Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 80 (1.13 seconds)
Documents citing Union Of India And Anr vs India Fisheries (P) Ltd on 9 April, 1965

In Re: Colaba Land And Mills Co. Ltd. vs M. Deshpande And Anr. on 31 January, 1970

43. As already stated in the above discussion in connection with these contentions, there are extremely relevant observations in the decision of the Federal Court in the case of Governor-General in Council v. Shiromani Sugar Mills Ltd. and of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. India Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. There are also relevant observations in the case of Abdul Aziz v. State of Bombay. We, however, find it unnecessary to discuss these decisions and to arrive at any finding as regards these rival contentions, in view of the fact that we have accepted the above second contention made on behalf of the appellants.
Bombay High Court Cites 42 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

In Re: Colaba Land And Mills Co. Ltd., ... vs V. S. Kondaskar. (Official Liquidator) on 28 September, 1967

and of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. India Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. There are also relevant observations in the case of Abditl Aziz v. State of Bombay. We, however, find it unnecessary to discuss these decisions and to arrive at any finding as regards these,@ rival contentions, in view of the fact we have accepted the above second, contention Inade on behalf of the appellants.
Bombay High Court Cites 42 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

In Re: Colaba Land And Mills Co. Ltd., ... vs V.S. Kondaskar on 28 September, 1967

We are, therefore, unable to accept Mr. Chagla's contention that the impugned notices were liable to be stayed by issuing an order of injunction because the Supreme Court had not changed or restricted the meaning of the phrase "legal proceedings" as construed by the Federal Court and the Supreme Court in Governor-General in Council v. Shiromani Sugar Mills Ltd. and Union of India v. India Fisheries Pvt. Ltd.
Bombay High Court Cites 43 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Life Insurance Corporation Of India vs Asia Udyog (P.) Ltd. And Others on 16 April, 1981

Act of 1971 has only created a special forum and therefore, on the principles laid down in LIC v. D. J. Bahadur, and Union of India v. India Fisheries P. Ltd. [1965] 35 Comp Case 669; 57 ITR 331 (SC), the Act of 1971 would be treated to be a general provision applicable to all public premises while s. 446 of the Companies Act will be treated to be a special provision when public premises are occupied by companies under winding up. An attempt was made to argue that because of the amendment in sub-s. (2) in s. 537, the proposition that government dues did not have precedence over other dues in the matter of priorities in winding up proceedings no longer holds the field. We cannot agree. Section 537(1) provides that where any company is being wound up any attachment, execution or any sale held after the commencement of winding up without leave of the court, will be void. Under s. 441 of the Companies Act, the winding up is deemed to commence at the time of presentation of the petition of winding up, even though the winding up order is passed subsequently, Section 537(1), however, makes it clear that if any execution or sale takes place after the commencement of a winding up petition without the leave of court the same shall be void. Sub-s. (2), which was brought into force in 1960, excludes the rigour of s. 537(1) to those proceedings only which are for recovery of any tax or dues payable to the government. All that it means is that if assuming that before the winding-up order has been passed any sale had taken place without the leave of the court for recovery of any tax the same will not be deemed to be void. But the moment a winding up order is passed, s. 446 of the Companies Act will become applicable, and no proceedings shall be continued or commenced except by leave of the court. The only effect of sub-s. (2) of s. 537, therefore, is that the completed transaction whether by way of sale or in execution proceedings do not become void. But if any further proceedings are to be continued after the winding up order has been passed s. 446 will have to be complied with.
Delhi High Court Cites 52 - Cited by 0 - S Ranganathan - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Golcha Properties (P.) Ltd. on 30 October, 1986

6. Mr. Surolia, learned counsel for the Revenue, was unable to show any later decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court taking a different view from the view already taken in the cases of S.V. Kondaskar v. V.M. Deshpande [1972] 83 ITR 685 and Union of India v. India Fisheries (P) Ltd. [1965] 57 ITR 331. The Tribunal has decided the case by placing reliance on the above-mentioned two Supreme Court decisions and no argument has been raised by learned counsel for the Revenue to show that the Tribunal in any manner committed any mistake in taking the above view. As the questions of law referred to us are already concluded by the above-mentioned two decisions of the hon'ble Supreme Court, we answer the above questions in the affirmative and against the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - N M Kasliwal - Full Document

Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Executors Of The Estate Of Bhagwan Devi ... on 16 July, 2001

Ltd. [1989] 176 ITR 473, Karnataka High Court in the case of M.L. Vasudeva Murthy & Sons v. Joint CAIT[1992] 198 ITR 426, G.B.Belani v. CIT[1992] 195 ITR 639, Bombay High Court in the case of Forbes Forbes Campbell & Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1994] 206 ITR 495, Madras High Court in the case of N.K.R.Narayanwwamy Naidu v. CAIT[1965] 55 ITR 103, Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v.. Fertilisers & Chemicals (Travancore) Ltd. [1987] 166 ITR 823'; Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT v. Ramkishan Bhojraj[1984] 147 ITR 529 (FB) and by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. India Fisheries (P.) Ltd. [1965] 57 ITR 331. Craies on Statute Law, 5th Edition, at page 205, explained this rule as follows :--
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - West Bengal Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Maharashtra State Electricity Board vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax on 29 August, 2003

"I find that the above provisions (of Section 72) are for 'carry forward and set off of business losses' in general, whereas Section 73, reproduced earlier in this order, deals specifically with 'losses in speculation business'. As to the question that which of these legal provisions will govern the principles regarding carry forward and set off of speculation losses, I find guidance from the principle 'generalia specialibus non derogant' which lays down that the general provisions will not override the specific provisions. In other words, provisions of Section 73, which specifically deal with speculation business, cannot be derogated by the provisions of Section 72 of the Act which deals with business losses in general. As observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Anr. v. India Fisheries (P) Ltd. (1965) 57 ITR 331 (SC). "If there is an apparent conflict between two independent provisions of law, the special provision must prevail". This principle is described in Sampat Iyengar's Commentary on Law of Income-tax (9th Edn., Vol. 1 p. 48) as follows:
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 35 - Cited by 22 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next