Literal Meaning
The Question is raised.
Explanation & Origin
Quaeitur is a Latin term. It is a term that is generally used in English law. When used in the context of English law, it means ‘the question is raised’.
Explanation – The term is of Latin origin and means the question is raised. It might be raised in a case of when the issue comes to lawyers. That’s when we can say that a question is raised or it can be raised by the other party to.
Illustration
If in the case of XY a question was raised regarding the law of the state.
Case Reference
In the case of Commissioner Of Income-Tax, vs Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd[1] the question that was referred under section 66(1) was whether taxes paid on urban immovable property by the assessee were an allowable deduction under section 9(1)(iv) and section 9(1)(v) of the Indian Income-tax Act. An objection was raised before the court that the question as to the application of section 9(1)(iv) had not been argued before the Tribunal and, therefore, it could not be referred. Repelling this contention, Kania, J., as he then was, observed that the specific question had been put forward as a ground of appeal, and that was “quoted by the Tribunal in its judgment” but not dealt with by it, and that in the circumstances the proper order to pass was to refer the case back to the tribunal and “invite it to express its opinion on this aspect of the contention and raise a proper question of law on that point also.”This judgment again proceeds on the view that it is only a question raised before and dealt with by the Tribunal that-could be referred under s. 66(1), and that is clear from the observations of the learned Judge that the decisions of the Privy Council.
In the case of Jamunadas Mannalal vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax[2] the imposition of penalty is neither practicable nor possible. In my opinion, this cannot be a different aspect of the question, because the question now raised goes to the root of the jurisdiction of the ITO to impose a penalty. Challenging the jurisdiction of the ITO is not a different aspect of the same question but a different and new question altogether. Moreover, P. S. Mishra J. has also clearly pointed out towards the end of paragraph 7 that Mr. Jain indicated that he was not pressing his contention and thus Mr. Jain ultimately withdrew his claim for reframing question No. 1 as suggested by the Tribunal. This will be another point to be considered whether when, the assessee does not raise an issue, can this court suo motu raise a question and decide the same. one of the questions raised related to the earlier losses ascertained in 1946 and the facts relating thereto were narrated, the High Court directed the Tribunal to refer only the question whether the Tribunal erred in law or misdirected itself in rejecting the assessee’s claim to set off the alleged losses of 1941 of the Hong Kong business against the income of the assessment year 1947-48. On a reference, the High Court held that the question as framed was confined to losses of the year 1941, but in deference to counsel’s argument considered the contention that the loss suffered by the assessee during the period 1941 to 1945 was ascertained only in 1946, and that it must be deemed to have been incurred only in that year. Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court held that the assessee was not entitled to raise the question relating to ascertainment of the loss only in 1946, as it was a question entirely different from that propounded for the decision of the High Court.
In the case of Bommidi Bayyan Naidu vs Bommidi Suryanarayana, Minor[3], This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Letters Patent arising out of Second Appeal No. 640 of 1909. 10 Ind. Cas. 75 The original suit which led to the second appeal was instituted by a landlord for the recovery of rent from the defendants, his ryots, for the Fasli year 1316. According to the plaintiff’s case, the defendants were in possession of about 14 acres of jeroyati lands under him liable to pay warm or rent in kind. The 1st defendant, the undivided father of the 2nd defendant, contended that he held only 5 acres of jeroyati lands and that he held in addition 10 acres of inam and 3 acres of cash rent paying lands and denied that any patta was tendered to him for the fasli in question as alleged by the plaintiff. The correctness of the patta alleged to have been tendered was also denied. The 7th issue framed by the Munsif raised the question “whether the alleged tendered patta was valid and binding on the defendant.” The 8th issue was “whether the whole of the 14 acres of land mentioned in the plaint is defendant’s jeroyati as alleged by the plaintiff, or only 5 acres jeroyiti and the rest inam and cash rent paying land as alleged by the defendants.” At the hearing, a farther question was raised whether the question of the propriety of the patta tendered was res judicata in consequence of the decision of the Court in Original Suit.
Edited by Vigneshwar Ramasubramania
Approved & Published – Sakshi Raje
Reference
[1] AIR 1961 SC 1633
[2] 1985 152 ITR 261 Patna
[3] 17 Ind Cas 445
