Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1955 1955 (1) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 3 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 21 to 25 of 25 Records

• 1955 (1) TMI 28
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ation does not in any way trench upon the provi- sions of the Sale of Goods Act. We wish to follow the decision of the Madras High Court reported in Louis Dreyfus and Co. v. State of Madras(1) in preference to the decision in Shriram Gulabdas v. Board of Revenue, Madhya Pradesh(2). In view of our conclusions that the explanation is intra vires, T.R.C. Nos. 271, 272, 283 and 333 of 1953 fail. In T.R.C. Nos. 344, 348 and 364 of 1953, the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal exempted the transactions subsequent to 26th January, 1950, and the Revisions relate only for the period from 1st April, 1949, to 26th January, 1950, and they also stand dismissed. As no Revision Petitions have been filed by the State for the period from 26th January, 1950, to 31st March, 1950, it is unnecessary for us to consider the effect of our decision in T.R.C. Nos. 83, 273, 284, 285, 148 and 192 of 1953. Petitions dismissed. (1) 1954 5 S.T.C. 307 1954 2 M.L.J. 326. (2) 1952 3 S.T.C. 343 A.I.R. 1952 Nag. 378.

  ---

• 1955 (1) TMI 27
  

  Right to present winding-up petition where company is being wound-up voluntarily or subject to courts supervision

  ---

• 1955 (1) TMI 22
  

  Winding up – Power of court to assess damages against delinquent directors, etc.

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... o hours would have been sufficient to take inspection of this account. It is not as if accounts had been written for a number of years and detailed accounts had to be gone through. Therefore, I overrule the objection set out on behalf of the respondent that section 235 is inapplicable. This proceeding to my mind is properly brought under this section. In the result I will proceed with this matter and hear evidence if produced before me. Parties will treat the affidavit in support and the affidavit in reply as pleadings in the matter. Liberty to the liquidator to file an affidavit in rejoinder, if so advised, and if that is filed within 3 weeks, liberty to the respondent to file an affidavit in sub-rejoinder. Usual order for discovery and inspection. Discovery and inspection to be given and completed within 4 weeks from to day. The proceeding to be on my board on March 28, 1955. Summons to stand adjourned into court. Today s costs to be costs in the summons. Counsel certified.

  ---

• 1955 (1) TMI 17
  

  Winding up – Overriding preferential payments

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... m of Rs. 3,01,397-4-3 is held by the company for a specific purpose in the nature of a trust for the benefit of the applicant firm and itself and in lieu of the order for payment made by the learned Judge it is ordered that the applicant firm will be entitled to repayment of the aforesaid sum out of the entire assets of the company, less such sum, if any, as may be found due from it to the company on account of transactions had under the agreement. Upon the amount due to the applicant firm being determined, it will be entitled to apply to the court for the payment of such amount within six weeks from the date of such determination. The rest of the order of the learned Judge will stand. There will be no order for costs in this appeal, but the official liquidators shall be entitled to retain and pay their own costs of this appeal as well as other costs, if any, ordered to be made costs in the appeal as between attorney and client out of the assets of the company in their hands.

  ---

• 1955 (1) TMI 16
  

  Winding up – Delivery of property to liquidator

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... toola v. Appabhai G. Desai 1950 20 Comp. Cas. 8 , where Chagla, C.J. observed mdash The official liquidator took up the attitude that orders for public examinations under section 196 can be made ex parte. We wish to make it clear that in our opinion that would not be a sound practice for the court to adopt. Although the matter there was under section 196 of the Companies Act, in my opinion it is a sound principle which should be followed in regard to the making of payment orders. This seems to be supported by the wording of section 186 of the Companies Act which gives power to the court to make the payment orders. I would therefore allow this appeal, set aside the order of the learned District Judge and remand the case to the learned District Judge for decision in accordance with law and the observations made above. The parties have been directed to appear before the District Judge on the nth February, 1955. In the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs.

  ---

12