|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 233 Records
-
1982 (2) TMI 268 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... sons indicated by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Srinivasa Distributing Agencies v. State of Orissa 1981 48 STC 453 and the further clarification made by us today in our order in State of Orissa v. Voona Suru Patra and Sons (S.J.C. No. 119 of 1977) 1982 51 STC 410, which we adopt, we hold that sewing thread is cotton yarn and is liable to tax at the rate prescribed for taxing the turnover of cotton yarn. Our answer, therefore, is against the revenue and we must hold that the appropriate rate of tax is 2 per cent and not 5 per cent. There will be no order for costs. BEHERA, J.-I agree with my Lord, the Chief Justice. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1982 (2) TMI 267 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATKA
Winding up – Suits stayed on winding-up order ... ... ... ... ..... d to the extent indicated, i.e ., in the case of C. A. No. 172 of 1980, a sum of Rs. 844 95 is disallowed and interest will be calculated afresh from May 21, 1975, till date of winding-up order at 18 per cent per annum and at 6 per cent per annum from January 6, 1978, to April 5, 1980. Similarly, in C. A. No. 44 of 1980, the claim of Rs. 450 is disallowed for want of pleadings and proof. However, interest in the same manner as in C. A. No. 172 of 1980 may be calculated from, the date of default by the subscriber till date of the winding-up order at 18 per cent per annum and thereafter at 6 per cent per annum from date of winding-up order till date of application on the balance of subscriptions due. In the light of my above conclusions, the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the claim in these two applications in the manner I have indicated above. In the instant case, there will be no order as to costs, though the applications are allowed. Ordered accordingly.
-
1982 (2) TMI 266 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Company – Membership of, Shares warrants and entries in register of members, Oppression and Mismanagement – Right to apply under section 397 and 398, Principles for interpretation of statutes
-
1982 (2) TMI 265 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Company when deemed unable to pay its debts ... ... ... ... ..... ief, there is considerable doubt in the facts of this case whether the application for winding-up would be admitted or not. That being the position, I should not pass any interim order. Mr. Biswas referred to Palmer s Company Precedents, p. 101. Mr. Biswas also referred to Madhusudan Gordhandas and Co. v. Madhu Woollen Industries P. Ltd. 1972 42 Comp. Cas. 125 , 131, 132 AIR 1971 SC 2600 and relied on para. 22 (of AIR) as an authority for the proposition that the court may, under section 557 of the Companies Act, 1956, in all matters relating to the winding-up of a company, ascertain the wishes of the creditors. I record this contention and do not propose to express any opinion thereon, Mr. Biswas also relied on William C. Leitch Bros, Ltd. In re 1932 2 Ch 71, Palmer s Company Precedents, Pt. II and Hammersmith Town Hall Co., In re 1877 6 Ch 112 (Ch. D.). I find it totally unnecessary to deal with those cases. In the result, this application fails and is dismissed with costs.
-
1982 (2) TMI 264 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Winding up – Powers of liquidator ... ... ... ... ..... me and cannot be rejected as time-barred once the extended period is made applicable to the same. The impugned order is thus liable to be quashed. The result is that the 13 Appeals Nos. 57 of 1977, 59 of 1977, 61 of 1977, 62 of 1977, 63 of 1977, 64 of 1977, 65 of 1977, 66 of 1977, 67 of 1977, 68 of 1977, 69 of 1977, 70 of 1977 and 71 of 1977, are hereby allowed. The cases are remanded to the company judge for considering other points raised by the debtors and disposal in accordance with law. Costs in the cause. Mr. Dalai, the learned advocate appearing for the respondents in Appeal No. 66 of 1977, applied for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. Leave refused. Mr. Mahesh Master, the learned advocate appearing for the respondents in Appeal No. 70 of 1977, also applies for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. Leave refused. Mr. Variava, the learned advocate appearing for respondent in Appeal No. 71 of 1977, also applies for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. Leave refused.
-
1982 (2) TMI 238 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Compromise and arrangement ... ... ... ... ..... e, the depositors are of the value of Rs. 80,57,863 as on 31st March, 1981, or of the value of Rs. 69,68,934 as on 24th March, 1979, under the old proposal. The company and every officer of the company concerned is also prima facie in breach of section 58A and the 1975 Rules made thereunder. In the light of the above discussion, the applicant-company cannot be permitted either to initiate a fresh proposal or to modify the old proposal in so far as it involves the claims of the creditors who are governed by section 58A and the Rules made thereunder. The prothonotary and senior master to forward a copy of the judgment to the Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi, and the Reserve Bank of India to enable them to consider whether the provisions of section 621 or any other relevant provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, require to be amended in the light of the above observations. In the result, Company Application No. 7 of 1982 is dismissed. No order as to costs.
-
1982 (2) TMI 237 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Winding up – Power of tribunal to stay winding up ... ... ... ... ..... imated reserves of 50 million tonnes. It is also common knowledge that increased production of cement is in national interest. If the shareholders have resolved to revive the company and make one more effort to start a cement factory, opportunity should not be denied to them. In these circumstances, accepting the assertions made for the applicant who has been duly authorised at the general body meeting held on October 14, 1981, to present this application, the prayers in this application are granted, and the voluntary winding-up proceedings at whatever stage they are, are hereby stayed absolutely. Consequently, the shareholders are free to elect a new board of directors and do all that is necessary in order to achieve the object for which the company has been incorporated. Before passing this order, the counsel for the official liquidator has been heard. In the light of the order passed as above, Company Application No. 1838/1911 does not survive for consideration separately.
-
1982 (2) TMI 236 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Meetings and proceedings – Contents and manner of service of notice and persons on whom it is to be served, Directors – Power of, Winding up – Company when deemed unable to pay its debts, Powers of tribunal on hearing petition, Winding up - Meetings to ascertain wishes of creditors or contributors
-
1982 (2) TMI 235 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Powers of Central Government to authorise with permission of High Court to takeover management or control of industrial undertaking
-
1982 (2) TMI 234 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Compromise and arrangement ... ... ... ... ..... g and Weaving Co. Ltd. 1970 40 Comp. Cas. 689 AIR 1970. SC 1041, indicate that no leave of the court was necessary to be taken by the appellant from the court for the commencement of any proceeding against the respondent for a recovery of its dues in respect whereof defaults have been committed by the respondent in payment in terms of the scheme. The appellant is, therefore, at liberty to take appropriate proceedings against the respondent for the enforcement of its claim if it is otherwise maintainable in law. For all the above reasons the order made by the learned judge of the court below cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside and the appeal is allowed. The application of the appellant before the court below is also dismissed with no orders as to costs. In the facts and circumstances of the case, each party will pay and bear its own costs of this appeal. The undertaking given by the respondent to continue for a period of three weeks. R. M. Datta, J. mdash I agree.
-
1982 (2) TMI 209 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Meetings and Proceedings - Exercise of Voting Rights in Respect of Shares Held in Trust ... ... ... ... ..... true that Mr. Vyas has contended that whether the third condition with regard to the affairs of the company or the shares carrying more than 50 of its total voting power being at no time, during the relevant previous year, controlled or held by five or less persons, is fulfilled or not is a matter on which no finding has been recorded. But the argument before the Tribunal itself seems to have proceeded on the fact that more than 50 of the shares are concentrated in the hands of the three trusts. All the joint trustees will have to be treated as a single unit for the purposes of the control and since the three trusts control 81 of the shares, in our view, even the third condition is not satisfied. Looking at the matter either way, therefore, it is difficult for us to uphold the view of the Tribunal that the assessee-company is a company in which the public are substantially interested. Accordingly, the question-referred is answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue.
-
1982 (2) TMI 208 - HIGH COURT OF PATNA
Principles for interpretation of statutes ... ... ... ... ..... casus omissus is not to be created or applied by the court as referred to in Robert Wigram Crawford v. Richard Spooner 1846 6 Moors (PC) 1 14 MIA 179, Keyes v. Elkins 1864 5 B and S 240 Mersey Docks and Harbour Board v. Henderson Brothers 1888 13 App. Cas. 595 (HL) at page 602, Lord Howard De Walden v. Inland Revenue Commissioners 1948 2 All. ER 825 at page 830 30 TC 345 (HL) and Sm. Hira Devi v. District Board, Shahjahanpur, AIR 1952 SC 362. In the alternative Mr. Joshi also tried to impress upon us that even if the Full Court may not hear the appeal, at least three or more judges of the court should sit in appeal against the judgment. The reason which we have already given will apply equally to either the Full Court or a Bench of three or more judges. In the circumstances, we do not find any merit in the contention raised by the appellant. The appeal, according to us, on a construction of section 155(4)(b) of the Act, shall lie to a Division Bench consisting of two judges.
-
1982 (2) TMI 195 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Winding up – Suits stayed on winding-up order ... ... ... ... ..... ns fell through as the I.T. authorities were unwilling to purchase the said house. The present case, as has been held by the learned trial judge, is an unfortunate one and peculiar, inasmuch as for no fault of the contributories who are the only beneficiaries in the winding-up of the company most of the properties have been sold and large amounts of income-tax had to be paid, although belatedly. In the facts and circumstances of this case, as narrated by the learned trial judge in his judgment, the learned judge exercised his powers under section 446(2) of the Companies Act, 1956, and disallowed the payment of interest due by the company (in liquidation) under section 446(2) of the Companies Act, 1956. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment and order of the learned trial judge. By reason of the premises, this appeal fails and is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. R. N. PYNE, J. mdash I agree.
-
1982 (2) TMI 187 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Appeal to the Tribunal against order passed by the Collector in the executive capacity not maintainable
-
1982 (2) TMI 186 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Refund of duty ... ... ... ... ..... ,324.78. Shri K.D. Tayal, Senior Departmental Representative, very effectively contended that in view of the Board rsquo s Order (reproduced above), in the fitness of things the Company should have withdrawn its present appeal. 9. ensp According to us, in view of Board rsquo s clear order that the clearance of 300 quintals of sugar on 10th of August 1978 was liable to duty on the basis as it was levy sugar only, the Company rsquo s apprehension is entirely unfounded and we see no reason as to why the Revenue shall come in the Company rsquo s way for not refunding if any excise duty is collected on the basis other than the One decided by the Board. However, keeping in view the Company rsquo s anxiety, we make it clear that if any excise duty is refundable as excess recovery, on the basis of Board rsquo s order, it should be done forthwith. In view of peculiar circumstances of the case, for the purpose of statistics, the present appeal has become infructuous. Order accordingly.
-
1982 (2) TMI 179 - CEGAT, DELHI
Valuation under Customs ... ... ... ... ..... ines which are offered at considerably reduced rates rdquo . Nor does it appear that R. 5 would apply only if the State Government Undertaking is the ldquo soie agent rdquo for the foreign seller. It is enough if they happen to be distributor or indentor appointed for the whole of India or any region thereof. The word ldquo sole rdquo in R. 5 qualifies ldquo agent rdquo and not ldquo distributor or indentor rdquo . There may be a plurality of distributors or indentors appointed for the whole of India or any region thereof. This, by itself, does not render the provision inapplicable in a case where the invoice price truly represents the price charged for the goods in question. 6. emsp In the premises, we allow the appeal, set aside the order of adjudication and remand the matter for re adjudication for a redetermination of the assessable value in terms of R. 4-A and 5 of the Customs Valuation Rules and the grant of such consequential relief as the appellant may be entitled to.
-
1982 (2) TMI 176 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Power to give option to pay fine in lieu of confiscation is discretionary ... ... ... ... ..... the owner thereof an option to pay in lieu of confiscation such fine not exceeding twice the value of the thing in respect of which confiscation is authorised, as the said officer thinks fit. Firstly, such power in my opinion, is a discretionary one with the officer adjudging confiscation and in any case no such prayers was made by the petitioner either before the Collector or before the Central Government. The obvious reason in making such a request before this Court appears to be that the value of gold has gone higher than double the value which existed at the time of seizure in this case i.e. 30th May, 1974. No such prayer can thus be accepted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before this Court, specially when the order of confiscation passed by the non-petitioners is held to be legal. 12. emsp No other point was pressed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 13. emsp In the result I find no force in this writ petition and the same is dismissed summarily.
-
1982 (2) TMI 173 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... assessee rsquo s wealth in the two years under consideration, whether tax liability thereof could be ignored. We do not see any reason why tax liability should be ignored. The position is now quite clear in view of the observations of the Supreme Court in 129 ITR 314 where they have gone to the extent of observing that in the absence of allocation of amount disclosed in different assessment years, tax payable is still a tax on income. Even otherwise we do not find any distinction between asst. yr. 1976-77 and two years before us than the asst. yrs. 1977-78 and 1978-79. It appears that AAC made a distinction between these two set of years 1973-74 to 1976-77 only, while in fact the disclosure covered asst. yrs. 1973-74 to 1978-79. Under these circumstances, we accept assessee rsquo s contention and direct that income-tax liability of Rs. 52,946 and Rs. 69,224 should be allowed as deduction under s. 2(m) of wealth-tax for asst. yrs. 1977-78 and 1978-79. The appeals are allowed.
-
1982 (2) TMI 170 - ITAT NAGPUR
... ...
... ... ..... ing it has been agreed by the members that the amount that will be received on decision of the Court reference over and above the referred amount will be divided between the members equally will i.e. 1/3rd each after deducting the Court expenses. At that time we will divided the amount and shall pass necessary entries in that regard. The above matter is agreed to between all the three of us and hence in witness whereof we have put our signatures below The partition in Mitakshara joint family takes places by defining the shares of the coparceners. This has done by the entries in the books of account on 10th November 1973. We have therefore, to hold that the entries interest cannot also be assessed in the hands of the HUF. 10. The case was very ably argued by the ld. Counsel for the assessee and the ld. Deptl. Rep. We would like to place on record our appreciation of the assistance rendered to the Bench by the Counsels. 11. In the result, the assessee rsquo s appeal is allowed.
-
1982 (2) TMI 167 - ITAT NAGPUR
Firm, Registration, Change In Constitution ... ... ... ... ..... it could be deemed that he had given sufficient opportunity to the assessee to rectify the form. The opportunity has got to be specific and the assessee has to be told what exactly is the mistake in the form. In our opinion, the mistakes that could be rectified cannot be confined only to the mistakes in the form itself but also to the substitution of the proper form, that is, if an assessee submits an application in Form No. 11 instead of Form 11A that would be a mistake which should be got rectified. The correction is not confined to the entries in the form like mistakes in shares, names, etc. On the whole, we are satisfied that the assessee s prayer for setting aside the order of the AAC is justified. We, accordingly, set aside his order and restore the matter to the ITO who will advise the assessee properly regarding the form in which the application for registration is to be filed and then deal with it according to law. 5. In the result, the assessee s appeal is allowed.
........
|
