Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 29 of 29 Records
-
1955 (8) TMI 32
... ... ... ... ..... lty of an act of discrimina- tion in exempting the other articles from sales tax but not sugar. It is said that there is general policy of encouraging cottage industry and it is said that the articles mentioned in paragraph 8 have been exempted in furtherance of this policy. It may be that there is a policy to encourage cottage industry. That does not mean that every cottage industry must necessarily be exempted from the payment of sales tax. The producers of sugar may be able to make higher profits and the Government thought that they should pay sales tax of 6 pies per rupee. The fact that there has been an improper discrimination has been denied in the counter-affidavit and, on the facts and circumstances proved in the case, I am unable to hold that the petitioners have succeeded in proving that the State Government has committed any act of improper discrimination in imposing sales tax on khandsari sugar. This petition fails and is dismissed with costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1955 (8) TMI 31
... ... ... ... ..... the cases against him alone were separated in the course of the trial, and the cases against him having been split up, the cases against the petitioner alone cease to be against the firm as such, and if the firm is not prosecuted, it has been held that the conviction cannot stand against the individual partner alone. It is true that the petitioner has admitted in his statement that he and Subramania Mudaliar were partners of the firm and that he failed to pay the balance. But his admission has no legal force inasmuch as the prosecution cannot be laid against him alone and the trial cannot be proceeded against the petitioner alone individually. I am, therefore, reluctantly compelled to set aside the convictions and sentences on the ground that the prosecutions have not been against the firm as such and that, therefore, they must fail. In the end, the convictions and sentences are set aside and the accused acquitted. The fines, if paid, will be refunded. Convictions set aside.
-
1955 (8) TMI 30
... ... ... ... ..... s decision has been followed by this Court in all subsequent cases. The view of the Calcutta High Court is also the same but for a different reason, for a Division Bench of that Court held in Ram Krishna Biswas v. Mohendra Nath Mazumdar(2), decided in 1900 that an order for payment of a daily fine is illegal inasmuch as it is an adjudication in respect of an offence which has not been committed when such order is passed. The recurring fine imposed on the present applicant is therefore illegal and must be set aside. In the result his conviction under section 14 (b) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act and the fine of Rs. 500 thereunder is upheld. But the order imposing a fine of Rs. 10 per day on him so long as the breach continues is set aside. With this modification this revision is dismissed. The applicant should pay up his fine of Rs. 500 without delay. Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court is refused. Petition dismissed. (1) (1918) I.L.R. 40 All. 569. (2) (1900) I.L.R. 27 Cal. 565.
-
1955 (8) TMI 29
Requirements with respect to memorandum ... ... ... ... ..... ecided in favour of defendant No. 1 bank, but defendant No. 1 bank should pay the plaintiffs the costs of the issues decided against defendant No 1 bank. Mr. Buch, learned counsel for the official liquidator of the mills company, has argued that the plaintiffs should be ordered to pay the costs of the mills company which is represented by the liquidator. It is stated that the liquidator has not incurred any costs by filing the written statement and the attitude taken up by the liquidator is not contentious and he has submitted to the orders of the court. In my opinion the plaintiffs must also pay the costs of defendant No. 2 company. As regards defendants Nos. 11 to 20, who are the shareholders of the company supporting the plaintiffs, Mr. Nariman, their learned counsel, has rightly stated that the proper order for costs, so far as they are concerned should be that they should bear their own costs. Therefore, there will be no order as to the costs of defendants Nos. 11 to 20.
-
1955 (8) TMI 22
Winding up - Liability as contributories of present and post members, Powers of liquidator ... ... ... ... ..... the purpose of the present revision, no question is raised as to whether the meeting at Nagpur to wind up the company was in order and whether the list of contributories was properly made. Nor is the court concerned at this stage with the question whether the restrictions on commencement of business in section 103 were complied with or not and the consequence of non-compliance with that provision. So I must proceed on/the basis that the winding up of the company and the appointment of the liquidator were decided upon at Nagpur. On the authorities the suit is one for enforcing a new liability which springs into existence, in the event of the company being wound up. So it is necessary for the plaintiff to set forth as part of his cause of action that the event has occurred. As that has occurred at Nagpur, it must be held that a part of the cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of the trial court. The revision applications accordingly fail and are dismissed with costs.
-
1955 (8) TMI 21
Court – Jurisdiction of and Winding up - Power of High Court to retain winding up proceedings in district Court
-
1955 (8) TMI 19
Directors - Power of and Winding up – Application for ... ... ... ... ..... the fact that the majority of the shareholders are opposed to the petition, It will be then open to the court before passing final orders to have a meeting of the shareholders convened to ascertain the wish of the majority. Article 99 of the Articles of Association of the petitioner company provides inter alia that the directors may exercise all such powers and do all such acts and things as may be exercised or done by the company, and are not hereby or by Statute expressly directed or required to be exercised or done by the company in or with the consent of a general meeting. It is not suggested that there is any statutory provision expressly requiring the consent of a general meeting for the presentation of a winding up petition. It follows therefore that the directors have the power to do what the company could have done, namely, to present the petition. I agree with Balakrishna Ayyar J. that the petition was validly presented. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.
-
1955 (8) TMI 18
Powers and duties of auditor ... ... ... ... ..... e, not only to the shareholders who employed him, but to the cause of joint stock enterprise in the country in general. He does so, because by not bringing to the notice of the shareholders matters which it is material for them to know and leaving the directors free to deal with the funds and the business of the company as they choose, he makes it possible for them to bring the company to ruin and thereby he contributes to the destruction of public confidence in joint stock enterprise. It is, therefore, not possible to regard the lapse of the respondent too lightly. We have given this matter our careful consideration and we think that, in all the circumstances of the case, the ends, of justice will not be served, unless the penalty imposed be substantial. We direct that the respondent be suspended from the membership of the Institute of Chartered Accountants and from practice for two years from the date of this order. Each party to bear its own costs. Lahiri J. mdash I agree.
-
1955 (8) TMI 1
Writ Jurisdiction - Alternative remedy - Pen ... ... ... ... ..... n the first place, there is no suggestion anywhere in the record that the Customs Authorities requisitioned the assistance of section 21 in assessing these fountain pens to duty. The judgment of the Collector is clear and he holds that the articles in question are assessable under item 61(8). But even on merit it is difficult to understand how section 21 can possibly have application to this case. As the marginal note correctly points out, it deals with goods partially composed of dutiable articles. Nobody has ever suggested that a fountain pen is a composite article consisting of different articles, some of them dutiable and some of them not dutiable. A fountain pen is one article which can only fall either under item 45(3) or item 61(8). Section 21 applies to entirely different set of facts which are not present before us. 10.Therefore, in our opinion, the learned Judge was right in the view that he took. The result is that the appeal fails and must be dismissed with costs.
|