Case Laws |
Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1954 1954 (1) This
|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 42 of 42 Records
-
1954 (1) TMI 9
Winding up - Power to apply to court to have questions determined or powers exercised ... ... ... ... ..... tion for an order for a public examination there is the overriding safeguard mdash that the report on which the application is based must be considered by the judge personally and quite obviously when the court decides under section 307 to exercise the power under section 270 in a voluntary liquidation it must be furnished with the necessary material for considering whether or not the serious step should be taken of ordering a public examination. For those reasons, applying the reasoning of Evershed M.R., which, as I said, I regard as binding upon me, but with which also I respectfully agree, I propose on this motion merely to discharge the order of the registrar, so that the matter may go back to him with a view to the next step being taken mdash that I shall be furnished with the report upon which the application for the public examination of the director in question is based. The costs of this application will be costs in the liquidation. Solicitors Clifford-Turner and Go.
-
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.
|
|