# Allahabad v. Jagat Pal Singh and others

- **Citation:** (2007) 2 ILRA 586
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2007-01-25
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Contempt Petition No. 34 of 2005
- **Bench:** Imtiyaz Murtaza, R.N. Misra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/allahabad-v-jagat-pal-singh-and-others-40963
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Contempt of Court Act 1971-Section-12Criminal
Contempt-Contemnor
a
practicing
lawyer-being
annoyed
by
order passed under section 156 (3)
Cr.P.C.
treating
as
complaint
caseinstead of directing the S.O. concern to
register and investigate-intimidated the
court to get favorable order-lowering the
authority and interfering with due course
of justice-amounts to criminal contemptpunishment
for
one
month
simple
imprisonment
and
fine
Rs.5000/-
imposed.

Held: Para 16

The court cannot be intimidated to seek
favourable orders. This conduct amounts
to intimidating the court and lowering
the authority and to interfere with the
due course of judicial proceedings, which
were being conducted by the Presiding
Officer.
1991 (4) SCC-406
AIR 1988 SC-1395
1993 (1) SCC-529

## Text

586 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007
case it is found that stock is subsequent to
2nd September, 2002.

No order as to costs.
Petition allowed.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.01.2007

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE IMTIYAZ MURTAZA, J.
THE HON'BLE R.N. MISRA, J.

Criminal Misc. Contempt Petition No. 34 of
2005

Sri Pradeep Singh, Addl. Civil Judge
(S.D.), Allahabad

...Applicant
Versus.
Sri
Jyoti
Swaroop
Singh,
Advocate,
Allahabad.

...Respondent

Counsel for the Applicant:
A.G.A.

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri B.K. Pandey
Sri Jyoti Swaroop Singh (In person)

Contempt of Court Act 1971-Section-12Criminal
Contempt-Contemnor
a
practicing
lawyer-being
annoyed
by
order passed under section 156 (3)
Cr.P.C.
treating
as
complaint
caseinstead of directing the S.O. concern to
register and investigate-intimidated the
court to get favorable order-lowering the
authority and interfering with due course
of justice-amounts to criminal contemptpunishment
for
one
month
simple
imprisonment
and
fine
Rs.5000/-
imposed.

Held: Para 16

The court cannot be intimidated to seek
favourable orders. This conduct amounts
to intimidating the court and lowering
the authority and to interfere with the
due course of judicial proceedings, which
were being conducted by the Presiding
Officer.
1991 (4) SCC-406
AIR 1988 SC-1395
1993 (1) SCC-529

(Delivered by Hon'ble R.N. Misra, J.)

1. Heard Sri Jyoti Swaroop Singh,
Advocate, (Contemnor) in person and
learned A.G.A. for the State at length and
perused the written argument filed by the
contemnor.

2. This reference for drawing
contempt proceeding against Sri Jyoti
Swaroop Singh, Advocate practicing in
District Courts, Allahabad had been
received on the report of Sri Pradip Singh,
Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division),
Allahabad, addressed to the Registrar
General of this Court and forwarded by
District
Judge,
Allahabad
vide
endorsement
No.
1514/XV
dated
24.9.2005. After receiving the letter of
officer concerned, the office of this Court
submitted a note dated 15.10.2005 for
initiating contempt proceeding against the
aforesaid contemnor and the above note
was endorsed by Hon'ble Administrative
Judge
concerned
on
26.10.2005
requesting Hon'ble the Chief Justice to
order
for
initiation
of
contempt
proceeding, who permitted so vide order
dated 27.10.2005 and consequently this
proceeding was initiated.

The letter of Sri Pradip Singh for
initiating contempt proceedings against
the contemnor reads as under:

From:
Pradip Singh
Addl.
Civil
Judge
(Senior
Division), Allahabad.
2 All] Sri Pradeep Singh Addl.Civil Judge V. Sri Jyoti Swaroop Singh
587
To,
The Registrar General,
Hon'ble
High
Court
of
Judicature
At Allahabad.

Through the District Judge, Allahabad.

Subject: Reference under Section 15(2) of
the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for the
request of initiation of criminal contempt
of court proceedings against Sri Jyoti
Swaroop Singh, son of late Vanshpati
Singh,
Advocate,
District
Court,
Allahabad.

Sir,

"Most respectfully it is submitted as
under:

1.
That
the
facts
constituting
the
background are that Sri Jyoti Swarup
singh, Advocate is a practicing lawyer at
District Court Allahabad and junior of Sri
Subedar Singh Advocate one of the
alleged contemnor in criminal contempt
Case No.25/04 Administrative Judge,
Allahabad Vs. Jagat Pal Singh and others.
The said Sri Jyoti Swaroop Singh is a
trouble
maker,
quarrelsome
and
mischievious advocate who has always
been pressurizing the judicial officers, in
order to seek favourable orders by making
false, frivolous concocted and baseless
complaints against them and later on
compromising the matters. He had made
hundreds of such false complaints against
various judicial officers court, officials
and local residents out of which only a
few came to my knowledge. He made
false and frivolous complaints against Sri
Sarvesh
Kumar,
Smt.
Vani
Ranjan
Agarwal and Sri Vikas Saxena all the then
Addl.
Chief
Judicial
Magistrates,
Allahabad in the years 2000, 2003 and
2005 respectively. As well as he is an
accused and complainant in some of these
cases viz, criminal cases Nos. 1088/04,
2094/04, 2212/04 under Sections 352,
504, 147, 506, 323 & 324 I.P.C and F.R.
No. 214/04, 436/04 & 250/04 which go to
show that the said Jyoti Swaroop Singh is
habitual to make false complaint and
misusing the law process being an
advocate. (Copies of relevant documents
of these cases & complaints are annexed
herewith as Annexure 1,2, 3,4, 5,6, 7,8, 9.

2. That on 31.8.2005, while hearing cases
in the court at about 12.45 PM, the said
Jyoti Swaroop Singh advocate entered the
court room in a very angry mood and
losing control started shouting loudly
saying:

rqeus izkFAZuk i= 156 1⁄431⁄2 lh vkj ih lh ij mls ifjokn ds :Ik es
ntZ djus dk vkns'k D;ksa ikfjr fd;k mls Lohdkj D;ksa ugha fd;k eS
rqEWgkkjh f'kdk;r d:axkA rqEgs ukSdjh djuk fl[kk nwaxk rqe eq>s tkurs
ugha A

(Why have you not allowed application
under section 156(3) Cr.P.C?. How have
you dared to pass an order to register it as
a complaint rather than allowing it in toto.
I will make complaints against you and
teach you the lesson. Perhaps you don't
know my powers. I tried to pacify him but
he was reluctant to be cool. The said
counsel/contemnor has been asked to
explain as to why not the matter be
referred to Hon'ble Court for action
against him. At this he became very
furious and questioning the authority of
the court said that he has already seen a
lot of such contempt cases and he shall
not bow down before anybody at any cost.
Meanwhile some advocates accompanied
him outside the court.
588 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007
3. That the conduct of the said counsel Sri
Jyoti Swaroop Singh, advocate has been
to pressurize the court to seek favourable
orders. The language spoken by the said
counsel in the court is absolutely
contemptuous
and
amounting
to
scandalizing, lowering and insulting the
authority of the court as well as
obstructing and interfering with the
administration of justice and against the
normal flow of the stream of justice in the
pending matters which falls within the
four corners of the meaning of the
contempt of court.

Under
the
aforesaid
facts
and
circumstances, it is requested Your
Honour, that the matter may be placed
before Hon'ble Court for appropriate
action against the aforesaid contemnor
under the contempt of court Act 1971".

3. Sri Jyoti Swaroop Singh,
Advocate filed objection with affidavit
against the reference made by the officer
concerned. In his affidavit, he denied the
entire story given in the said letter. He has
alleged his false implication in this case.
He has further alleged that he had made a
complaint against this officer to District
Judge, Allahabad and as a counter-blast,
the officer concerned made this reference.
He has further alleged that the officer
concerned rejected his application under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. in a malafide way
whereas other applications of other
counsels and parties on similar facts were
being allowed by him in the past. He has
also denied that he was ever junior to Sri
Subedar Singh, Advocate. He has also
denied that he had ever misbehaved with
any officer named in the reference letter.
Some annexures have been filed along
with the affidavit.

4. On the basis of allegations made
in the reference letter, the following
charge was framed against the contemnor
vide order dated 7.2.2006.

"That you on 31.8.2005, in the court
of Sri Pradip Singh, Additional Civil
Judge (Senior Division), Allahabad, who
was hearing cases in the court at about
12.45 P.M., entered into the court room in
a very angry mood and losing control
started shouting loudly-.

"Tumne
prarthna
patra
156(3)
Cr.P.C. par oose pariwad ke roop mein
darj karne ka adesh kyon parit kiya, ouse
swikar kyon nahin kiya, Mai tumhari
shikayat karoonga, Tumhe naukri karna
sikha doonga, Tum Mukhe jante nahin."

5. The Presiding Officer tried to
pacify you, but you were reluctant to be
cool and you were asked by the Presiding
Officer to explain your conduct for
referring the matter to the Hon'ble High
Court for initiating action against you,
you became very furious and questioned
the authority of the court saying that you
had seen a lot of such complaints in the
past also and will not bow down before
any body or authority at any cost.

Your above conduct was with the
intent to scandalize and lower down the
dignity of the court and amounted to
interference and obstructions in the
administration of justice constituting an
offence under Section 2(c) of the
Contempt of Court Act, 1971 and
punishable under Section 12 of the said
Act and you are charged accordingly.

You are hereby directed to be tried
by this Court on the said charge".
2 All] Sri Pradeep Singh Addl.Civil Judge V. Sri Jyoti Swaroop Singh
589
6. Sri Pradip Singh appeared in the
witness box and corroborated the contents
of reference letter. He has stated that he
joined
in
Allahabad
Judgeship
on
20.12.2003. The contemnor used to
appear in his court as counsel, therefore,
he was known to him. Prior to the
incident in question, the contemnor had
abused him twice in his court when the
orders were passed against him, but to
avoid tussle, he did not take any action
against him. On 31.8.2005 at 12.45 P.M,
when he was hearing a civil case, the
contemnor appeared in his court. Earlier
to this, the application under Section
156(3) Cr.P.C. moved by him had been
ordered to be registered as complaint. He
expressed his annoyance regarding said
order, passed on his application and
threatened him to make a complaint
against him and to teach him way of
doing service. The relevant word and
sentence uttered by him are quoted below:

rqeus izkFAZuk i= 156 1⁄431⁄2 lh vkj ih lh ij mls ifjokn ds :Ik es
ntZ djus dk vkns'k D;ksa ikfjr fd;k mls Lohdkj D;ksa ugha fd;k eS
rqEWgkjh f'kdk;r d:axkA rqEgs ukSdjh djuk fl[kk nwaxk rqe eq>s tkurs
ugha ------ftles iSlk fey tkrk gS mlesa vkMZj dj nsrs gksA

7. The contemnor remained shouting
in the court for 3-4 minutes and so many
lawyers and litigants assembled there.
When the Presiding Officer told him that
he would initiate contempt proceedings
against him, the contemnor said that he
has seen so many contempt proceedings.
The work of the court was paralyzed.
Since the Presiding Officer was insulted
in the court, this was set back to him.

8. A lengthy cross examination was
made by the contemnor from Sri Pradip
Singh. He has stated that civil case, in
which hearing was being made at the time
of incident in question was titled "Rajesh
Singh Vs. Rajesh Pal Singh. There was
some delay in making the reference which
has been satisfactorily explained by Sri
Pradip Singh. He has stated that after this
incident, he got permission of District
Judge and inspected some records, in
which contemnor is himself litigant. He
also inspected some earlier reports made
by the other Presiding Officers against
him with whom, he allegedly misbehaved.
He has further stated that probably, the
contemnor
approached
Sri
Narendra
Singh, the then Special C.J.M, Allahabad
for making efforts for compromise. Sri
Narendra Singh came to his chamber and
the contemnor also reached there and
talks for compromise were initiated by Sri
Narendra Singh, but of no use. Sri Pradip
Singh
has
further
stated
that
the
contemnor was so agitated in the court
that
some
lawyers
intervened
and
requested him to leave the court.

9. Alongwith reference letter, Sri
Pradip Singh has annexed some papers
which are complaints made by Sri
Sarvesh Kumar, A.C.J.M., Allahabad and
Smt. Vani Ranjan, A.C.J.M, Allahabad
against the contemnor. In those letter also,
misbehaviour of the present contemnor
with the said Presiding Officers are
alleged. However, those are not very
relevant in the present matter because
present matter is to be decided on merits
regarding incident reported by Sri Pradip
Singh. Sri Pradip Singh has stated that he
has no knowledge about any complaint
made by the contemnor to District Judge
against him. Some other litigation of the
contemnor are also pending in his court,
but those are also not very relevant for the
decision of this case.

10. The contemnor has produced Sri
Vijay Kumar Mishra, Advocate in his
defence, who has also supported the
590 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007
contempt case. He has stated that in
Original Suit No. 505 of 2005; Rajesh
Singh Vs. Rajesh Pal Singh, he was
counsel for the defendant. The case was
pending in the court of applicant, Sri
Pradip Singh, Addl. Civil Judge (S.D.)
(Court no.13), Allahabad. On 31.8.2005,
the case was listed for hearing in said
court and he participated in the same.
When after hearing of the case, he was
just going out of the court, the contemnor,
Jyoti Swaroop Singh, Advocate entered
the court room of Pradip Singh. He was
not present in the court at the time when
altercations had taken place between the
Presiding Officer and the contemnor. He
came to know on the same day from some
advocates that the contemnor was talking
to the Presiding Officer loudly and some
of the advocates who were present in the
court at that time forbade him from doing
so. He named Sri Vijay Shyam Pandey,
Advocate, one of them who had told this
fact to him. However, he could not
remember the names of other advocates
who
had
communicated
the
said
altercations between the Presiding Officer
and the contemnor in the court to him.
They had also told him that they had
advised the contemnor not to behave like
this and persuaded the contemnor to leave
the court. Thus, from the defence witness
also, the charge against the contemnor
gets support.

11. There was no enmity between
the Presiding Officer and the contemnor
on personal level. Even if this version of
the contemnor that he had moved some
applications against the Presiding Officer
concerned is taken to be correct even then
it was not justified to behave like this in
the Court. There is no reason to disbelieve
the testimony of Sri Pradip Singh, Addl.
Civil Judge (S.D.), Allahabad. Since the
result of application, under Section 156(3)
Cr.P.C. was against the contemnor,
therefore he wanted to pressurize the
Presiding Officer to change his order in
his favour and when the Presiding Officer
expressed his inability to do so, the
contemnor misbehaved with him.

12. There was some delay in
referring the matter, but reason is very
clear. Sri Pradip Singh has clearly stated
that he had to inspect some record and get
permission
of
District
Judge
for
inspection of the records. Some time was
spent in that process. Moreover, Sri
Narendra Singh, the then Special C.J.M,
Allahabad also wanted to intervene in the
matter and some time was also spent in
that process. Ultimately, the Presiding
Officer referred the matter for initiating
contempt proceedings. Much emphasis
has been laid by the contemnor on the fact
that the report submitted by the Presiding
Officer for initiating contempt proceeding
against him was not dated. No doubt, no
date has been given on the reference
application, but it was merely a clerical
mistake. The application was received in
the office of District Judge, Allahabad on
24.9.2005 and in the High Court on
28.9.2005. There was no chance of
manipulation because this fact has been
admitted by the contemnor also that
before a few days of the incident in
question, the application, under Section
156(3)
Cr.P.C
was
ordered
to
be
registered as a complaint by the Presiding
Officer concerned and he was aggrieved
by that order. According to him, he had
made a complaint also to District Judge
concerned. The defence witness has also
corroborated this fact that on the same
day, he had heard about the incident in
question from brother advocates. The
words uttered by the contemnor in the
2 All] Sri Pradeep Singh Addl.Civil Judge V. Sri Jyoti Swaroop Singh
591
court were highly contemptuous. Sri
Pradip Singh has stated on oath that due
to scene created by the contemnor in the
court, the court work was fully paralysed
and clearly constituted contempt of court.

13. In the case of Delhi Judicial
Service Association Vs. State of Gujrat,
1991 (4) S.C.C. 406, the Hon'ble Apex
Court has expressed its views as follows:

"The definition of criminal contempt
is wide enough to include any act by a
person which would tend to interfere with
the administration of justice or which
would lower the authority of court. The
public have a vital stake in effective and
orderly administration of justice. The
court has the duty of protecting the
interest of the community in the due
administration of justice and, so, it is
entrusted with the power to commit for
contempt of court, not to protect the
dignity of the Court against insult or
injury, but to protect and vindicate the
right
of
the
public
so
that
the
administration of justice is not perverted,
prejudiced, obstructed or interfered with.
It is a mode of vindicating the majesty of
law, in its active manifestation, against
obstruction and outrage.

14. If the judiciary has to perform its
function in a fair and free manner the
dignity and authority of the court has to
be respected by all concerned. Failing
that, the very constitutional scheme and
public faith in the judiciary runs the risk
of being lost. Since the contemnor is also
an Advocate, the matter has to be
considered with little more seriousness.
An advocate is not merely an agent or
servant of his client, but he is the officer
of the court. He owes a duty towards the
court. There can be nothing more serious
than an act of an advocate if it tends to
obstruct or prevent the administration of
law or destroys the confidence of the
people in such administration. In the case
of M.B. Sanghi Vs. High Court of Punjab
and Haryana reported in 1991 (3) SCC
600, the Apex Court observed "The
tendency of maligning the reputation of
judicial officers by disgruntled elements
who fail to secure the desired order is ever
on the increase and it is high time that it is
nipped in the bud. And, when a member
of the profession resorts to such cheap
gimmicks with a view to browbeating the
judge into submission, it is all the more
painful. When there is a deliberate
attempt to scandalize which would shake
the confidence of the litigating public in
the system, the damage caused is not only
to the reputation of the concerned judge
but also to the fair name of the judiciary.
Veiled threats, abrasive behaviour, use of
disrespectful language and at times
blatant condemnatory attacks like the
present
one
are
often
designedly
employed with a view to taming a judge
into submission to secure a desired order.
Such cases raise larger issues touching the
independence of not only the concerned
judge but the entire institution. The
foundation of our system which is based
on the independence and impartiality of
those who man it, will be shaken if
disparaging and derogatory remarks are
made against the presiding judicial
officers with impunity. It is high time that
we realize that the much cherished
judicial independence has to be protected
not only from the executive or the
legislature but also from those who are an
integral
part
of
the
system.
An
independent
judiciary
is
of
vital
importance to any free society. Judicial
independence was not achieved overnight.
Since we have inherited this concept from
592 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007
the British, it would not be out of place to
mention the struggle strong-willed judges
like Sir Edward Coke, Chief Justice of the
Common Pleas and many others had to
put up with the Crown as well as the
Parliament at considerable personal risk.
And when a member of the profession
like the appellant who should know better
so lightly trifles with the much endeared
concept of judicial independence to
secure small gains it only betrays a lack of
respect for the martyrs of judicial
independence and for the institution itself.
Their sacrifice would go waste if we are
not jealous to protect the fair name of the
judiciary from unwarranted attacks on its
independence".

15. In the case of Ishwar Chand
Jain Vs. High Court of Punjab and
Haryana; AIR 1988 SC 1395, it has been
observed that "under the Constitution, the
High
Court
has
control
over
the
subordinate judiciary. While exercising
that control it is under a constitutional
obligation to guide and protect judicial
officers. An honest strict judicial officer is
likely to have adversaries in the mofussil
courts. If complaints are entertained on
trifling matters relating to judicial orders
which may have been upheld by the High
Court on the judicial side no judicial
officer would feel protected and it would
be difficult for him to discharge his duties
in an honest and independent manner. An
independent and honest judiciary is a sine
qua non for rule of law. If judicial officers
are under constant threat of complaint and
enquiry on trifling matters and if High
Court encourages anonymous complaints
to hold the field, the subordinate judiciary
will not be able to administer justice in an
independent and honest manner. It is
therefore, imperative that the High Court
should also take steps to protect its honest
officers by ignoring ill-conceived or
motivated
complaints
made
by
the
unscrupulous lawyers and litigants".

16. The word uttered by the
contemnor in the court "rqeus izkFAZuk i= 156
??3?? lh vkj ih lh ij mls ifjokn ds :Ik es ntZ djus
dk vkns'k D;ksa ikfjr fd;k mls Lohdkj D;ksa ugha fd;k eS
rqEWgkkjh f'kdk;r d:axkaA rqEgs ukSdjh djuk fl[kk nwaxk rqe
eq>s tkurs ugha ------ftles iSlk fey tkrk gS mlesa vkMZj
dj nsrs gks" clearly indicate that being an
advocate (the protector of law), the
contemnor threatened the court to pass
order in his favour. The Presiding Officer
has stated on oath that the contemnor
continued shouting for 3 or 4 minutes in
the court and a huge crowed was
assembled there. When he was asked by
the Presiding Officer not to behave in
such a manner as it amounts to contempt,
he said that he has seen so many contempt
proceedings. The law does not permit a
lawyer to show disrespect to the court in
any manner lowering its dignity. A judge
has a duty to discharge and pass orders in
the manner as he thinks fit to the best of
his capability under the facts and
circumstances of the case before him. No
litigant, far less an advocate, has any right
to take law in his own hands. The court
cannot be intimidated to seek favourable
orders.
This
conduct
amounts
to
intimidating the court and lowering the
authority and to interfere with the due
course of judicial proceedings, which
were being conducted by the Presiding
Officer.

17. In the case of Preetam Pal Vs.
High Court of M.P. 1993 (1) SCC 529,
the following observations has been made
by the Hon'ble Apex Court:

"To punish an advocate for contempt
of court, no doubt must be regarded as an
2 All] Commissioner of Income Tax, Meerut V. Seth B.D. Gupta
593
extreme measure, but to preserve the
proceedings of the courts from being
deflected or interfered with and to keep
the streams of justice pure, serene and
undefiled, it becomes the duty of the
court, though painful to punish the
contemnor in order to preserve its dignity.
No one can claim immunity from the
operation of the law of contempt if his act
or conduct in relation to court or court
proceedings
interferes
with
or
is
calculated to obstruct the due course of
justice".

18. In the present case before us, the
conduct of the contemnor being an
advocate
clearly
comes
under
the
definition of contempt of court as defined
under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of
Courts Act 1971 and is punishable under
Section 12 of the said Act. The charge
against the contemnor is fully proved.

19. Consequently, the reference is
allowed and the contemnor Jyoti Swaroop
Singh, Advocate, Allahabad is convicted
under Section 12 of Contempt of Court
Act and is sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of one month
and to pay fine of Rs. 5000/(Five
thousand only) and in default of payment
of fine, he shall further undergo simple
imprisonment of two weeks and in that
case,
both
the
sentences
will
run
consecutively.

20. However, the punishment so
imposed shall be kept in abeyance for a
period of sixty days to enable the
contemnor to approach the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, if he so desires. He shall
be taken into custody to serve out the
sentences immediately after expiry of
sixty days, if no stay order is obtained
from Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
meantime.

21. Let the matter come up before
this Court on 4th April 2007 for ensuring
compliance.
Reference allowed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.05.2007

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUSHIL HARKAULI, J.
THE HON'BLE AJAI KUMAR SINGH, J.

Income Tax Reference No. 101 of 1991

Commissioner of Income Tax , Meerut

...Applicant
Versus
Seth B.D. Gupta

...Respondent

Counsel for the Applicant:
S.C.

Counsel for the Respondent:

Income Tax Act, 1961-Section 43-BExumption
from
Tax-claimed-the
Employer on employees' contribution to
Provident Fund, family pension-state
insurance-if actually paid-but not on
liability.

Held: Para 8

Thus our answer to the referred question
is that the Appellate Tribunal was not
right in saying that the employer's
contribution to Provident Fund, Family
Pension, State Insurance and deposit
linked insurance was not disallowable
under section 43 B. In fact, the said
contributions, which may have been
payable had not been actually paid
during the relevant year, were liable to
be disallowed.
Case law discussed:
1988 (173) ITR 708
(2006) 287 ITR-80