Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.94 seconds)Section 91 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
S. G. Mercantile Corpn. (P) Ltd vs The C.I.T., Calcutta on 4 January, 1972
29. Supreme Court, in Karam Chand Thapar & Bros. (P) Ltd Vs.
Commissioner of Income Tax, Calcutta (1971) 82 ITR 899 held the
circumstance that the assessee was showing the shares as investment shares
in its books of accounts as well as in the balance sheet, though not
conclusive, but is relevant circumstance on which reliance could be placed
upon and necessary inference drawn. It was further held that the explanation,
that the Company had to do so because of provisions of the Company Law,
was unfounded.
M/S Kilpest Pvt. Ltd. & Ors vs Shekhar Mehra on 8 October, 1996
31. Mention may also be made of Kilpest Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Shekhar Mehra
(1996) 10 SCC 696 where Supreme Court held that the promoters of a
CS(COMM) No.28/2015 & CS(COMM) No.27/2015 Page 17 of 22
Company having elected to avail of the advantages of forming a limited
company and having voluntarily and knowingly bound themselves by the
provisions of the Companies Act, could not be heard to submit that a limited
company should be treated as a quasi-partnership. The defendant here also,
cannot be heard to submit that the monies aforesaid flowed not from plaintiff
to defendant but from Sh. Sudhir Sareen to his daughter Ms. Parul Gupta.
Dr. A. Lakshmanaswami Mudaliarand ... vs Life Insurance Corporation on 11 December, 1962
32. I find Supreme Court, in Dr. A. Lakshmanaswami Mudaliarand Vs.
Life Insurance Corporation AIR 1963 SC 1185 held that a Company is
competent to carry out its objects specified in the Memorandum of
Association and cannot travel beyond its objects. Finding the objects to be
authorising the Company in that case, only to carry on Life Insurance
business and to enter into contracts for that purpose and not finding the
Memorandum of Association of the Company to be authorising the
Company to make any donations, it was held that the same could not be
traced to the residuary clause authorising the Company to do all other things
as are incidental or conducive to the attainment of the main objects. It was
further held that the act of the Company of making donations being not
within the objects mentioned in the Memorandum of Association, the act of
making donations was ultra vires and no legal relationship or effect could
CS(COMM) No.28/2015 & CS(COMM) No.27/2015 Page 18 of 22
ensue therefrom. It is not the case of the defendant in the present case that
the plaintiff Company was authorised to make gift or that the defendant
Company was authorised to receive gift. For this reason also the defence of
the amount being by way of gift or in the nature of gift cannot be
entertained.
Section 122 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Section 34 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Smt. Surasaibalini Debi vs Phanindra Mohan Majumdar on 27 October, 1964
Similarly in Surasaibalini Debi Vs. Phanindra Mohan
Majumdar AIR 1965 SC 1364 it was reiterated that if the plaintiff seeks the
assistance of the Court to effectuate an illegal transaction, the Courts will
refuse assistance.