Case Laws |
Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1957 1957 (3) This
|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 46 of 46 Records
-
1957 (3) TMI 43
Winding up - Powers and duties of liquidator ... ... ... ... ..... should be given to the same words when they are applied to a members voluntary winding up. In my view, reading the provisions of section 512 as a whole, it is not necessary for the liquidators in a voluntary winding up to obtain the sanction of the court for the sale of the immovable and movable properties of the company. I answer question (a) raised in the petition accordingly. In view, however, of the fact that the amount of the purchase price is very large and the language of the section is far from happy, the purchasers counsel has invited me to accord my sanction to the sale. The liquidators counsel has also invited me to do so. I have powers under section 518 of the Companies Act, 1956, to accord such sanction. In this case, the sale appears to me to be beneficial to the company and its members and I accord my sanction to the same. As the parties have entered into an agreement in connection with the question of costs, I do not make any order in connection with the same.
-
1957 (3) TMI 41
Power of court to rectify register of members ... ... ... ... ..... any party to the application and that those words his name do not qualify the expression the title of any person . It is therefore argued that as Srimany is a party to this application his name can be put on the share register. I am not inclined to accept that contention of the applicant. I am inclined to the view that the words to have his name mean the name of the person, the question relating to whose title is being, decided by this court on this application. Srimany has now admittedly no title to the shares and therefore I think the court should not and cannot rectify the share register today by putting his name on the share register as holder of these shares, even though Srimany is a party to this application. The application, therefore, is dismissed. If the applicant files a suit within a month from date, then the costs of this application will be costs in the cause. In default of filing such a suit within the time, the applicant will pay all costs of this application.
-
1957 (3) TMI 40
Winding up - Preferential payments ... ... ... ... ..... e the commencement of the voluntary winding up. What had been awarded to the workmen by the Tribunal is in the nature of an ex gratia payment de hors the contract of service. It is not payment of remuneration in respect of services rendered to the company. The question as to whether the workmen are entitled to priority in respect of the amount payable to them under the award of the Industrial Tribunal must be decided with reference to section 230 of the Companies Act and the language employed in that section is unequivocal and clear. I must therefore hold that the amount payable to the workmen as compensation is not entitled to preferential payment under section 230. If so, the attachment made by the Collector must be held to be without jurisdiction. The result is that the petition is allowed with costs against respondents 1 and 2, and the attachment ordered by the Collector of Hyderabad against the building bearing No. 1-9-1 in Azamabad belonging to the company is set aside.
-
1957 (3) TMI 20
Board’s report ... ... ... ... ..... ing in detail the passages cited to us. What is accepted as a sound principle of accountancy may not always justify a claim under the income-tax law, nor can it necessarily decide the issue, whether the claim made by the assessee in this case, that a specified sum constituted a reserve, should be negatived. In our opinion the claim of the assessee that the sum of Rs. 9,00,000 constituted reserve within the meaning of rule 2(1) of Schedule II should even on the merits prevail. Our answer to the first of the questions referred to this court is that the sum of Rs. 11,00,000 formed part of the company s capital within the meaning of rule 2(1) of Schedule II read with section 2(1)(a) of the Business Profits Tax Act in respect of the chargeable accounting period 1st April, 1946, to 31st December, 1946. We answer the second question in the negative and against the assessee. Since neither side has wholly succeeded in its contentions we make no order as to the costs of this reference.
-
1957 (3) TMI 19
Directors - Only individuals to be directors ... ... ... ... ..... tural and less forced meaning of the article was that once he accepted a directorship, whether he resigned thereafter or not, he should be deemed to have agreed to take the shares from the company. Therefore, neither the judgment of the majority, nor the dissenting judgment of Lord Justice Lindley is of much assistance to the contention of the respondent that the appellants should be put on the list of contributories. The result, therefore, is that we must differ from the view taken by the learned Judge. The appeal will, therefore, be allowed with costs and the order passed by the learned Judge will be set aside. The order for costs passed by the learned Judge will also be set aside and the respondent will be ordered to pay to the appellants the sum of Rs. 120 being costs of the chamber summons. The order for costs against the liquidator is limited to the assets of the company in his hands. Liberty to the appellants attorneys to withdraw the sum of Rs. 500 deposited in court.
-
1957 (3) TMI 18
Return as to allotment ... ... ... ... ..... usion and I hold that the alleged practice of paying the surplus sale proceeds to the expelled member pleaded in paragraph 16 of the plaint is ultra vires the respondent association and invalid. Since that decision the surplus of the balance of the sale proceeds in such cases is always added to the capital reserve in the balance sheet of the respondent Association. I need only add that the balance sheet shows the value of the forfeited shares at their face value. The 1955 balance sheet includes this under the heading Subscribed and paid up capital less values indicated against forfeited shares and then the value is also stated of the forfeited shares issued as fully paid up for cash consideration of each share at Rs. 1,000. This is, at best, a matter of accounting and not a matter of interpretation and cannot affect the larger question on the meaning and ambit of section 75(5) of the Companies Act, 1956. For these reasons the application must fail and is dismissed with costs.
|
|