Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (1.74 seconds)
Official Liquidator vs V.M. Deshpande And Anr. on 28 September, 1967 cites

M/S. Haji Aziz And Abdul Shakoor Bros vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... on 24 November, 1960

In the case of Abdul Aziz v. State of Bombay, which was a case arising under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, it was held by a Division Bench of this court that the expression "legal proceeding" in Section 48(2) (ii) of that Act could, in its normal connotation, only mean a proceeding in accordance with law and there could be no doubt that assessment proceedings under the Sales Tax Act were such proceedings. After discussing the relevant provisions of the Act, it was further observed that it had to be remembered that the expression "legal proceeding" was not synonymous with "judicial proceedings" and that proceedings would be legal, even if they were not judicial proceedings, if they were authorised by law, there being no justification for limiting the meaning of that expression to proceedings in a court of law.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 47 - J L Kapur - Full Document

Damji Valji Shah And Another vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India & ... on 8 April, 1965

18. It appears to me that the word "exclusive", which is to be found in the above passage in the judgment in Damji Valji's case, has occurred there per incuriam, in so far as Section 446(2) is an empowering provision which confers an overriding controlling power on the court which is winding up a company, so that liquidation proceedings may not be impeded or delayed in any manner, and so as to ensure a fair and equitable distribution of the assets of the company.
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 99 - R Dayal - Full Document

The Governor General In Council vs Shiromani Sugar Mills Limited (In ... on 11 March, 1946

Proceedings under such Act are, in my opinion, none the less proceedings taken pursuant to a legal enactment, and the statutory duty to which Mr. Joshi has referred also arises only pursuant to a legal enactment, and would, therefore, fall within the ratio of the decision in Shiromani's case. I, therefore, reject the second contention of Mr. Joshi also.
Bombay High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 91 - Full Document

Express Newspapers (Private) Ltd.,And ... vs The Union Of India And Others(And ... on 8 January, 1958

Ltd. v. Union of India, [1961] 41 I.T.R. 763 and to make a passing reference to the decision of a Division Bench of this court in the case of Abdul Aziz v. State of Bombay, . The company in the former case was ordered to be wound up by an order dated 11th October, 1950, and a liquidator was appointed of its assets. Instead of refunding to the company a sum of Rs. 1,460-1-0, being the balance of the excess amount paid by the company as advance tax for the year 1955-56, the Income-tax Officer set off the said amount against the balance of Rs. 5,549-12-0, which was still outstanding in respect of the income-tax demand for the year 1948-49, purporting to do so under the provisions of Section 49E of the Income-tax Act, 1922. The Company filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the constitution for setting aside the order of the Income-tax Officer and for restraining him from setting off the refund against the tax dues, and directing him to hand over the balance to the official liquidator.
Supreme Court of India Cites 97 - Cited by 335 - Full Document

Tika Ram And Sons (Private) Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, U. P., And ... on 24 October, 1962

14. As already stated by me, the first contention of Mr. Joshi is based entirely on the decision of Manchanda J. in Tika Ram's case and I may, therefore, proceed to deal with that case straightaway. The facts of that case were that a notice under Section 22(2): of the Income-tax Act, 1922, was served on the petitioner-company in respect of the assessment year 1958-59, and the company filed a return of its income in response to the same on the 17th of July, 1958. Whilst the assessment proceedings pursuant thereto were still pending, on the 8th of January, 1960, the Allahabad High Court ordered the winding-up of the said company. During the liquidation proceedings, & compromise was arrived at between the company and its creditors, but the income-tax authorities were not concerned with the same, as the Income-tax Officer had not been shown as a creditor in the statement filed under Section 454 of the Companies Act, 1956, and no notice of the creditor's meeting was given to him. On the 8th of May, 1962, the Income-tax Officer issued a notice under Section 23(2) of the Act, calling upon the petitioner to appear on the 22nd of May, 1962. In reply to that notice, the company protested against the continuance of the proceedings which had commenced prior to the winding-up order on the ground that the Income-tax Officer had no longer any jurisdiction to continue the same, and thereafter filed a writ petition which came up for hearing before Manchanda J. As stated in the judgment of the learned judge, two questions arose before him, (1) whether the income-tax department could be said to be a creditor of the company within the meaning of Section 391 before an assessment was made, and (2) whether the income-tax assessment proceedings were "other legal proceedings" which could not thereafter be proceeded with by reason of the provisions of Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956. In regard to the first question, it was held held that the revenue department was not a creditor and could not have proved its claim in the liquidation proceedings before the court, since the assessment had not yet been completed. Though Mr. Joshi has sought to rely upon the decision of Manchanda J. on this question also, I do not think I am concerned at all with the same in the present application, and I do not, therefore, propose to deal with the judgment of the learned judge on that point.
Allahabad High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 12 - Full Document
1