Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1954 1954 (1) 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 41 to 42 of 42 Records

• 1954 (1) TMI 9
  
  Issues:
  1. Interpretation of statutory provisions regarding the necessity of a "further" report in voluntary liquidation for court orders.
  2. Application of section 307 of the Companies Act in voluntary liquidation for public examination orders.
  
  Analysis:
  1. The judgment involved a motion by the liquidator of a company in voluntary liquidation to discharge an order made by the registrar on December 7, 1953. The Court of Appeal affirmed the registrar's decision, emphasizing the requirement of a "further" report under section 236(2) for court jurisdiction in making orders. Evershed M.R. opined that this requirement should not be a condition precedent under section 334 for voluntary liquidations. The judge concurred with Evershed M.R.'s reasoning, stating that statutory powers in voluntary winding up should not be hindered by conditions applicable only to compulsory winding up.
  
  2. The judgment delved into the application of section 307 of the Companies Act, allowing the court to exercise powers as in a compulsory winding up. The judge referenced precedents like In re 1897 Jubilee Sites Syndicate and In re Medical Battery Company to underscore the flexibility of invoking public examination orders in voluntary liquidations. Despite contrary views in legal commentaries, the judge aligned with Evershed M.R.'s interpretation, emphasizing the broad language of section 307 and the court's discretion in assessing the necessity of public examinations.
  
  3. The judgment highlighted the importance of judicial discretion and the need for proper material to support applications for public examinations in voluntary liquidations. By discharging the registrar's order, the judge aimed to ensure a thorough review based on the report justifying the public examination. The decision to follow Evershed M.R.'s reasoning underscored the court's obligation to uphold statutory provisions while maintaining procedural fairness and safeguards in voluntary liquidations.
  
  4. In conclusion, the judge's decision to discharge the registrar's order and direct further proceedings aligned with the interpretation of statutory provisions and the precedent set by Evershed M.R. The emphasis on judicial scrutiny and the necessity of proper material for court orders in voluntary liquidations underscored the balance between statutory requirements and procedural fairness in insolvency proceedings.

  ---

• 1954 (1) TMI 1
  

  Whether Section 8(5) of the Act is to be regarded as providing the only remedy available to the aggrieved party and that it excludes altogether the remedy provided for under Article 226 of the Constitution?

  Held that:- For purposes of this case it is enough to state that the remedy provided for in Article 226 of the Constitution is a discretionary remedy and the High Court has always the discretion to refuse to grant any writ if it is satisfied that the aggrieved party can have an adequate or suitable relief elsewhere. So far as the present case is concerned, it has been brought to our notice that the appellants before us have already availed themselves of the remedy provided for in Section 8(5) of the Investigation Commission Act and that a reference has been made to the High Court of Allahabad in terms of that provision which is awaiting decision. In these circumstances, we think that it would not be proper to allow the appellants to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution at the present stage, and on this ground alone, we would refuse to interfere with the orders made by the High Court. Appeal dismissed.

  ---

123