|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 27 of 27 Records
-
1962 (6) TMI 42 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Memorandum of association – Special resolution and confirmation by CLB required for alteration of
-
1962 (6) TMI 34 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Winding up - Appeals from orders ... ... ... ... ..... commentary to section 45N of the Banking Companies Act, 1949, says that when we read sub-sections (1) and (3) together it becomes apparent that the scope of those sub-sections is not general but is restricted to cases (a) where there is a claim, the subject-matter of which can be valued in terms of money, (b) the company is one party to the claim and (c) there are other persons against whom the claim is made or who are the claimants and that the section, therefore, does not apply to an order directing a public examination of a director or officer of a banking company. We are in agreement with this view and hold that the appeals before us have nothing to do with section 45N of the Banking Companies Act, 1949 that they are governed only by section 483 of the Companies Act, 1956, and the Kerala High Court Act, 1959, and the rules framed thereunder that under those provisions the appeals are competent and that the preliminary objection should be overruled. We decide accordingly.
-
1962 (6) TMI 32 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Winding up – Appointment of Liquidator ,Powers and duties of liquidator ... ... ... ... ..... to (iv) of sub-section (2) of section 457 to a liquidator in a winding up by the court. Clause (b) of the same sub-section provides that the liquidator may exercise any of the other powers given by the Act to the liquidator in a winding up by the court without sanction. Therefore, in a creditors voluntary winding up, the liquidator has to take necessary sanction to exercise any of the powers given by clauses (i) to (iv) of sub-section (2) of section 457 and not for the exercise of any other power. That means the sanction required is restricted to the exercise of the powers under clauses (i) to (iv) of section 457(2). Clauses (i) to (iv ) of section 457(2) do not relate to the institution or defence of suits that is covered by sub-section (1) of section 457, for which no sanction is required. Thus, no sanction is required for filing the suit in the present case. Therefore, this objection also fails. No other point is raised and hence the second appeal is dismissed with costs.
-
1962 (6) TMI 21 - IN THE CHANCERY DIVISION
Requirements with respect to memorandum ... ... ... ... ..... y, and that is an application of the company s funds which the law, as I understand it, will not allow. If this is right, then it appears to me to follow from the Hutton case (supra) that the proposal to pay compensation is one which a majority of shareholders is not entitled to ratify. The Hutton case (supra) was followed on this point in Stroud v. Royal Aquarium and Summer and Winter Garden Society Ltd. 1903 19 TLR 656. I am conscious that in this judgment I have not traversed the whole of the ground covered in the course of the hearing. Some time was spent in investigating such matters as the defendant company s contracts with Bowaters for the supply of newsprint, and with The News of the World for printing copies of that paper. But these matters do not, I think, affect the conclusions which I have reached. Nor in the event is it necessary for me to consider whether the circular of January 20, 1960, is misleading, as claimed by the plaintiff, and if so, what is the result.
-
1962 (6) TMI 18 - IN THE CHANCERY DIVISION
Charges – Registration of ... ... ... ... ..... trange if such a charge were registrable (as it undoubtedly is) and a charge confined to future book-debts were not. I find nothing in the language of section 95 requiring me to read sub-section (2)(e) in so restricted a way as to confine it to a charge on existing book-debts. I do not think that consideration of the language used in the Bankruptcy Act, 1914, assists me in construing this section of the Companies Act, 1948. I reach this view of the effect of section 95 as regards book-debts without reference to authority, but it appears to me to have been the view held also by Eve J. (See In re George Inglefield. 1933 Ch. 1 48 TLR 536, CA) Accordingly, in my judgment, the charges created by the deposit of 53 agreements were registrable under section 95, and, not having been registered, they are void as against the plaintiff liquidator. There will be a declaration that the charges are void as against the plaintiff liquidator, and an order for the delivery up of the agreements.
-
1962 (6) TMI 2 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Prosecution - Appeal against conviction ... ... ... ... ..... ction 178A of the Sea Customs Act. That section, however only provides that when gold bars or such other articles believed to be smuggled are seized from the possession of any person, the burden is on that person to prove that the gold bars or other articles are not smuggled. But it is for the prosecution to prove that the gold bars were in the possession, that is conscious possession, of a particular accused. Until that is established, the presumption under Section 178A cannot be drawn against him. In the present case, as already indicated, the evidence adduced by the prosecution does not lead necessarily to the conclusion of conscious possession of the gold bars by any of the two appellant. 10.That being so both the appeals are allowed and the conviction of the appellants under Section 23(1A) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act and under Section 167(81) of the Sea Customs Act and the sentences passed thereunder are set aside. 11.Let the appellants be released forthwith.
-
1962 (6) TMI 1 - HIGH COURT OF ASSAM
Adjudication - Natural justice - Witnesses - Cross-examination - Evidence ... ... ... ... ..... e Collector of Customs dated the 7th March, 1962. The rule is made absolute but in the circumstances of the case the parties will bear their own costs. 8.Civil Rule No. 182/62 arises out of the search made on the 16th March, 1959 in the premises of Messrs. Sky Players, Silchar. 5 bags of betelnuts weie booked by them for transport to Calcutta. Out of these five bags three bags were booked under their consignment Note No. 11028 dated 15th March 1959, the consignee being Shri Dinesh Chandra Paul of Silchar. The bags were consigned to Shri Jatindra Chandra Paul. The reasoning of the Collector is the same in this case as in the other case and admittedly the Department had relied upon some inquiries made behind the back of the petitioner. On the principles which we have already laid down in our decision in Civil Rules No. 176/62 above, this petition should also be allowed and the order of the Collector dated the 2lst October, 1961, is quashed. Assent per S. K. Dutta, J. - I agree.
|
