|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 89 Records
-
1969 (9) TMI 90 - SUPREME COURT
Whether a Sales Tax Inspector inspecting the accounts under the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (2 of 1959) is entitled to remove obstruction to the inspection of account books?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. The Sales Tax Inspector was acting in execution of his duty as a Sales Tax Inspector and the appellant used criminal force against the Sales Tax Inspector. Further he intended to deter the Sales Tax Inspector and prevent him from discharging his duty as a public servant.
-
1969 (9) TMI 76 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Winding up - Company when deemed unable to pay its debts ... ... ... ... ..... and, all the documents, to which he was a party, show that the creditor was Sri C.R. Chandra. It is unnecessary to go into the question whether the bales delivered to a carrier by name M.S.M. Lorry Service was taken back by the respondent-company as stated by the petitioner or had been delivered over to Sri C.R. Chandra in full settlement of the claim of Sri C.R. Chandra as contended by the respondent-company. Suffice it to note that the respondent-company has raised a dispute which is undoubtedly bona fide as would be seen from the documents of the company. As pointed out by the Supreme Court in Amalgamated Commercial Traders P. Ltd. v. Krishnaswami 1965 35 Comp. Cas. 456 (SC), the dispute being bona fide as to the truth of the debt, this is not the forum for adjudication upon the truth of the debt, and the petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. (Vide also Palmer s Company Precedents, 1960 edition, volume 2, page 27). Thepetition is accordingly dismissed with costs.
-
1969 (9) TMI 68 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the plaintiff (bank) is not entitled to file this suit as against the defendant No. 1 (the company) without obtaining the leave of the company judge as alleged ? If so, its effect ?
Whether the court has no jurisdiction to decide on the merits of the plaintiff's claim in view of the facts as alleged in para. 12(A) of the written statement ? If so, its effect ?
Whether the suit against defendant No. 2 (Ranjit Singh) is not maintainable as pleaded under paras. 7,13 and 14 of the written statement ?
Held that:- Unable to agree with the High Court that the suit filed was premature. The bank was, under the terms of the bond executed by Ranjit Singh, entitled to claim at any time the money due from the company as well as Ranjit Singh under the promissory note and the bond. The suit could not, therefore, be said to be premature. The High Court, instead of dismissing the suit, should have stayed it till "the ultimate balance" due to the bank from the company was determined. We deem it necessary to observe that a binding obligation created under a composition under section 391 of the Companies Act, 1956, between the company and its creditors, does not affect the liability of the surety unless the contract of suretyship otherwise provides.
The High Court, in our judgment, should have stayed the suit and after "the ultimate balance" due by the company was determined, the court should have proceeded to decree the claim according to the provisions of clause 4 of the bond. We accordingly modify the decree passed by the trial court. Liability of Ranjit Singh being only for payment of "the ultimate balance" which remains due on the cash credit account with the bank in favour of the company, the court will, when such ultimate balance is determined, proceed to pass a decree in favour of the bank.
-
1969 (9) TMI 67 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Winding up - Company when deemed unable to pay its debts ... ... ... ... ..... ot be said that the company has neglected to pay the debt within the meaning of section 434(1)(a) of the Companies Act. To permit the petitioner to agitate all the questions by resorting to a winding up petition will be an abuse of the process of the court. The only ground on which the inability to pay the debts is pleaded is the neglect to pay within the meaning of section 434(1)(a) of the Companies Act. It is not the case of the petitioner that the company is commercially insolvent or is in insolvent circumstances. In the result, the petition is dismissed. The costs of this petition are quantified at Rs. 500. Such costs will be the costs in the arbitration proceedings or a suit, if such arbitration proceedings are commenced or suit is instituted within a period of 12 weeks from today. If no such arbitration proceedings are commenced or the suit is filed within 12 weeks from today, the petitioner shall pay the costs of the company of this petition which are fixed at Rs. 500.
-
1969 (9) TMI 65 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Winding up - Powers of liquidator ... ... ... ... ..... persons including landlord from a company, let the premises to the company, have it wound up and receive huge premium for assignment of tenancy thereby completely circumventing the provisions of the Rent Act. It is unnecessary to make any comment on Madura Srinivasa Mills case (supra), as there the point was quite different. My conclusion therefore is that in the case of a company ordered to be wound up the estate administered is that of a person still living. The liquidator assumes or functions on behalf of the directors in accordance with the prescription of the statute. His acts are acts of the company and when he assigns the tenancy or other assets, it is assignment by the company. The restriction imposed by sub-section (3) of section 16 therefore binds the official liquidator as much as it bound the company and he cannot receive any price for assignment of tenancy in violation of section 5 of the Rent Act. I will return the question accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
1969 (9) TMI 64 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Kinds of share capital - Two kinds of share capital, Oppression and Mismanagement – Right to apply under section 397 and 398
-
1969 (9) TMI 61 - SUPREME COURT
Whether such a corporate body may be considered to be a fit and proper person for appointment or re-appointment as managing agent, and that the enquiry must cover all relevant activities and actions of the directors of the corporate body?
Held that:- The High Court was right in holding that in determining whether Govan Brothers is a person fit and proper to be re-appointed managing agent, the past conduct and actings which were relevant to the issue had to be taken into account, i.e., the Board had to consider the entire conduct and actings past and present of the directors of Govan Brothers before rejecting the petition filed by the Rampur Company.
The appeal filed by the Rampur Company must therefore fail. It must, however, be pointed out that the time during which the managing agency of Govan Brothers is to remain in operation is fast running out. The Solicitor-General appearing on behalf of the Company Law Board and the Union of India has assured us that with the co-operation of the Rampur Company, the Board will take steps to dispose of the application within one month from the date on which the order reaches the Company Law Board.
-
1969 (9) TMI 42 - SUPREME COURT
Precedent judgment ... ... ... ... ..... ere was difference of opinion and the judgment was by a majority of the Court but we will not be justified in lightly ignoring the judgment of this Court which has been given after full consideration of the merits of the dispute. We, therefore, hold that the order imposing penalty of Rs. 7,50,000/- in respect of Shipping Bills Nos. 8072, 2084, 2127 and 2085, including the personal penalty, should be vacated. The order for the payment of personal penalty of Rs. 50,000/- in respect of Shipping Bill No. 788 is also vacated. Mr. Daphtary, appearing on behalf of the appellant, does not press his appeal in respect of payment of personal penalty of Rs. 1,000/- under Section 167(37) (c) by M/s. McLeod and Co. Ltd. 4.The appeal is, therefore, allowed in part. It is confirmed only in respect of the personal penalty of Rs. 1,000/- under Section 167(37)(c) and is set aside in respect of payment of penalty of 4,00,000/-, Rs. 3,50,000/- and Rs. 50,000/-. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1969 (9) TMI 41 - SUPREME COURT
Whether exclusion of the jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain a suit does not exclude the jurisdiction of the High Court to issue high prerogative writs against illegal exercise of authority by administrative or quasi-judicial tribunal?
Held that:- The finality which may be declared by the statute qua certain liability either by express exclusion of the jurisdiction of the civil court or by clear implication does not affect the jurisdiction of the High Court to issue high prerogative writs. The jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain a suit challenging the validity of the imposition of the duty of customs being excluded, the plaintiff's suit must fail.
The appeal is allowed. The suit is ordered to be dismissed. The order of costs passed by the High Court is however maintained
-
1969 (9) TMI 40 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Processed dyes manufactured from basic synthetic organic dyes - Liability to duty - Short levy - Deficiency - Interpretation of - Precedents - Refusal to follow - Strictures
-
1969 (9) TMI 39 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDE
Licensing control - Exempted goods ... ... ... ... ..... itioners. 9. That apart, the very conduct of the petitioners that they have filed similar applications in the previous year is also point against the petitioners. The petitioners are entitled to raise all the objections including the objections now raised before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution before the licensing authority and have decision on all the points. In case the decision of the licensing authority goes against the Petitioner there is a regular right of appeal provided under Section 35 of the Act to any Central Excise Officer not below the rank of an Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, and thereupon a right of revision is provided under Section 36 to the Central Government. There are adequate and effective statutory remedies provided under the Act. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed in limine on that short ground alone apart from the fact that there are no merits in this petition. 10. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed.
-
1969 (9) TMI 38 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDE
Duty paid under mistake of law ... ... ... ... ..... tution of India has power for the purpose of enforcement of the fundamental rights and statutory rights to give consequential relief by ordering repayment of money realised by the Government without the authority of the law. In the said case, where a suit for refund of the amount was not barred by limitation, the Supreme Court directed the refund of such amount. Following the view taken by their Lordships of the Supreme Court, we direct the respondents to refund to the petitioner the excise duty collected in excess of 2 1/2 . It is contended by the learned Counsel for the Central Government that the exact amount of duty may be left to be ascertained by the authorities concerned. Therefore, we direct the refund of such amount as may be found to have been collected in excess of 2 1/2 . With the aforesaid direction, this writ petition is allowed and a writ of mandamus will issue accordingly. The petitioner will have his costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 200/- (Rupees two hundred only).
-
1969 (9) TMI 37 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
By this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the jurisdiction of the respondent-Income-tax Officer to issue a notice under section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and to take proceedings thereunder are challenged – held that Income-tax Officer had no jurisdiction to invoke section 154, on the issue which is quite interrogate and difficult
-
1969 (9) TMI 36 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Leviabiity of peanlty on HUF 20th March, 1958 which got partition on 22nd June, 1956 ... ... ... ... ..... e-tax Officer had jurisdiction to pass an order on 20th March, 1958, imposing penalty. It is true that the matter was open for reconsideration in appeal. The Tribunal disposed of the appeal before it on 6th March, 1963. By this time the Income-tax Officer had passed on 26th March, 1962, an order recognising a partition with effect from 22nd June, 1956. But, if the order dated 20th March, 1958, was a valid order when it was passed, it would not be rendered invalid by the mere fact that on 26th March, 1962, the Income-tax Officer passed an order recognising partition with effect from 22nd June, 1956. The Appellate Tribunal was wrong in taking the view that the order dated 20th March, 1958, was illegal. The true position is that the order dated 20th March, 1958, imposing penalty was a valid order. We answer the question referred to the court in the negative and against the assessee. The Commissioner of Income-tax shall receive from the assessee Rs. 200 as costs of the reference.
-
1969 (9) TMI 35 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Business taken over by govt. - reduction of capital - reduction of share capital has not produced an income on which a super-tax can be attached nor is it a dividend within the meaning of the Income-tax Act or Paragraph D of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1957
-
1969 (9) TMI 34 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Reassessment notice under section 148 - validity ... ... ... ... ..... difficult questions of the interpretation and application of the provisions of section 9(1) of the Act have been raised and issues have been joined in respect thereof. These are matters for decision by competent tribunals and courts and cannot conveniently be decided by this court in its writ jurisdiction. However, the case of the impugned notice for the assessment year 1958-59 is quite different. The point is covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in Ranchhoddas s case and it must be held that the Income-tax Officer exceeded his jurisdiction in issuing that notice. The rule would, therefore, be made absolute only in the case of the notice for the assessment year 1958-59 while it would be discharged in respect of the notices for the other years. The interim orders, if any, except for those applicable to the assessment year 1958-59, are vacated. There will be no order as to costs of this application. Operation of this order is stayed till a week after the long vacation.
-
1969 (9) TMI 33 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Under the relevant provisions of the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963, the Income-tax Officer is not entitled to impose a penalty on the petitioner on the ground of failure to file a return within the time prescribed under that section when the return is filed before the assessment is made and the Income-tax Officer completes the assessment on the basis of such a return
-
1969 (9) TMI 32 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Summons under section 131 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Director of Inspection is not one of the authority mentioned in section 131 to issue a notice for personal appearance or production of accounts, on any person
-
1969 (9) TMI 31 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Appellants are the wives and children of one who was in arrears of income-tax due both under the Travancore Income-tax Act, 1121, and the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 - whether Tax Recovery Officer rightly attached the immovable properties scheduled to the order, by prohibiting the appellants from transferring or otherwise dealing with them
-
1969 (9) TMI 30 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Failure to file the returns as provided in section 139(1) - Whether the Tribunal rightly held that the orders of penalties in question under section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, were not tenable in law - question is answered in the negative
|
