Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1953 1953 (2) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA 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-- 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 >= 3 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 29 of 29 Records

• 1953 (2) TMI 39 - SUPREME COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... onstruction of the constitutional provisions. On the other hand, the Attorney-General's contention might, if accepted, lead to conflicting decisions by the Governor dealing with a reference under article 192 and by the Election Tribunal inquiring into an election petition under section 100 of the Parliamentary statute referrred to above. For the reasons indicated we agree with the learned Judge below in holding that articles 190(3) and 192(1) are applicable only to disqualifications to which a member becomes subject after he is elected as such, and that neither the Governor nor the Commission has jurisdiction to enquire into the respondent's disqualification which arose long before his election. As, however, we have held that the High Court was not competent under article 226 to issue any prerogative writ to the appellant Commission, the appeal is allowed and the writ of prohibition issued by the learned Judge is quashed. We make no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.

  ---

• 1953 (2) TMI 38 - SUPREME COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... was not possible to hold on those facts that any prejudice androse in the case by these two applications being sent by the appellants to the Sub- Divisional Magistrate or that any action was necessary for the protection of the tribunal which was engaged in hearing the case under section 145, Criminal Procedure Code. As observed by Rankin C.J. in Anantalal Singha v. Alfred Henry Watson ((1) (1931) 58 Cal. 884 at 895), the jurisdiction in contempt is not to be invoked unless there is real prejudice which can be regarded as a, substantial interference with the due course of justice and that the purpose of the court’s action is a practical purpose and it is reasonably clear on the authorities that the court will not exercise its jurisdiction upon a mere question of propriety. The result is that we allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court against the two appellants and acquit them of the charge under section 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act. Appeal allowed.

  ---

• 1953 (2) TMI 37 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... lanation to para. 10, West Bengal Food-grains Control Order, which provides that any stock of rice or paddy in the possession or under the control of the members of a household shall be deemed to be in the possession or under the control of the head of the household. This only limits the liability in the case of the members of a household to the head of the household, and makes other members not liable. If it is established in the course of the trial that Anil Kumar Samanta and Sunil Kumar Samanta belong to the same household, then only the petitioner who is the head of the household will be liable in view of the explanation. But if they do not belong to the same household, then both would be jointly liable in view of the definition of "person" as contained in the General Clauses Act, 1897. That is a question that will have to be decided at the trial; but the contention raised by Mr. Mukherjee cannot be accepted in this Court. This Rule, is therefore, discharged. ;

  ---

• 1953 (2) TMI 36 - TRAVANCORE AND COCHIN HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... tigation as well as in the course of it should be considered. These pro- ceedings, however, were not necessitated on account of any false return submitted by the assessees. After assessment, realising the inadequate and perhaps the un-supportability of the return made by them, the assessees conceded their liability to pay sales tax upon a much larger amount of turnover than was admitted by them in their return and took exception only to the levy of sales tax upon the exports outside India. He however sought in his application the cancellation of the entire proceedings relating to the sales tax. In view of these conflicting circumstances, I consider it proper not to disallow costs altogether to the petitioners but to make the burden of the respondents very light. Under the circumstances I allow the petition and quash the sales tax proceedings to the extent above indicated and give the prohibition asked for with costs and Advocate s fee which I fix at Rs. 25. Petition allowed.

  ---

• 1953 (2) TMI 35 - SUPREME COURT
  

  CHANGE OF LAW — RIGHT TO APPEAL ON PAYMENT OF TAX ADMITTED TO BE DUE - INITIATION OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BEFORE AMENDMENT BUT COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT AFTER AMENDMENT

  ---

• 1953 (2) TMI 26 - IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
  

  Form of contracts

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... f of the company in writing signed by any person acting under its authority, express or implied. ) That section, as I read it, is merely dealing with the way in which a company makes contracts, and I do not find that this present contract was one made with Mr. Newborne as agent for the company. This was a contract which purported to be a contract with the company, and I find myself in full agreement with the way in which this matter was expressed by the trial judge when he said This company was not in existence and.............the signature on that document, and, indeed, the document itself.............is a complete nullity. I agree, therefore, that the appeal fails. Romer L.J. I agree with the judgment of Parker J., and also with my Lord s judgment, and there is nothing that I can usefully add. There was also an appeal by the defendants, but in view of the decision of the Court of Appeal this was not pursued. Solicitors Godfrey Davis and Foster Ashurst, Morris Crisp and Co.

  ---

• 1953 (2) TMI 25 - HIGH COURT OF TRAVANCORE-COCHIN
  

  Winding up - Powers of liquidator

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... t an inadequate price. In seeking to control action of its officer there is no rule that the court can do it only on the complaint of an aggrieved or interested party. The decision in Hanseswar Ghosh v. Rakhal Das Ghosh was followed by the Lahore High Court in Data Ram v. Deoki Nandan and by the Madras High Court in the case referred to by the learned Judge, namely, Sayyed Kasim Sahib v. Official Receiver, Guntur. In the above view of the matter the question whether respondent No. 1 was a person aggrieved need not be decided. When the court s officer is reported to be guilty of fraudulent conduct in the discharge of his duties the court has not only jurisdiction but is also in duty bound to inquire into the officer s conduct before his action is ratified. It is on this basis that the learned Judge posted the first respondent s petition (CM.P. 4180) for evidence and we hold that the course adopted is thoroughly warranted by law. The appeal fails and it is dismissed with costs.

  ---

• 1953 (2) TMI 19 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
  

  Company – Membership of

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... espect of one share there cannot be more than one member. No authority whatever has been adduced by Mr. Desai for this proposition. It is difficult to understand on principle why, if in respect of one share more than one person is interested, they cannot all be registered as members if they have all applied to the company and the share has been allotted to all of them. In our opinion, therefore, the learned Judge below was right when he held that in respect of the debt of plaintiff No. 2 the company was entitled to claim a lien under its articles in respect of the shares which plaintiff No. 2 held jointly with plaintiff No. 1 and/or plaintiff No. 3 and/or Harkuverbai who is defendant No. 4 to the counterclaim. The result is that the appeal fails and must be dismissed with costs in favour of respondent No. 1. Liberty to respondent No. 1 s attorneys to withdraw the sum of Rs. 500 deposited by the appellants and to apply the same in part satisfaction of the decree passed herein.

  ---

• 1953 (2) TMI 18 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
  

  Winding up - Preferential payments

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... in a case where an assessee wants in winding up proceedings to reopen an assessment which has been made by the Income-tax authorities. It is up to him to show that there is some reason which requires the assessment to be set aside. I, therefore, negative the contention of the Liquidator on this point. In making payment to any of the employees the liquidator would be entitled to set off any claim which the bank may have against the said employee. Mr. Das s client will be paid in accordance with the order of Bachawat, J. Rs. 716 be returned to the parties whose ornaments were pledged with the bank and sold by the bank. Mr. Das s client will pay his own costs Mr. Chowdhury s clients are entitled to costs settled at Rs. 250. Government will pay its own costs. The Liquidator will get his costs of this application as between attorney and client, certified for counsel. Liquidator will get his costs before the Referee assessed at Rs. 100. Let the application be taxed as of a motion.

  ---

12