|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 29 of 29 Records
-
1961 (5) TMI 42 - IN THE CHANCERY DIVISION
Winding up – Powers of tribunal on hearing petition ... ... ... ... ..... n, the company should be put into voluntary liquidation. Equally, the petitioner must have known that any person applying for a compulsory order would encounter the opposition of the unsecured creditors of greater weight. Its own debt was less than one-half per cent, of the claims of the whole of the unsecured creditors and no special ground has been suggested upon which an order would be likely to be made. In those circumstances the petitioner must have recognised that the petition would be virtually bound to fail. In all the circumstances, I have come to the conclusion that the petitioner must be taken as having acted unreasonably in presenting the petition. A fortiori, the petitioner acted unreasonably in prosecuting the petition after the interview and letter of April 24. It follows that, in my judgment, the petitioner is not entitled to any relaxation in the matter of costs, and that I must direct the petitioner to pay the costs of the company and the opposing creditors.
-
1961 (5) TMI 41 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB
Power of court to rectify register of members ... ... ... ... ..... this case. I cannot persuade myself to come to the conclusion that the names of the new shareholders had been entered on the register of members of the company without sufficient cause. The contesting respondents had paid full consideration and consequently their names had been entered on the register of members. The allottees of these shares had contracted in good faith with the company and they were entitled to assume that the acts of directors in making allotment of shares, were within the scope of their powers. Moreover the matter relates to the internal management and I do not think that a case has been made out for interference by this court with the decision of the majority of directors. After giving careful consideration to the arguments of the learned counsel, I am not satisfied that the petitioners have made out a case for interference by this court under section 155 of the Companies Act, 1956. In my view, the petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed with costs.
-
1961 (5) TMI 37 - IN THE CHANCERY DIVISION
Winding up – Powers of tribunal on hearing petition ... ... ... ... ..... not obtained judgment is in the same position, providing that his debt is not disputed, and I do not think that there is anything in the judgment of Wynn-Parry J. Ibid. 776, which precludes me from holding that the fair practice, to quote the judge, is the same in the case of such a creditor. He, too, is entitled to a winding up order unless other creditors intervene, and if they do intervene, I do not see why he, any more than a judgment creditor, should have to pay costs, provided that he acts reasonably. The position would, of course, be quite different if the debt was disputed, so that it would be impossible to tell, apart from the intervention of other creditors, whether he would have been entitled to an order. In the case before me, the petitioning creditor s debt has never been disputed, and I do not think that he should be ordered to pay costs merely because he has not obtained judgment. Accordingly, no order will be made as to costs against the petitioning creditor.
-
1961 (5) TMI 12 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB
Register to be kept by registrar and inspection thereof ... ... ... ... ..... cted beyond the scope of the functions which he is called upon to discharge under section 306 the result of which is that the status of the petitioners has been adversely affected. The so-called decision of the Registrar as conveyed in his letter No. T/1896/15870 dated 1st/2nd December, 1960 (annexure L ), and his endorsement No. T/15871 returning the papers filed by C.D. Sharma is manifestly wrong and is, therefore, quashed being of no legal effect. The Registrar is directed to receive the returns which had been sent by Shri C.D. Sharma. As the two versions of the two groups are sharply conflicting, he may not make entries on the register as required under section 306 till the respective claims of the contestants are decided by a court of competent jurisdiction. In the result, the petition succeeds and the recognition given by the Registrar in his communication, annexure L , is held to be of no legal effect whatsoever. In the circumstances there will be no order as to costs.
-
1961 (5) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT
Whether certified copies of statements recorded or orders passed by the income-tax authorities were admissible in evidence under section 65 of the Evidence Act to prove the contents of those documents?
Held that:- The Subordinate Judge expressly recorded in the proceeding dated November 18, 1955, that he did " not mean to say that certified copy of the document will not be admissible in evidence at the time of the trial of the suit if the said certified copy is otherwise found to be admissible in evidence. Appeal dismissed.
-
1961 (5) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT
Whether on the facts of the case a loss of ₹ 22,981 is allowable in computing the income of the assessee chargeable to the excess profits tax ?
Held that:- As to the first ground, it seems clear to us that under the third proviso to section 5 of the Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940, where the profits etc. of a part of the firm's business accrued or arose at Bhatinda, that part of the business shall for the purpose of the said section be deemed to be a separate business. The High Court was in error in thinking that the third proviso to section 5 of the Excess Profits Tax Act did not touch the question which the High Court had to answer. On the contrary, we think that the proviso answers the question against the assessee.
We agree that if the income did not arise or accrue in Bhatinda but the whole of it arose in Delhi, the third proviso would have no application. If, however, part of the income etc. arose in Bhatinda, then that part of the business was a separate business for the purposes of the Excess Profits Tax Act and the losses incurred at Bhatinda could not be taken into account. We are of the view that, on the facts found, the answer to the question must be in favour of the appellant and against the assessee. Civil Appeal be allowed.
-
1961 (5) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT
Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... were paid to the respondent. Such a determination in our view is one on a question of law, and not of fact. The High Court, in our view, was in error in declining to call for a statement of the case from the Tribunal. We, therefore, declare that the following question of law arises and direct that the Tribunal do make a statement of the case on that question Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 7 lakhs is liable to tax under section 7 of the Indian Income-tax Act ? Civil Appeal No. 458 of 1960, being an appeal against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, has not been pressed before us and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Civil Appeal No. 457 of 1960 is allowed and for the order passed by the High Court an order calling for a statement of the case to the High Court will be substituted. Costs of this appeal will be costs in the reference to the High Court. Appeal No. 457 of 1960 allowed. Appeal No. 458 of 1960 dismissed.
-
1961 (5) TMI 2 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Import
... ... ... ... ..... uch a case. The appellants had placed the order and the goods had arrived when admittedly the practice prevailing both with the merchants and with the Custom authorities permitted goods of the category which the appellants imported under a licence such as the appellants held. The Collector does not appear to have dealt with the case as if he was vested with judicial discretion because he has not given any reason why the drastic punishment of confiscation should have been imposed on the appellants whereas two other similar merchants who had committed the same offence had been let off with a warning. 16. Therefore on both the grounds, namely, that there was an error apparent on the face of the record, and that the Collector as a quasi-judicial tribunal had not exercised his discretion judicially, the order of the Collector should be quashed. We allow the appeal and the writ petition and quash the impugned order of the Collector dated 10th March, 1958. No order as to costs.
-
1961 (5) TMI 1 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Writ Jurisdiction - Natural Justice ... ... ... ... ..... ce that personal hearing is not an empty formality. I am therefore of opinion that the order is impeachable on this ground also. 22.I shall now deal with the third contention of Mr. Meyer counsel for the petitioner that in the event of my conclusion that the petitioner is entitled to succeed the petitioner is entitled to claim refund in terms of prayer (c). In view of the conclusion reached that the order is illegal I quash and set aside the same. It has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Universal Imports Agency v. Collector of Customs - A.I.R. 1961 S.C. 41 that on finding an order of confiscation and penalty to be illegal the Court has power to order refund of such penalty or increased duty levied. I therefore make the Rule absolute in terms, of prayer (a), (b) and (c). The petitioner is entitled to costs of this application, I specify six weeks as the time within which the Customs Authority the respondents herein will refund the amount mentioned in the petition.
|
