Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.41 seconds)
Documents citing Excise And Taxation Officer vs Gauri Mal Butail Trust on 10 December, 1959

State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Kotak & Co. And Ors. on 14 December, 1972

5. The only other point urged by learned counsel for the opposite party which remains to be noticed is this: Learned counsel urged that no claim of the State in respect of its dues could be considered by the Court under Section 73 of the Code of Civil Procedure unless the State had obtained a court decree and for this learned counsel relied on two cases; Oudh Commercial Bank Ltd. v. Secy. of State, AIR 1935 Lab 319 and Excise and Taxation Officer v. Gauri Mal Butail Trust, AIR 1961 Punj 292.
Allahabad High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kaka Mohamed Ghouse Sahib & Co. vs United Commercial Syndicate And ... on 20 March, 1963

Reference may also be made to a recent decision of the Punjab High Court in Excise and Taxation Officer v. Gowri Mal Butail Trust, which contains an interesting and useful discussion of the law on the subject. In that case also it was held that after the coming into force of the Constitution the situation has not undergone any change as to the priority enjoyed by the State for the debts due to it, on the ground that whatever may be the form of the Government, whether based on democratic or a socialistic pattern, the State has to govern and has to find funds for its socialistic programme and the facilities which it is necessary for the State to have for collection of the tax in order to meet its obligations.
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 18 - Full Document

The State vs Pure Milk Supply Co. Ltd. on 9 March, 1962

The argument which he rests on this provisions is that the rights of a secured creditor to realise or otherwise deal with his security in the same manner as he would have been entitled to realise or deal with it if section 28 had not been passed, remains unaffected by the order of adjudication or by insolvency proceedings. He has also drawn my attention to a similar statement of Indian Law, as noticed in Palmer's Company Precedents, part 11 page 316. It is stated there that a secured creditor is prima facie entitled to proceed, his security not being part of the estate and effects of the company, and this being so, it would not be proper for the court to refuse liberty to proceed, and so compel the secured creditor to allow the assets to be realised in the winding up, and thus to forgo his just rights. Finally Mr. Kwatra drew my attention to my decision in Excise and Taxation Officer v. Gauri Mal Butail Trust, ILR (1960) 1 Punj 809: (AIR 1961 Punj 292). Therein I had held that after the enforcement of the Constitution, the situation has not undergone any change as to the priority enjoyed by the State for the debts due to it. The Common Law doctrine, that if the debts due to the Crown are of equal degree to the debts due to a private citizen then the Crown are of equal degree to the debts due to a private citizen then the Crown must have priority against the private citizen, is also the law of this country. That was a case in which the Excise and Taxation Officer had made an application praying that the property taxed may be ordered to be paid out of the amount lying with this Court. This application was allowed.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Union Of India vs J. Ray And Sons Ltd. on 26 April, 1962

(6) The only dispute which remains to be decided is whether the claim of Rs. 16,804-27 which is admittedly due to the Union of India is to be treated as a preferential claim. On behalf of Union of India reliance has been placed upon a case decided by me in Excise and, Taxation Officer v. Gauri Mal Butail Trust, AIR 1961 Punj 292. In that case, property tax under the Punjab Urban Immovable Property Tax Act, 1940, had been imposed. The question arose as to the recovery of this tax being deemed as a preferential claim.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1