Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1959 1959 (6) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA Law of Competition 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-- 2025 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 >= 2 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 22 of 22 Records

• 1959 (6) TMI 10
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Breach of Article 9 of the Articles of Association.
  2. Entitlement to the remedy sought by the appellants.
  3. Interpretation of the term "transfer" within Article 9.
  4. Whether the respondents are "desirous of transferring" their shares.
  5. The applicability of Article 9 to the respondents' actions.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Breach of Article 9 of the Articles of Association:
  The court examined whether Scott's trustees had breached the first or prohibitive part of Article 9. Article 9 restricts the transfer of shares without the consent of the directors and mandates that shares must first be offered to other shareholders. The court concluded that Scott's trustees had indeed breached this part of the article by entering into an agreement to sell their shares to Mr. Fraser without following the prescribed procedure.
  
  2. Entitlement to the Remedy Sought by the Appellants:
  The appellants sought a declarator and decree ordaining the respondents to comply with Article 9. The court held that the appellants were entitled to this remedy. The respondents were required to inform the company secretary of their desire to transfer shares, thereby initiating the procedure that allows other shareholders to purchase the shares. The court emphasized that the respondents' actions demonstrated a clear desire to transfer their shares, thus obligating them to follow the article's procedure.
  
  3. Interpretation of the Term "Transfer" within Article 9:
  The court discussed the meaning of "transfer" in the context of Article 9. It was argued that "transfer" should be interpreted narrowly to mean only the registration of a transfer deed. However, the court rejected this interpretation, stating that "transfer" encompasses the entire process of selling and transferring shares, including the agreement to sell and the receipt of the purchase price. The court emphasized that the purpose of Article 9 is to prevent sales to strangers unless other shareholders are given an opportunity to purchase the shares.
  
  4. Whether the Respondents are "Desirous of Transferring" their Shares:
  The court held that the respondents were indeed desirous of transferring their shares. This conclusion was based on the fact that the respondents had entered into a contract to sell their shares, received the purchase price, and executed proxies in favor of the purchaser's nominee. The court stated that the respondents' desire to transfer their shares continued as long as the contract with Mr. Fraser subsisted.
  
  5. The Applicability of Article 9 to the Respondents' Actions:
  The court concluded that Article 9 applied to the respondents' actions. The respondents argued that they were not desirous of transferring their shares within the meaning of the article because they had a specific desire to transfer only to Mr. Fraser. The court rejected this argument, stating that the article's purpose would be defeated if it did not apply to specific desires to transfer to particular persons. The court emphasized that the respondents' actions demonstrated a clear desire to transfer their shares, thereby triggering the obligations under Article 9.
  
  Conclusion:
  The court allowed the appeal, holding that the respondents had breached Article 9 and were obligated to comply with its terms. The respondents were required to inform the company secretary of their desire to transfer shares, thereby initiating the procedure that allows other shareholders to purchase the shares. The court emphasized that the respondents' actions demonstrated a clear desire to transfer their shares, thus obligating them to follow the article's procedure. The court's decision reinforced the importance of adhering to the provisions of the articles of association to protect the rights of all shareholders.

  ---

• 1959 (6) TMI 1
  
  Issues:
  1. Jurisdiction of the Collector of Central Excise to impose a penalty on Makaibari Tea Estate.
  2. Legal entity status of Makaibari Tea Estate for penalty imposition.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  Issue 1:
  The judgment revolves around the jurisdiction of the Collector of Central Excise to impose a penalty on Makaibari Tea Estate. The impugned order dated August 13, 1956 imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,000 on the Tea Estate under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. However, the court held that the Collector had no jurisdiction to impose the penalty solely on the Tea Estate as the notices to show cause only required the Manager of the Tea Estate to show cause for the contravention of rules. The court emphasized that the Tea Estate, as a legal entity, should have been given the opportunity to defend itself against the penalty. Therefore, the court quashed the impugned order on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction and absence of opportunity for the Tea Estate to present its case.
  
  Issue 2:
  Another crucial point raised in the judgment was the legal entity status of Makaibari Tea Estate for the purpose of penalty imposition. The argument was made that the penalty should have been imposed on the owner of the Tea Estate, Makaibari Tea and Trading Co. (Private) Ltd., rather than on the Tea Estate itself. The court acknowledged this argument but primarily focused on the lack of opportunity given to the Tea Estate to contest the penalty. While the court did not delve deeply into the legal entity status issue, it highlighted that the penalty could not be imposed on the Tea Estate without affording it the chance to present its case. The court suggested that if authorities wished to pursue penalties, they should initiate fresh proceedings under the Central Excise Rules, ensuring due process and consideration of all relevant entities involved.
  
  In conclusion, the court made the Rule absolute and issued a writ of certiorari to quash the Collector's order dated August 13, 1956. The judgment emphasized the importance of procedural fairness and the right to be heard before imposing penalties, especially on legal entities. It also left room for authorities to restart proceedings in compliance with the Central Excise Rules, ensuring a fair and just process for all parties involved.

  ---

12