Case Laws |
Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1956 1956 (10) This
|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 24 of 24 Records
-
1956 (10) TMI 24
Share – Allotment of and Shares of shareholders dissenting from scheme or contract approved by majority – Power and duty to acquire
-
1956 (10) TMI 22
Overall maximum managerial remuneration, Remuneration of directors and Remuneration to managing agent
-
1956 (10) TMI 21
Penalty for wrongful with holding of property ... ... ... ... ..... us than an offence under section 406 or 409 or 477A of the Indian Penal Code. This is made evident by the fact that a person found guilty under section 282A can be punished only with fine not exceeding Rs. 1,000, whereas a person found guilty under section 406 of the Indian Penal Code can be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine or with both and a person found guilty under section 409 of the Indian Penal Code can be awarded a more severe punishment. For the offence under section 477A the punishment can extend to imprisonment for seven years. We agree with the learned Judge, Rajagopalan J., that the scope of section 282A of the Indian Companies Act of 1913 is quite distinct and different from the scope of sections 406, 409 and 477A of the Indian Penal Code. There is no ground therefore for preventing the police officer from continuing the investigation with which he had been entrusted. The appeal is dismissed.
-
1956 (10) TMI 1
Warehoused goods - liability of surety ... ... ... ... ..... since he has himself written on 21st August, 1947 under Ex. B-1 to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise pointing out that the licensee is trying to dispose of the balance of tobacco without the knowledge of the authorities. But it must be noted that he refers therein to the licence No. L. 5 No. 14/44. It cannot be that he was really aware of the implications of his letter as to his liability for any period subsequent to the period covered by the said licence. It may be that by way of abundant caution he wrote this letter to the Excise authorities as to the conduct of this second defendant. That would not anyhow impose a liability on him which is not contemplated under Ex. A-1. In my view, on a construction of Ex. A-1 and the relevant rules, the first defendant would not be liable. 6. The result is, the second appeal is allowed with costs and the suit is dismissed so far as the first defendant is concerned. Each party will bear their respective costs in the court below.
|
|