Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1964 1964 (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 27 of 27 Records

• 1964 (6) TMI 38
  
  Issues:
  Interpretation of preferential claim in a company's winding-up process under section 319(4) of the Companies Act, 1948.
  
  Analysis:
  The judgment by Pennyquick, J. deals with a bank's appeal against liquidators' rejection of a preferential claim in a company's winding-up. The bank claimed a debt should rank as preferential, but the liquidators disputed most of it. The liquidators' rejection was primarily based on the argument that the preferential claim should be limited to the amount overdrawn on the wages account, which was the only account used for paying wages. The bank's entire proof as a creditor was in a larger amount, but the focus was on determining the preferential portion of the debt.
  
  Pennyquick, J. found the bank's claim well-founded in principle. He analyzed the operations between the bank and the company, concluding that the bank's advances for paying wages remained preferential under section 319(4). The judge emphasized that the transfers between accounts did not alter the nature of the original indebtedness, which still qualified for priority. He referenced a legal precedent to support the principle that a mere debit to an overdrawn account does not constitute a payment.
  
  The judge rejected the argument that each cheque drawn on the current account created new debts, maintaining that the payments were advances for paying wages. He also applied the rule in Clayton's case to determine the discharge of items transferred between accounts. The judgment highlighted the importance of analyzing the purpose of transactions and the nature of debts in the context of preferential claims during liquidation.
  
  Pennyquick, J. addressed the possibility of treating the accounts as a single amalgamated account but found no justification for such an approach based on the parties' accounting method. He distinguished a previous case where accounts were considered interdependent, emphasizing the unique circumstances of the present case. The judgment ultimately ordered the bank to rank as a preferential creditor for the specified amounts, totaling £25,377 13s. 1d, considering the transfers between accounts and the sum on the wages account.

  ---

• 1964 (6) TMI 37
  
  Issues:
  - Competency of the appeal filed by a shareholder on behalf of the company without the company filing an appeal.
  - Whether a shareholder can maintain an action when a liquidator is functioning.
  - Requirement of leave from the winding-up court for a shareholder to file an appeal on behalf of the company.
  
  Analysis:
  The judgment revolves around the competency of an appeal filed by a shareholder on behalf of a company without the company itself filing an appeal. The suit in question sought various reliefs related to decrees and execution proceedings obtained fraudulently, with the company as the first plaintiff. The appeal was filed by a shareholder, the third plaintiff, after the company ceased to be the official liquidator. The primary issue raised was the shareholder's entitlement to file an appeal on behalf of the company. The respondent argued that since the company did not appeal, the shareholder's appeal was incompetent. The court delved into the legal standing of a shareholder in relation to the assets of a company, citing Supreme Court precedents emphasizing that a shareholder does not possess an interest in the company's property. It was established that a shareholder cannot maintain an action when a liquidator is in place, as the liquidator has the authority to sue on behalf of the company.
  
  The judgment further explored the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1913, which empower the official liquidator to take control of the company's property and institute legal proceedings on behalf of the company. It was clarified that once a liquidator is appointed, even the directors lose the power to sue on behalf of the company. The court highlighted that a shareholder's role in such circumstances is limited to seeking court directions for the liquidator to take legal action. Additionally, the court referenced previous decisions to support the requirement of leave from the winding-up court for a shareholder to file an appeal on behalf of the company. The judgment emphasized that the reliefs sought in the appeal were within the company's prerogative, and since there was no appeal by or on behalf of the company, the shareholder's appeal was deemed incompetent.
  
  In conclusion, the court upheld the preliminary objection regarding the appeal's competency, ruling that the appeal filed by the shareholder on behalf of the company was not valid. The judgment dismissed the appeal and directed the appellant to bear the costs. It was clarified that without the company filing an appeal or granting leave from the winding-up court, a shareholder cannot independently file an appeal on behalf of the company.

  ---

• 1964 (6) TMI 35
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Rectification of the share register of Stadmed Private Ltd.
  2. Entitlement and registration of 324 shares to the petitioner.
  3. Payment of Rs. 5,000 as damages to the petitioner.
  4. Compliance with Section 108 and Section 155 of the Companies Act, 1956.
  5. Allegations of misappropriation and nepotism.
  6. Partition and division of the shares and estate of the deceased shareholder.
  
  Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Rectification of the Share Register:
  The petitioner sought rectification of the share register of Stadmed Private Ltd. to record her name for 324 shares out of 1,940 shares previously held by the deceased Gour Gopal Saha. The register was rectified on November 29, 1962, to include the names of the heirs, including the petitioner and the respondents, as joint holders. The petitioner's name was recorded last, allegedly preventing her from exercising voting rights as per Article 63 of the company's articles of association. The court noted that the rectification was done based on an application by the respondent No. 2 and the petitioner, and the petitioner's grievance was primarily about the order of names in the register.
  
  2. Entitlement and Registration of 324 Shares:
  The petitioner argued that she was entitled to 324 shares and that the company should register her name as the holder. However, the court pointed out that under Section 108 of the Companies Act, 1956, a proper instrument of transfer duly stamped and executed was required for the company to register the transfer. Since no such instrument was lodged, the company could not lawfully register the petitioner's name for the 324 shares. The court emphasized that the company is prohibited from registering a transfer without the required instrument of transfer.
  
  3. Payment of Rs. 5,000 as Damages:
  The petitioner claimed Rs. 5,000 as damages. However, the judgment did not provide a detailed analysis or ruling on this claim, focusing instead on the primary issue of share registration and the legal requirements under the Companies Act.
  
  4. Compliance with Section 108 and Section 155 of the Companies Act, 1956:
  The court highlighted that Section 108 mandates a proper instrument of transfer for share registration, which was not provided by the petitioner. Under Section 155, the court has the power to rectify the share register but cannot do so without compliance with Section 108. The court concluded that the company had not committed any default under Section 155(1)(b) as there was no instrument of transfer lodged by the petitioner.
  
  5. Allegations of Misappropriation and Nepotism:
  The petitioner alleged that respondent No. 2, in collusion with other directors, misappropriated company funds and engaged in nepotism. However, the court noted that no particulars were provided for these allegations and deemed them irrelevant to the determination of the application for rectification.
  
  6. Partition and Division of the Shares and Estate of the Deceased Shareholder:
  The petitioner's claim for 324 shares was linked to a broader issue of partitioning the estate of the deceased, which included other properties. The court stated that such matters should be resolved through a properly constituted suit for partition, not an application under Section 155. The court noted that the company could not undertake the division and allotment of shares among joint holders, as this would require an amicable partition or a court decree in a partition suit.
  
  Conclusion:
  The court dismissed the application for rectification of the share register, emphasizing that the petitioner's claims involved complex issues of partition and division of the deceased's estate, which could not be addressed under Section 155 of the Companies Act. The court suggested that the petitioner pursue a suit for partition for appropriate relief. The application was dismissed with costs, and the order was certified for two counsel.

  ---

• 1964 (6) TMI 34
  
  Issues:
  1. Determination of whether Mark Mothio is a principal officer of the petitioner company for the purpose of verifying the petition.
  2. Examination of the validity of the power of attorney granted to Mark Mothio by the petitioner company.
  3. Analysis of the applicability of the rule regarding verification of petitions by a director, secretary, or principal officer of a company.
  
  Analysis:
  The judgment delivered by Pennycuick, J. in the Chancery Division primarily revolves around the issue of whether Mark Mothio qualifies as a principal officer of the petitioner company for the purpose of verifying the petition. The judge highlighted the importance of Rule 30 of the Companies (Winding-up) Rules, 1949, which requires the affidavit verifying a petition to be made by a director, secretary, or principal officer of the company. Pennycuick, J. emphasized that the term "officer" under the Companies Act, 1948, includes a manager, but it is not limited to directors only. The judge cited precedents to illustrate that not all officials of a corporation can be considered principal officers, and strict construction of Rule 30 is necessary in such cases.
  
  Moreover, the judgment delves into the validity of the power of attorney granted to Mark Mothio by the petitioner company. While it was acknowledged that Mark Mothio was authorized by the company to swear the affidavit through the power of attorney, the judge opined that such authorization does not automatically elevate him to the status of a principal officer as required by Rule 30. The judge cautioned against bypassing the rule by empowering a servant who is not a principal officer to verify the petition, except in exceptional circumstances.
  
  Furthermore, the judgment referenced the case law of In re African Farms Ltd. to discuss the acceptability of affidavits sworn by individuals other than directors, secretaries, or principal officers of a company. While acknowledging that there may be exceptional circumstances where such affidavits could be accepted, Pennycuick, J. stressed the importance of adhering to the literal terms of the rule unless compelling reasons exist for deviation. The judge highlighted the inconvenience that strict enforcement of Rule 30 may pose for large companies but underscored the necessity of upholding the rule as a benchmark for verifying petitions in the Companies (Winding-up) Department and the court.
  
  In conclusion, the judgment emphasized the significance of ensuring compliance with Rule 30 and upheld the traditional practice of requiring affidavits to be sworn by directors, secretaries, or principal officers of companies. The judge opted to make a winding-up order conditional upon the production of an affidavit sworn by a duly authorized individual meeting the criteria specified in the rule, thereby underscoring the importance of adhering to procedural requirements in insolvency proceedings.

  ---

• 1964 (6) TMI 29
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Validity of the floating charge under Section 322 of the Companies Act, 1948.
  2. Consideration for the floating charge.
  3. Application of the rule in Clayton's case.
  4. Calculation of payments made by the bank post-charge creation.
  
  Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Validity of the Floating Charge under Section 322 of the Companies Act, 1948:
  The liquidator of the company challenged the validity of a floating charge created on January 24, 1958, in favor of the bank, based on Section 322 of the Companies Act, 1948. This section states that a floating charge created within 12 months of the commencement of winding up is invalid unless it is proven that the company was solvent immediately after the creation of the charge or cash was paid to the company in consideration for the charge. The company was insolvent at the time of the charge creation, and the liquidator argued that no cash was paid in consideration for the charge.
  
  2. Consideration for the Floating Charge:
  The liquidator contended that the bank did not provide any cash or covenant to pay cash at the time of the execution of the floating charge, making the charge invalid. The argument was supported by the pronouncement of Parker J. in In re Orleans Motor Co. Ltd., where it was stated that the section aims to prevent companies from creating floating charges to secure past debts or for moneys that do not enhance their assets. However, the court found that subsequent payments by the bank to the company were made in consideration for the charge, as held in In re Thomas Mortimer Ltd. Romer J. had stated that payments made by the bank after the date of the charge were made in consideration for the charge, even if the bank had no binding agreement to make further advances.
  
  3. Application of the Rule in Clayton's Case:
  The court considered the rule in Clayton's case, which presumes that payments into an account are applied to discharge the earliest debits. The liquidator argued that the bank's application of this rule allowed it to treat payments received after the charge as satisfying pre-charge indebtedness, thus nullifying the effect of Section 322. However, the court upheld Romer J.'s decision in In re Thomas Mortimer Ltd., which applied Clayton's case, and found no reason to compel the bank to treat post-charge payments as devoted to post-charge indebtedness.
  
  4. Calculation of Payments Made by the Bank Post-Charge Creation:
  The court analyzed the accounts to determine the amount of cash paid by the bank subsequent to the creation of the floating charge. The analysis showed that the bank paid out substantial sums, which were treated as new money provided to the company. The court found that the total of unrequited cash paid subsequently to January 24, 1958, was lb41,126. This included payments from various accounts, with the majority being from the No. 1 account. The court concluded that the floating charge was valid for the amount of cash paid by the bank post-charge creation, and the assets were insufficient to satisfy the secured creditors, leaving nothing for the unsecured creditors.
  
  Conclusion:
  The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the validity of the floating charge to the extent of the cash paid by the bank in consideration for the charge. The decision in In re Thomas Mortimer Ltd. was followed, and the rule in Clayton's case was applied to determine the allocation of payments. The court found that the payments made by the bank post-charge creation were in consideration for the charge, and the liquidator's arguments were rejected.

  ---

• 1964 (6) TMI 2
  
  The High Court of Kerala ruled that the amount of Rs. 68,000 from the sale of dead and windfallen trees is of capital nature, not taxable income. The judgment was in favor of the assessee. The Registrar will send a copy of the judgment to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal as required by law.

  ---

• 1964 (6) TMI 1
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Legality of notices served under section 34(1)(a) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.
  2. Alleged non-disclosure of the Eastern Bank account.
  3. Adequacy and accuracy of the records maintained by the Income-tax authorities.
  4. Change in the Income-tax Officer's opinion regarding the nature of racing receipts.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Legality of Notices Served Under Section 34(1)(a):
  The primary issue pressed by the petitioner was the illegality of certain notices served under section 34(1)(a) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The court scrutinized whether the Income-tax Officer had "reason to believe" that there was any omission or failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully or truly all material facts necessary for his assessment. It was noted that the notices were initially given under section 34(1A), which was prima facie barred by limitation. However, it was later stated that this was a typing mistake and the notice was really under section 34(1)(a).
  
  2. Alleged Non-Disclosure of the Eastern Bank Account:
  The Income-tax Officer alleged that the petitioner did not disclose his Eastern Bank account, which had deposits amounting to Rs. 4,98,045 during the period January 4, 1943, to August 29, 1944. The petitioner contended that these deposits were disclosed in his individual assessment and in the assessment of Messrs. Bhicomchand Bagree, representing proceeds from stakes or bets in racing. The court found that the petitioner's statements regarding the disclosure of the Eastern Bank account in the balance-sheets were not contradicted for four years, and the relevant order-sheets were not produced by the respondents despite the court's command, raising a presumption against the respondents.
  
  3. Adequacy and Accuracy of the Records Maintained by the Income-tax Authorities:
  The court observed that the respondents failed to produce the relevant records, including the order-sheets, despite multiple opportunities and the court's directive. The court inferred that the records, if produced, would have been unfavorable to the respondents. The court also noted the curious conduct of the respondents, such as producing fresh carbon copies of nearly 20-year-old assessment orders and refusing the petitioner's request for inspection of the records on flimsy grounds.
  
  4. Change in the Income-tax Officer's Opinion Regarding the Nature of Racing Receipts:
  The court noted that the petitioner had consistently disclosed his racing account, which was treated by the Income-tax authorities as a non-taxable hobby. The court found that the present Income-tax Officer's attempt to reopen the assessment was based on a change of opinion regarding the nature of the racing receipts, which were previously treated as casual receipts. The court held that this change in opinion did not warrant reopening the assessment under section 34(1)(a), as there was no omission on the part of the petitioner to disclose any primary fact.
  
  Conclusion:
  The court concluded that the Income-tax Officer had no reason to believe that the petitioner had failed to disclose the Eastern Bank account for the relevant years. The court found that the petitioner's case was almost uncontradicted and the respondents' conduct raised adverse inferences against them. The court held that the reopening of the assessment was not justified under section 34(1)(a) and quashed the notices issued under this section. The rule was made absolute, and the respondents were directed not to give effect to the notices. The application was allowed, and there was no order as to costs.

  ---

12