Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1957 1957 (4) 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 41 to 49 of 49 Records

• 1957 (4) TMI 38 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB
  

  Compromise and arrangement, Amalgamation

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... which should reach the chairman at least 48 hours before the time of the meeting. The proxy may be a member or a non-member, but if he is not a member, he shall have only a right to vote but not to participate in the discussion or speak at the meeting. Quorum of the meeting shall be twenty present in person or by proxy. The chairman shall have the power to adjourn the meeting to some other date or time if this is considered necessary. The chairman shall submit his report to this court on or before 20th July, 1957. Objections, if any, should be filed in this court on or before 3rd August, 1957. The company is directed to get its assets valued by an expert within four weeks of this order and to send a copy of the valuation report to the shareholders and the Registrar of Companies. Case to come up on 9th August, 1957. The remuneration of the chairman and of the alternate chairman shall be Rs. 300 and Rs. 150 respectively. A copy of this order be sent to the respective chairman.

  ---

• 1957 (4) TMI 37 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
  

  Penalty for false statements

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... do. In paragraphs 10 and 11 of the counter-affidavit in Writ Petition No. 620 of 1956 the Registrar explained that, subsequent to the institution of the proceedings in the court of the magistrate, the Registrar issued notices to the petitioner with respect to each of the three companies. The petitioner received a letter addressed to the director of Kubera Mines on 21st June, 1956, but he did not make any representations thereafter to the Registrar. The letters addressed to the other two companies, Kohinoor Corporation Ltd., and the Indian Commercial Steam Navigation Co. Ltd., were returned unserved with the endorsement not known. There is little substance in the contention of the petitioner, that had he been given an opportunity by the Registrar the petitioner could have avoided the initiation of proceedings in the court of the magistrate. Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions Nos. 261 to 265 of 1957 are dismissed. Writ Petition No. 620 of 1956 is dismissed. No order as to costs.

  ---

• 1957 (4) TMI 36 - HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
  

  Winding up - Preferential payments

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ee, or in the case of his death to any other person in his right, on the termination of his employment before, or by the effect of, the winding up order or resolution. The absence of such a provision in the Companies Act of 1913 is significant. In order that a person may be entitled to preferential payment, his claim must come within the ambit of one or other of the clauses in sub-section (1) of section 230 of the Act. As already stated, counsel for the employees fairly conceded that the claim could not be brought under section 230(1)(b). I have already held that the claim could not be brought under section 230(1)(e) of the Companies Act. There is no other provision in the Companies Act which entitles the employees to be paid the money equivalent of the accumulated leave as a preferential payment. The claim of the employees to preferential payment cannot therefore be allowed. The liquidator will have his costs of this application, that is Rs. 7 from the assets of the company.

  ---

• 1957 (4) TMI 34 - HIGH COURT BOMBAY
  

  Savings of orders, rules, etc., in force at commencement of the Act

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... eral provision and must give way to the special provision which has been made in regard to the same matter by a special law, that is, the Companies Act, 1956. In the circumstances, therefore, I overrule the preliminary objection and hold that this court alone has jurisdiction to entertain the applications. The applications will now be heard on merits. 6. It may be mentioned that an application has also been made on behalf of the applicant in each of these two applications, for the issue of a temporary injunction against the non-applicants restraining them from holding a meeting of the shareholders till the decision of these applications. Shri Dhabe states that no such meeting was intended to be held till the 8th of June and he assures the court that no meeting will now be held till the applications are decided by this court. Accepting this assurance, I do not think it necessary to issue a temporary injunction. The applications will accordingly be heard in the ordinary course.

  ---

• 1957 (4) TMI 33 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
  

  Shares warrants and entries in register of members, Transfer of Shares – Power to to refuse registration on and appeal refusal, Powers of Court to rectify register of members

  ---

• 1957 (4) TMI 31 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
  

  Winding up – Appointment of official liquidator

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... cannot be made any more by the court. At the same time, I feel that this is a case which should be reported to the Government of India for consideration whether they should not, in making these appointments, make some provision for furnishing security by the court liquidator, and how in fact the premium in respect thereof should be paid and whether the liabilities would be a charge on the revenues, as provided in section 6 of the Calcutta Official Receivers Act, 1938. interest of fairness, prudence and safety appears to demand such a provision. I therefore direct that a copy of this judgment be sent to the Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Companies and economic Affairs). For the present, I therefore direct that the present court liquidator need not furnish any security, and I hold that I have no power or jurisdiction to ask him to furnish security. The costs of this application will be as prayed for in prayer D of the petition and are assessed at Rs. 102.

  ---

• 1957 (4) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Whether the single non-recurring premia or salamis paid to the landlord assessee once only as consideration for the settlement of agricultural land at the time of granting a lease can be held to be income within the meaning of the Act ?

  Whether single non-recurring premia or salamis paid to the landlord assessee as consideration for the settlement of agricultural land once only at the time of granting lease when such premia or salamis are not dependent on the rate of rent charged, can be held to be income within the meaning of the Act ?

  Held that:- The manner in which the leases were dealt with and the fact that in no case was a non-occupancy tenant evicted and his tenure was allowed to mature into all occupancy holding shows that the leases were in practice not so precarious as was suggested by the Board, but had an element of stability and permanency attached to them. Therefore, when a tenant paid salami he did so in order to get in return an estate in the land owned by the zamindar. Salami is thus not rent and both parties have proceeded on that basis and it could not be called revenue within the meaning of the word used in the definition of agricultural income under section 2(1)(a) of the Act because it was a payment to the landlord by the tenant as a consideration for the transfer of a right in zamindari lands owned by the landlord. It has therefore all the characteristics of a capital payment and is not revenue. Questions answered in the negative.

  ---

• 1957 (4) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Whether either section 48 of the Act or section 46(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act or both offend articles 14, 19, 21 and 22 of the Constitution?

  Whether the respondent was deprived of his personal liberty in accordance with a procedure established by law, i.e., a valid law?

  Held that:- neither section 48 of the Act nor section 46(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act violates articles 14, 19, 21 and 22 of the Constitution.

  From the affidavits filed in the High Court by the Collector and the Income-tax Officer it is quite clear that there was material upon which the Collector could base his belief that the respondent was wilfully withholding payment of the arrears of tax and had been guilty of fraudulent conduct in order to evade payment. The Collector was, therefore, justified in arresting the respondent.The respondent may, if he is taken into custody again, approach the Collector for his release who could do so, in the circumstances set out in section 59 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in the exercise of his powers under the proviso to section 46(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act.The appeal is accordingly allowed with costs and the judgment of the High Court is aside.

  ---

• 1957 (4) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Whether amounts shown by an insurance company as reserves, for unexpired risks on pending policies are liable to be deducted under rule 2 of Schedule II to the Excess Profits Tax Act (XV of 1940)?

  Held that:- A contingent liability in respect of unexpired risk is not an accruing liability " within rule 2 of Schedule II to the Act. Appeal dismissed.

  ---

123