as mentioned hereinbefore. On 24th
August, 1977, the Settlement Commissioner made an order rejecting the application for
settlement for the assessment years 194849 to 1959-60. This had been done without hearing
the appellant.

Thus, the order was a nullity because it was in violation of principles of natural justice. in this
connection, the principles enunciated by this Court in State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapani
Dei and Ors., [1967] 2 SCR 625 as also the observations in Administrative Law by H.W.R.
Wade, 5th Edition, pages 3 10-311 that the act in violation of the principles of natural justice
or a quasi-judicial act in violation of the principles of natural justice is void or of no value. In
Ridge v. Baldwin, [1964] A.C. 40 and Anisminic Ltd. v. Foreign Compensation Commission,
[1969] 2 A.C. 147 the House of Lords in English has made it clear that breach of natural
justice nullifies the order made in breach. If that is so then the order made in violation of the
principles of natural justice was of no value.

1. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1455346/
2. https://www.revolvy.com/page/Ridge-v-Baldwin
3. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1252118/

11
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

3 Whether the appellant had a right to be heard on the

objections of the Commissioner?

 The learned counsel on behalf of the defendant humbly submits that, keeping in mind
every facts of the case , it appears to us, that though the appellant had made
submissions on the Commissioner's objections. But there was no clear opportunity
given to the appellant to make submissions on the Commissioner's objections in the
sense to demonstrate that the Commissioner was not justified in making the objections
and secondly, the Commission should not accept or accede to the objections in the
facts and circumstances of the present case. We are of the opinion that in view of the
facts and circumstances of the case and in the context in which these objections had
been made, it is necessary as a concomitant of the fulfillment of natural justice that
the appellant should be heard on the objections made by the Commissioner. It is true
that for the relevant orders for the years for which the Commissioner had objected the
concealment had been upheld in the appeal before the appropriate authorities. But it
may be that in spite of this concealment it may be possible for the appellant to
demonstrate or to submit that in disclosure of concealed income for a spread over
period settlement of the entire period should be allowed and not bifurcated in the
manner sought to be suggested for the Commissioner's objections. This objection the
appellant should have opportunity to make.

12
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT

PRAYER

WHEREFORE IN THE LIGHT OF FACTS STATED, ISSUES RAISED, ARGUMENTS

ADVANCED, REASONS GIVEN AND AUTHORITIES CITED, THIS HONOURABLE
COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO:

1. HOLD THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSIO NOT LIABLE FOR THE VIOLATION OF

NATURAL JUSTICE.

2. DECLARE THE ORDER DATED 7th AUGUST,1987 TO BE VALID.

AND PASS ORDER, DIRECTION, OR RELIEF THAT MAY DEEM FIT IN THE
INTERESTS OF JUSTICE, FAIRNESS, EQUITY AND GOOD CONSCIENCE.

FOR WHICH, THE COUNSELS SHALL FOREVER PRAY

Counsels for the

DEFENDANT

13