Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1958 1958 (3) 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 61 to 62 of 62 Records

• 1958 (3) TMI 22
  
  Issues:
  1. Interpretation of Section 400 of the Companies Act regarding notice to Central Government in petitions under Sections 397 and 398.
  2. Proper practice to be followed in cases involving petitions for winding up and directions under Sections 397 and 398.
  3. Application of Section 400 when a petition is dismissed without passing an effective order.
  4. Consideration of Central Government's views before passing final orders under Sections 397 and 398.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  1. The main issue in this judgment revolves around the interpretation of Section 400 of the Companies Act, which mandates giving notice to the Central Government in petitions under Sections 397 and 398. The contention arises regarding the mandatory nature of this provision and whether a court can pass an order without notifying the Central Government and considering its representations. The court discusses the necessity of complying with Section 400 before making final orders under the mentioned sections.
  
  2. The judgment also addresses the proper practice to be followed when dealing with petitions involving winding up and directions under Sections 397 and 398. It emphasizes the significance of giving notice to both the company and the Central Government to ensure a fair hearing and consideration of all relevant parties' views before making any decisions.
  
  3. Another issue highlighted is the application of Section 400 when a petition is summarily dismissed without passing an effective order under Sections 397 and 398. The court deliberates on the necessity of complying with Section 400 even in cases of dismissal to uphold the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness.
  
  4. Lastly, the judgment underscores the importance of considering the Central Government's views before passing final orders under Sections 397 and 398. It discusses the need for a balanced approach between the extreme views presented by the parties and emphasizes the court's duty to allow all concerned parties, including the Central Government, an opportunity to present their perspectives before reaching a decision.
  
  In conclusion, the judgment provides a comprehensive analysis of the issues surrounding the interpretation of Section 400 of the Companies Act and sets out guidelines for the proper practice to be followed in cases involving petitions under Sections 397 and 398. It underscores the importance of procedural fairness, adherence to statutory provisions, and consideration of all relevant parties' views in legal proceedings.

  ---

• 1958 (3) TMI 21
  
  Issues:
  - Whether proceedings under section 235 of the Indian Companies Act against a deceased director of a banking company can be continued after his death.
  - Whether the liability of a deceased director can be enforced against his legal representative in such proceedings.
  
  Analysis:
  The judgment pertains to an appeal filed by joint liquidators against the dismissal of an application under section 235 of the Indian Companies Act against certain directors of a bank. The main issue is whether proceedings against a deceased director can be continued and if their liability can be enforced against their legal representative. The court considered the precedent set by the Sankaran v. Kottayam Bank case, which established that under English law, the estate of a deceased director is not liable for misfeasance. This principle has been consistently applied in Indian courts as well.
  
  The court referred to cases such as Manilal Brijlal v. Rao Saheb Vandravandas and Official Liquidators, Mufassil Bank v. Jugal Kishore, which emphasized that section 235 is limited to an inquiry into the conduct of officers in relation to the company's property and was not intended to involve the court in matters relating to the estate of a deceased person. The court reiterated that the right to continue proceedings under section 235 ends with the death of the director, as per the language of the Act.
  
  The judgment concludes by affirming the principle that proceedings under section 235 cannot be continued against a deceased director and dismisses the applications to set aside the abatement of the appeal and bring on record the legal representative of the deceased director. The court clarifies that the decision is limited to the specific issue of continuing proceedings under section 235 and does not address other potential remedies against the estate of the deceased director.

  ---

1234