Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1957 1957 (6) 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 1 to 6 of 6 Records

• 1957 (6) TMI 17
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... llowed. Though the observations are obiter, they are in accord with our view. 10. The legal position may now be summarised. An application under Article 228 of the Constitution of India is a proceeding in a court of civil jurisdiction. The provisions of Orders 1 and 2 can be invoked as far as they can be made applicable to the proceedings in a writ application under Article 226. Ordinarily, two or more persons cannot join in a single petition to enforce separate claims. But where the right to relief arises from the same act or transaction and there is a common question of law or fact or where, though the right to relief claimed does not arise from the same act or transaction, the petitioners are jointly interested in the causes of causes of action, one petition is maintainable at their instance. In the present case, the petitioners are aggrieved by a single act of the Collector, and a common question of law and fact arises and therefore, a single application is maintainable.

  ---

• 1957 (6) TMI 16
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... sly fed both the contracts. It would be seen from the facts in that case that the assessees entered into an agreement to sell the goods to a third party. When delivery was taken at the other end, it was construed to have a composite effect, namely, delivery by the mills to the assessees and delivery by the assessees to a third party. But, in the present case, on the facts found by the courts below, there is no scope for the application of either of the two principles for the property in the goods did not pass from the mills to the assessees and there was no agreement of sale of goods to be obtained in future between the assessees and the third party. That decision, therefore, is not helpful in deciding this case. We hold that, on the facts found in this case, the transfer of the delivery orders is not a sale of goods within the meaning of the Madras General Sales Tax Act. In the result, the appeals fail and are dismissed with costs in S.A. No. 195 of 1954. Appeals dismissed.

  ---

• 1957 (6) TMI 15
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... years, no attempt had been made before to tax these Aratdars in respect of the business of selling pan of the producers who came and stocked their pan in their huts. In the result this petition fails. The rule is discharged. There will be no order as to costs. The operation of the order is stayed for four weeks from date. C.R. No. 3904 of 1953. In this application it is admitted that the petitioner is a dealer but the ground on which exemption from taxation is asked for is that pan or betel leaf comes within the meaning of the word vegetable as found in item 6. But as I have already held in C.R. No. 3560 of 1953 that pan does not come within the meaning of the word vegetable as used in item 6 of the schedule this petition must fail and the Rule is accordingly discharged. The operation of the order is stayed for four weeks from date. C.R. Nos. 3890 to 3903 and C.R. No. 3905 of 1953. The order made in C.R. No. 3560 of 1953 will govern each of these cases. Petitions dismissed.

  ---

• 1957 (6) TMI 14
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... y him shall be deducted from his gross turnover. 3.. It is impossible to say that the sum of Rs. 77,555-7-0 paid by the petitioner to the Warehouse Licensee along with the price of the tobacco purchased by him is excise duty paid by him to the Central Government. The liability to pay excise duty is not of the petitioner but of the person who produces, cures or manufactures any excisable goods, or who stores such goods in a warehouse. This is clear from the Central Excise Rules, 1944, which provides Every person who produces, cures or manufactures any excisable goods, or who stores such goods in a warehouse, shall pay the duty or duties leviable on such goods, at such time and place and to such person as may be designated in, or under the authority of these Rules, whether the payment of such duty or duties is secured by bond or otherwise . (Rule 7). 4.. In the light of what is stated above this petition must fail and should be dismissed. Order accordingly. Petition dismissed.

  ---

• 1957 (6) TMI 13
  

  Winding up - Power of court to declare dissolution of company void

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ch have held that the fact that the court passes the order after the period does not matter. See In re Crookhaven Mining Co. 1866 3 Eq. 69 LORD ROMILLY M.R. was not called upon there to decide that the court s jurisdiction was limited to consideration of petitions filed within three months only. But nevertheless he expressed himself in favour of the jurisdiction even after the period had elapsed. There appears therefore to be no question of jurisdiction involved in this case and the prior orders overruling the Registrar s contention must prevail. Even otherwise the court has always jurisdiction under section 559 to declare a dissolution void, and the prior orders could, in any event, be deemed to have been passed in the exercise of that jurisdiction. 3. On the whole I am inclined to allow the petition. I do so and extend the time of dissolution for a period of six months from 8th February, 1957, the date of this petition. There will be no order for costs in the circumstances.

  ---

• 1957 (6) TMI 12
  

  Memorandum of association – Special resolution and confirmation by CLB required for alteration of

  ---

1