|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 32 of 32 Records
-
1958 (5) TMI 39 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... and are attempting to realise taxes here and to take proceedings in respect thereof, that this Court has attained jurisdiction. The most that could have been done, of course, was to prevent the per- sons within the jurisdiction from proceeding contrary to law. But by reason of the fact that this and the other applications have failed, no such directions have become necessary. The Rule must, therefore, be discharged. Interim orders vacated. No order as to costs. It must, however, be recorded that the parties have agreed that where assessment has not already been made, the assessee will be allowed one month s time from the date of the judgment to put in their returns or any supplementary returns and that assessment will only be made thereafter in accordance with law. Where, however, assessments have already been made, nothing herein will affect it but the parties will be at liberty to take such steps they may be entitled to under the law in respect thereof. Petition dismissed.
-
1958 (5) TMI 38 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t. When one partner takes a contract on behalf of the firm, he takes it for the benefit of all the partners of the firm, and all the partners of the firm would be disqualified, if the contract is for the supply of goods to the appropriate Government. The learned counsel argued that the words for his benefit can only apply to a case where the share or interest has been created for the exclusive benefit of the candidate and not where the person, who obtains the contract, is only a sharer in the benefit which the candidate also may have in the contract. We see no reason for adding the word exclusive before the word benefit . If the candidate has a share or interest in the contract and is likely to be benefited along with the other partners in the firm, we think his case also would fall within the ambit of clause (d) of section 7 of the Act. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs, and we assess the fee of the respondent s counsel in the case at Rs. 300. Appeal dismissed.
-
1958 (5) TMI 37 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... point may be determined on a suitable occasion. For these reasons, and for the reasons set out in my judgment in greater detail in Matter No. 161 of 1955 (Indian Standard Wagon Co., Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer etc. 1958 9 S.T.C. 553. delivered today, I must hold that these applications fail. The Rules must be discharged. Interim orders vacated. No order as to costs. In these and all the other matters in which judgment had been delivered today, all parties have agreed that where assessments have not been made, the respondents would allow the petitioners to file returns or supplementary returns within one month from the date of this judgment and that the assessment will be made thereafter upon a consideration of such returns. Where, however, assessments have already been made, nothing in this judgment will affect such assessments excepting the fact that the petitioners will be entitled to take such steps in respect thereof as may be open to them in law. Petitions dismissed.
-
1958 (5) TMI 36 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... -State trade and commerce. Applying this principle to the facts of the present case, I hold that the sales do come under the definition of sale as given in the Act, although if section 27 was in full force then the taxation of inter-State sales would be excluded and the present transactions could not be the subject matter of State taxation. Section 27 imposed a ban on the power of taxation in respect of such sales, thus bringing the matter in line with the Constitution. The Validation Act has now removed that ban, and therefore the power of the State to tax such sales within the period covered by the Act, has revived. In my opinion, therefore, the respondents were within their rights in imposing sales tax upon the transactions in question, and that no case has been made out for interference by this Court. Consequently this application fails and must be dismissed. The Rule is discharged, all interim orders vacated but there will be no order as to costs. Application dismissed.
-
1958 (5) TMI 35 - HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Charges – Registration of ... ... ... ... ..... the building or the beds. LORD LINDLEY observed The purpose for which the machines were obtained and fixed seems to me unmistakable it was to complete and use the buildings as a factory. It is true that the machines could be removed if necessary, but the concrete beds and bolts prepared for them negative any idea of treating the machines when fixed as movable chattels. In the present case it is clear from the Commissioner s report that the machines are permanently fastened to things attached to the earth. They were set up there with the definite intention of running the oil mills and not with the idea of being removed after temporary use. I have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that the plant and machinery of the company is not moveable property. In the result the official liquidator is entitled to the declaration prayed for. It is hereby declared that the holders of the third series of debentures are not secured creditors of the company but are only unsecured creditors.
-
1958 (5) TMI 34 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Meetings and Proceedings – Chairman’s declaration of result of voting by show of hands to be conclusive, Representation of corporation at meetings of companies & creditors, Compromise and arrangement, Winding up - Appeals from orders
-
1958 (5) TMI 32 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Winding up – Application for and Appeals from orders ... ... ... ... ..... of a petition not being properly signed by the petitioner. In our opinion, this is a mere irregularity which can be cured at any time. That is the view also taken by Mr. Justice Baker in the case to which reference has been made by us, and also in Dahyabhai Girdhardas v. Babaji 1952 54 Bom. LR 808. We are told that the petitioner himself is present in court and he is prepared to sign the petition if we direct him to do so. If the petitioner signs the petition, then the flaw which rendered the petition bad or made it not maintainable disappears. The only objection to the petition is that it is signed by an agent who is not a recognized agent. But if the petitioner himself signs it, then no further question arises with regard to the maintainability of the petition. We will, therefore, direct that the petitioner should sign the petition in court. Now that the petitioner has signed the petition, the appeal can proceed on merits. We adjourn it to the opening day of the next term.
-
1958 (5) TMI 28 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB
Winding up – Power of Tribunal to make calls ... ... ... ... ..... of the Limitation Act, despite the fact that a suit, if it had been instituted on the date of the claim for the recovery of the money due on the first call made on 15th October, 1948, would have become barred by limitation under article 112 of the Limitation Act. I also think, that although the remedy by way of suit for the recovery of the money due on the first call had been extinguished by efflux of time, the right of the company to the amount had not been destroyed. The sum in question was owing at the time of the forfeiture, though time-barred, and the liability of the respondents had not become extinct. The objections of the respondents are without force and they are dismissed. In case No. 83 in C.O. No. 48 of 1954, I pass payment order against Seth Sant Lal for Rs. 5,676-10-0 inclusive of interest at the rate of 6 per annum up to the 31st of May, 1954. I also allow future interest at the rate of 3 per cent. per annum till realisation. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1958 (5) TMI 26 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB
Powers of Court to rectify register of members and Shares of shareholders dissenting from scheme or contract approved by majority – Power and duty to acquire
-
1958 (5) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT
Whether sums of money received by the appellant during the account year 1942-1943 and aggregating to ₹ 27,30,094 are liable to be taxed under the Act?
Held that:- We have considered all the contentions urged on behalf of the appellant at some length. We would like to make it clear that we are not sitting here as a court of appeal on facts. We have examined the record only with a view to see whether there is any misdirection or non-direction, such as is likely to have affected the result, and we have come to the conclusion that there is none, and that the finding of the Tribunal is not therefore open to attack. Appeal dismissed.
-
1958 (5) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the appellant is chargeable to tax under section 42(2) Of the Act?
Held that:- What we have to decide is whether having regard to the course of dealings between the non-resident companies and the appellant it can be said of the former that they carry on business with the latter within the meaning of section 42(2). Now, it should be observed that section 42 speaks not of the non-residents carrying on business in the abstract but of their carrying on business with the resident, and in the context, it must include all activities between them having relationship to their business. That is the view taken by the learned judges in the court below, and we are in agreement with it.
We are accordingly of opinion that, on the facts found, the non-resident companies must be held to have carried on business with the appellant as provided in section 42(2). Appeal dismissed.
-
1958 (5) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT
Penalty, confiscation and fine — Redemption of goods — Option to pay fine in lieu of confiscation — Gold pledged to bank
|
