The Special Tahsildar (La), Krishna ... vs Rathinareddi on 13 March, 2003
(Also refer: (Senairam v. I.T. Commissioner); (B.C. Munirathinam v. Meena Financiers).
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 2 of 2 (0.23 seconds)In The Matter Of P.K. Pattabhiraman vs Unknown on 1 February, 1988
9. Yet another contention of the learned counsel for the Canara Bank is that the insolvent is not engaged in trade or business but only in manufacture I find the word 'business' in the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act should be seen in a wider Content than the word 'trade'. The trend of judicial decisions has been in favour of -the enlargement rather than the restriction of the connotation of the term trade and business'. Exs. P-2 and P-4 hypothecation deeds show that credit facility was availed by Insolvents for expansion of business and to improve the methods of manufacture. These two exhibits show that the goods were intended for manufacturing business also. 'Business' always involves continuous exercise of activity. So long as the liabilities incurred in the course of a business remain' undischarged, the business activity should be deemed to be continued. If authority is needed for this proposition, it is available in Munirathiam v. Meena Financiers, .
1