Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1952 1952 (8) 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 23 of 23 Records

• 1952 (8) TMI 14 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ted by the appellant or by his pleader or by his duly authorised agent. Rule 68(4) provides that on the date of hearing the appellant or his pleader or a registered accountant appointed by the appellant shall be heard. Similar provision is made in Rule 69(7) for cases before Judge (Revisions). There too a party himself or any practising lawyer of the High Court or of the District Judge s Court or a registered accountant has a right to be heard before the Judge (Revisions). These rules make it perfectly clear that while any agent has a right to act, that is, to present an application, to receive notices etc., the right to plead is restricted only to the applicant himself or a qualified pleader or a registered accountant engaged by a party. The applicant is neither a pleader nor a registered accountant and he had, therefore, no right to plead before the Judge (Sales Tax), (Appeals) or (Revisions). The application has no force and is dismissed with costs. Application dismissed.

  ---

• 1952 (8) TMI 13 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
  

  Enforcement of orders of courts

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... t. This court certainly has the power and jurisdiction to adopt that course. But the question is one of propriety and whether it is proper to do so in a particular case. I have no doubt in my mind that an enforcement order such as the one before me calling upon the contributory to pay is an order which is executable under section 199 of the Indian Companies Act and section 46H of the Banking Companies Act, 1949, as a decree under the Civil Procedure Code by attachment and sale in this case by this court. I am not satisfied that in this case the applicant has taken the matter out of the scope of ordinary methods of execution by attachment and sale and qualified himself to get a receiver by way of execution. For these reasons I will make no order on this application. Having regard to the fact that the money remains unpaid there will be no order for costs also in favour of the respondents. The liquidator however will retain his own costs out of the estate. Certified for counsel.

  ---

• 1952 (8) TMI 12 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
  

  Company when deemed unable to pay its debts

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... bserved that nothing has been shown in the affidavit which will even justify any enquiry to go behind the decree. Before I leave this branch of the law I should like to observe that the moving consideration in this branch of law as laid down by Lord Esher in Lennox In re ex parte Lennox was the language of the particular Bankruptcy Act which his Lordship was considering, namely, that the court had to be satisfied . This expression is not used in clauses (i) and (ii) of section 163(1) but is used only in clause (iii) where the company cannot be deemed to be unable to pay its debts unless it is proved to the satisfaction of the court that the company is unable to pay its debts. That proof to the satisfaction of the court is not in my judgment required in the events mentioned in clauses (i) and (ii) of section 163(1) of the Companies Act. For these reasons there will be an order for winding up of the company. Certified for counsel. Costs to come out of the assets of the company.

  ---

12