|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 105 Records
-
1971 (11) TMI 95 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Winding up – Suits stayed on winding-up order ... ... ... ... ..... proceedings in a court of first instance analogous to a suit initiated by means of a petition similar to a plaint. But we are not concerned with that problem in the present case. The Federal Court expressed no opinion whatsoever on the other view of the Lahore High Court, namely, a suit under order 21, rule 63, could not be commenced without leave under section 171 of the Indian Companies Act, 1913. Mr. Sen appearing for the bank in liquidation has relied on the decisions in Rameshwarlal v. Pareek Commercial Bank Ltd. 1971 41 Comp. Cas. 635 (Appendix) AIR 1970 Raj. 12 and Srinivasa Naicker v. Nagappa Chettiar 1971 41 Comp. Cas. 550 (Mad.). But in view of the principles the Supreme Court has discussed in the case referred to above, we consider it unnecessary to go into these decisions. The result, therefore, is that this rule is discharged. There will be no order as to costs. The liquidator will retain his costs out of the company s assets. SALIL KUMAR DATTA J. mdash I agree.
-
1971 (11) TMI 94 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Shares – Power, to issue of at discount, Shares warrants and entries in register of members ... ... ... ... ..... by the learned judge cannot be sustained to its full extent. The plaintiff in view of our finding is only entitled to the return of the sum of Rs. 45,000 with interest at the rate of 5 from the date of suit. We do not think that the omission of a specific separate prayer for the return of Rs. 45,000 by the plaintiff in the plaint should deter us from granting them a decree for the return of that sum. The claim for recovery of Rs. 90,000 by way of damages is a larger relief and there is no legal bar in our allowing the plaintiff a decree for Rs. 45,000. The plaintiff is not entitled to any other relief. We, therefore, set aside the decree and judgment of the court below and pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of the sum of Rs. 45,000 with interest thereon at the rate of 5 per annum from the date of suit till date of recovery. The appeal is allowed to the above extent and dismissed otherwise. The parties will bear their costs throughout.
-
1971 (11) TMI 93 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Winding up – Delivery of property to liquidator ... ... ... ... ..... of the company court. That decision remains, and the position too. And it is clear that the Government is amenable to the jurisdiction of the company court under section 185.) The next argument is that the question raised involves an investigation to find out whether any amount is due to the company and, therefore, the case will not come within the expression to which the company is prima facie entitled in section 185. To that, our short answer is the answer Varadachariar J. gave in the Madras decision already noted. The learned judge observed It is true the section does not contemplate an elaborate enquiry, but the discretion must be left to the court to decide whether any particular claim can or cannot be conveniently dealt with under that section. The lower court has thought that this is a question which that court can conveniently consider and we do not also feel otherwise. In the result, the decision of the lower court is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed with costs.
-
1971 (11) TMI 92 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Company when deemed unable to pay its debts ... ... ... ... ..... is unnecessary to consider the further contention of the substituted petitioners that the company is commercially insolvent and is unable to pay its debts. As in spite of service of a statutory notice as required by section 434 (1)(a) of the Act the company has failed and neglected to pay to the substituted creditors the sum of Rs. 24,000 due to them with interest and has failed to secure or compound for it to the reasonable satisfaction of the creditors, this is a clear case where the company is unable to pay its debts. In the result, Canhag Private Ltd. is ordered to be wound up by and under the directions of this court and the official liquidator is appointed liquidator of the company with all necessary powers under the Act. The costs of Fatehi Brothers as supporting creditors as also substituted petitioning creditors do come out of the assets of the company. The order for winding up be advertised in the same newspapers in which the petition was directed to be advertised.
-
1971 (11) TMI 91 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Penalty for false evidence ... ... ... ... ..... nt, the petitioner moved the court again in the said M.P. No. 7 of 1970 for disposing of the complaint in accordance with law. This request of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that it is for the police to register a case and investigate. This reason of the court below cannot at all be sustained. When a statutory complaint under section 629 of the Indian Companies Act is filed before the court, the court should dispose it of in accordance with law. The Magistrate cannot merely direct the police to register a case and investigate without himself passing any final order on the statutory complaint filed by the petitioner. I therefore, set aside the order of the court below and direct it to take the complaint on file and dispose of the same in accordance with law. As I am of the view that the order forwarding the complaint to the police under section 156(3), Criminal Procedure Code, is illegal, the complaint has to be called back and disposed of one way or the other.
-
1971 (11) TMI 90 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Meetings and proceedings - Annual General Meeting, Inherent powers of Court ... ... ... ... ..... iance is placed in this behalf, reads Inherent powers of court. mdash Nothing in these rules shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent Dowers of the court to give such directions or pass such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the court. I am unable to accept the argument that by virtue of this rule, the applicant Nidhi can be granted the relief asked for. Rule 9 is analogous to section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is well settled that the inherent power cannot be invoked where express provision is made for the relief by conferring power upon other authorities. No ground is made out by the applicant as to why they did not approach the Central Government to exercise their power under section 167. Rule 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules cannot be applied to override the express provisions of the Act. In the result, I find that the application is not maintainable. It is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
-
1971 (11) TMI 89 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Winding up - Transfer of winding up proceedings to district court, Books to be kept by liquidator, Custody of company’s property, Winding up - Enforcement of duty of liquidator to make returns, etc.
-
1971 (11) TMI 86 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Company – Service of documents on members by ... ... ... ... ..... sent to Thanu Pillai to the address which was recorded in the bank s books. Such a notice is valid under law. If there was such a notice it is not open to the respondents to contend that the forfeiture of the payments already made was not in accordance with law. The forfeiture order passed by the bank is valid and correct and it cannot be questioned. The notice, in the circumstances of this case, is sufficient and valid. There is no other contention in the suit excepting the question as to the validity of the notice. Having found that the notice is valid, the plaintiff will be entitled to a decree as prayed for against the assets of deceased Thanu Pillai, if any, in the hands of the defendants. In the result, the revision petition is allowed and the suit is decreed as prayed for against the assets of deceased Thanu Pillai, if any, in the hands of the defendants. The plaintiff bank is now a nationalised bank. So the Canara Bank will be entitled to get the decree as prayed for.
-
1971 (11) TMI 80 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Annual return - General, Annual Return – Penalty for not filing, Winding up - Power of registrar to strike defunct company off register, Powers of court to grant relief in certain cases
-
1971 (11) TMI 56 - SUPREME COURT
Whether on the material before the adjudicating officer any reasonable person could have come to the conclusion that the dal in question was of Indian origin?
Assuming that the dal was of Indian origin, did the appellant contravene the terms of the treaty between India and Nepal?
Held that:- In order to establish that the dal in question was of Indian origin, the customs authorities examined three witnesses. All of them frankly conceded that it was not possible for them to say definitely that the dal in question was of Indian origin. Hence the fact that the exportable surplus of Nepal was only 500 M.T. is not a positive proof to show that if more than 500 M.T. dal was exported from Nepal, the part of the exported dal must be of Indian origin. The dal imported from India might have been consumed and Nepalese dal might have been ex-ported. That apart, there is no material on the basis of which one could reasonably come to the conclusion that 250 M.T. dal which the appellant was seeking to export to Cairo was not Nepalese dal. In our opinion, there was absolutely no basis for the conclusion of the adjudicating officer that the dal in question was of Indian origin.
The customs authorities have not placed any material before the court to show that the governments concerned have taken any measure for the purposes mentioned above. Hence there is no basis for coming to the conclusion that any of the terms of the treaty or even the assurances given by means of letters exchanged between them had been contravened. It is clear that the order of the adjudicating officer was without the authority of law and was wholly invalid. We accordingly allow this appeal.
-
1971 (11) TMI 55 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Partnership firm - Demand ... ... ... ... ..... pon each of the petitioners to pay a higher duty on the foot that new factory has come into existence. 2. These writ petitions have to be allowed. Under a similar circumstances, a Division Bench in S. Arumugasamy Nadar and others v. The Union of India and others (W.P. No. 431, 684 etc. of 1969) of this Court to which I was a party observed - When once it is conceded that the alternation which has been effected in the running and administration of the partnership firm related only to its reconstitution which was effected either by retirement or by admission, then the proposition is indisputable that the firm continues in the eye of law and it does not by reason of such a change become a new firm or a firm different from that which existed prior to the reconstitution . 3. In this view, of law, the challenged order in each of these Writ Petitions is liable to be quashed and accordingly it s quashed, hence these writ petitions are allowed. But there will be no order as to costs.
-
1971 (11) TMI 54 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Import Policy - Prohibition, Restriction - Repeal ... ... ... ... ..... 160. Action was taken under the 1878 Act which was then in force. Though the order of confiscation was quashed by this Court, the Collector issued a fresh show cause notice. This should be deemed only in continuation of the earlier show cause notice which was in no way affected by the decision of this court. All that was quashed was the decision of the Collector confiscating the goods and imposing penalty. The show cause notice issued on 18-5-1965 explicitly stated that it was being issued as per the decision of this court. The other show cause notice dated 30-10-1965 was issued expressly stating that it was issued as part of the show cause notice dated 18-5-1965. The repeal of the 1878 Act by the 1962 Act did not affect this action already taken, as there does not appear a different intention in the repealing act. Therefore, the action taken is thus saved by section 6 of the General Clauses Act. 8.In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed.
-
1971 (11) TMI 53 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Recovery of Government dues ... ... ... ... ..... , no question of adjudicating a case posthumously against the deceased. No demand for duty can also be raised against the legal heir or the legal representative. Their liability arises under the bond executed by them, and not in respect of any duty etc. recoverable under the Act or Rules made thereunder. The Deptt. can only sue the legal representative on the bond for recovering the stipulated amount and then proceed to execute the decree against the assets of the deceased in the hands of the legal representative. 15.For the reasons mentioned above, I allow the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the courts below and decree the plaintiff s suit for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from realising the amount of Rs. 2,000 from the plaintiff as per order passed by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Fatehgarh dated 13th November 1962 with costs throughout. It will be open to the defendant to pursue such remedy as may be available to it under the law.
-
1971 (11) TMI 52 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Intangible Additions, Penalty Proceedings ... ... ... ... ..... re, therefore, properly applied to the present penalty proceedings. But the Explanation to section 271(1) was added by the Finance Act of 1964 with effect from April 1, 1964. The assessment having been completed on March 20, 1964, the Explanation would govern the penalty proceedings only if it is treated as a procedural provision. No doubt, a provision dealing with burden of proof has been considered to be a procedural provision, but, in the present case, the Explanation is apparently linked up with the amendment to the substantive provision contained in section 271(1)(c). In the view that we have taken it is not necessary for us to decide the question whether, in these circumstances, the Explanation governed the present penalty proceedings also. For the reasons mentioned by us we answer the question in favour of the department. It will now be open to the Tribunal to consider the question of quantum of penalty. The department is entitled to its costs which we fix at Rs. 250.
-
1971 (11) TMI 51 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Levy Of Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... d be levied within a reasonable time. Even under the new Act the period prescribed for levy of penalty is two years after the completion of the assessment. In the present case, even after the order of the Tribunal on the assessment a period of nine years had elapsed. The department has not chosen to furnish any explanation for the inordinate delay. Mere reduction in the quantum of penalty is not a ground to say that no interference is justified. As there is inordinate delay we consider that the levy of penalty has not been made within a reasonable time. We therefore, answer the reference in the negative. There will be no order as to costs. Advocate s fee, Rs. 100. Question answered in the negative.
-
1971 (11) TMI 50 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Burden Of Proof ... ... ... ... ..... ounts in question represent the assessee s income and that the assessee has concealed the particulars of such income or deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. The Tribunal decided the question in the light of the principles stated in these decisions. On a perusal of the evidence the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the evidence is absolutely insufficient to prove that the amounts in question represent the income of the assessee. We do not find any reason to come to a different conclusion. In these circumstances, the view taken by the Tribunal that there is no case made out for the imposition of the penalty under section 28(1)(c) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, is right. We therefore, answer the question in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the department. A copy of this judgment will be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, under the seal of this court and the signature of the Registrar.
-
1971 (11) TMI 49 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Income Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... of 1961 fixing the minimum rate of penalty, made applicable retrospectively by section 279(2)(g) of the said Act, the minimum penalty payable may be higher than under section 28 of the Act of 1922, as the maximum penalty is the same in both the cases and the overall burden of penalty has not been increased, the provisions of article 20(1) of the Constitution are not infringed. The applicability of the provisions of article 20(1) of the Constitution to provisions imposing penalty has not been considered. For the reasons set out supra, we find that article 20(1) of the Constitution is not applicable to the proceedings imposing penalty under the Income-tax Act. Therefore, the levy of penalty of Rs. 5,000 in this case which is less than the minimum provided under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is not justified. We, therefore, answer the reference in the negative and against the assessee. The department will get its costs from the assessee. Advocate s fee Rs. 250.
-
1971 (11) TMI 48 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... under rule 6A, has been I obtained without there being a genuine firm in existence, he may cancel the certificate so granted. It is clear that under r. 6B, the ITO was empowered to cancel the certificate of registration only if he was satisfied that the firm was not a genuine firm in existence. The learned counsel for the Department submitted that a firm which included a full-fledged minor partner was not a firm in the eye of law and, therefore, action could be taken under r. 6B. We are not prepared to agree with the submission of the learned counsel. The use of the expression genuine puts the matter beyond doubt. We are of opinion that r. 6B applies only to firms which do not exist in fact as distinguished from the firms which may exist in fact but may be considered as non-existent in law. We are supported in our view by the decision of Obul Reddi and Venkateswara Rao, JJ. in R.C. No. 83 of 1968. The questions referred to us are therefore answered in favour of the assessee.
-
1971 (11) TMI 47 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Appeal To AAC, Delay In Filing Return ... ... ... ... ..... is significant that in Abraham s case 1961 41 ITR 425 (SC), this court was not called upon to determine whether penalty proceedings were penal or of quasi-penal nature and the observations made with regard to penalty being an additional tax were made in a different context and for a different purpose. We do not, therefore, read the observations of the Supreme Court in Abraham s case 1961 41 ITR 425 and Bhikaji Dadabhai s case 1961 42 ITR 123 (SC), as overruling the view taken in the series of decisions to which we referred earlier. We, therefore, hold that, the appeal to the AAC was not maintainable. The question referred to us is answered accordingly. The Commissioner of Income-tax will get his costs from the assessee which we fix at Rs. 250. R. C. Nos. 75 and 76 of 1969 These two cases raise the same questions as R. C. No. 74 of 1969. The question is answered as R. C. No. 74 of 1969. The Commissioner will get his costs from the assessee which we fix at Rs. 250 in each case.
-
1971 (11) TMI 46 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Assessee entered into an agreement with another company for financing and managing the company's mills - Certain rights of supervision and management were vested in the other company - Whether the other company can be treated as assessee's manager and remuneration paid to that company is allowable - Whether Tribunal is justified in law in disallowing the claim of the assessee for deduction of Rs. 1,03,547 and Rs. 18,294 from the income as not an admissible business expenditure under section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922
|
