Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.87 seconds)
United India Life Assurance Company ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras. on 10 January, 1963
cites
Section 153 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Indian Companies Act, 1913
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Section 4 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 66 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Sailendra Kumar Roy And Ors. vs Bank Of Calcutta, Ltd. on 26 May, 1947
Learned counsel for the department referred to the decision in Sailendra Kumar Ray v. Bank of Calcutta Ltd. There the question was whether transfer of assets of one company to another under a scheme of amalgamation sanctioned by the court under section 153A of the Indian Companies Act of 1913 was not a transfer by assignment within the meaning of Order XXI, rule 16, of the Civil Procedure Code. The Jessore Loan Company obtained two final decrees in mortgage actions against the appellant in the case before the Calcutta High Court. On February 4, 1946, the High Court, on its original side, made an order under section 153A sanctioning a scheme of amalgamation of the Jessore Loan Company with the Bank of Calcutta Ltd. and by the same order provided for the transfer to the latter company of all the assets and liabilities of the former in accordance with the scheme of amalgamation. On July 16, 1946, the Bank of Calcutta Ltd. applied for execution of the two decrees in place of the Jessore Loan Co., Ltd. Judgment debtors in both the cases took the plea that as no notice under Order XXI, rule 16, Civil Procedure Code, had been served, the execution proceedings were not maintainable. It was conceded that no notice under Order XXI, rule 16, was taken out but the bank contended that there had been no transfer by assignment and that, therefore, no notice was necessary. It was held that there was no transfer by assignment but that there was only a transfer by operation of law and no notice under Order XXI, rule 16, was called for. At page 5 Chakravartti J., as he then was, observed as follows :
Raghubar Dayal vs The Bank Of Upper India, Ltd. on 31 January, 1919
"The court must look at the scheme, and see whether the Act has been complied with, whether the majority are acting bona fide, and whether they are coercing the minority in order to promote interests adverse to those of the class whom they purport to represent; and then see whether the scheme is a reasonable one or whether there is any reasonable objection to it, or such an objection to it as that any reasonable man might say that he could not approve of it" : Lindley L. J. in English, Scottish, and Australian Chartered Bank Ltd., In re. If this is the true position, as we conceive it to be, it would be very difficult to contend that an ex post facto sanction by a court of an agreement would achieve the legal result of making the agreement effective either from its date or from a date long anterior to it by imagining a fiction that the court gave the sanction on the date from which the operation is claimed. A decree or order of a court adjudicating on the rights of parties cannot be deemed to have come into force earlier than the date of its pronouncement, but it may relate to rights obtaining on the date of the commencement of the proceedings. It is true that the arrangement would bind the creditors and shareholders including the dissentient group, if any, even during the interval between the date of resolution and the date of sanction, if ultimately sanction is granted. It may even be conceded that the binding character of the scheme. This is the view expressed by the Judicial Committee in dealing with a case under section 153 of the Companies Act. That case is reported in Raghubar Dayal v. Bank of Upper India Ltd.