Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.29 seconds)
Banwarilal Jaipuria vs Sitaram Jaipuria And Ors. on 16 March, 1971 cites

East India Commercial Co. Private Ltd. vs Raymon Engineering Works Ltd. on 22 April, 1965

In my judgment, it is a purely technical collaboration agreement, the terms and conditions of which do not require disclosure on the principles laid down in East India Commercial Co. Ltd. v. Raymon Engineering Works Ltd., I need only add that the petitioner's counsel did not admit that the agreement disclosed by the petitioner is the one spoken of in the explanatory statement.
Calcutta High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 11 - A K Mukherjea - Full Document

The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Bombay ... vs Nandlal Gandalal on 21 April, 1960

22. As in this case, the undertakings are owned by bodies corporate the tests prescribed in Sub-clause (iii) of Clause (g) of Section 2 will apply. The respondent-company does not manage the polytex company; it is not its managing agent. The polytex company is not a subsidiary of the respondent-company nor are the companies under the same management within the meaning of Section 370 of the Companies Act, 1956. Mr. Prabir Sen, counsel for the petitioner, strongly relied on paragraph (d) of Sub-clause (iii) of Clause (g) of Section 2. The term, "control", he argued, is of the widest amplitude. He relied on Commissioner of Income-tax v. Nandlal Gandalal, where at page 1150, the court observed :
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 24 - S K Das - Full Document
1   2 Next