Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.52 seconds)Section 74 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 40 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 82 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 3 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Calcutta Discount Company Limited vs Income-Tax Officer, Companies ... on 1 November, 1960
33. In other words, since it is the case of the writ petitioners that the conditions precedent for exercise of power of seizure of the books of account, etc., and also the conditions precedent for exercise of power of seizure of the goods had not been satisfied before the seizures in question took place, it logically follows that the petitioners challenge the seizures as being without jurisdiction and without authority of law. In such circumstances, existence of alternative remedy, if any, cannot be treated to be an absolute bar to the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction by the High Court under Article 226. This has been the consistent position of law and it is in this light that the decision of the Constitution Bench, in Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer, Companies District I, Calcutta , needs to be construed.
Section 34 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Central Sales Tax Act, 1956
Section 7 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
State Of H.P. And Ors vs Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd. And Anr on 18 July, 2005
10. Controverting the above submissions, made on behalf of the petitioners, Mr. Saikia has raised two preliminary objections to the maintainability of the writ petition. In this regard, Mr. Saikia submits that though no provision for appeal has been made in the Act against seizure of books of account, etc., and also as regard seizure of stock of goods, Section 82 of the Act does make provisions for revision against such seizure. Since the seizures, made in the present case, are, according to Mr. Saikia, subject to the power of revision under Section 82, there is an alternative and efficacious remedy available to the petitioners and, hence, in such circumstances, writ jurisdiction has been wrongly sought to be invoked by the petitioners. Support for these submissions is sought to be derived by Mr. Saikia from the cases of State of H.P. v. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd. , Union of India v. Hindalco Industries and Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Chandan Nagar, West Bengal v. Dunlop India Ltd. .