Advanced Search Results
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Principal Officer C/O Arkay Wires (P) L ...
Allahabad
Oct-29-2004
CompanyDirect Taxation
Companies Act, 1956 - Sections 294, 294(2), 294(6), 314 and 314(1); Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 37(1)
[2005]127CompCas250(All); (2005)193CTR(All)697; [2005]277ITR225(All)
of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the provisions of Section 314(1)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956, were not applicable ?'2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows:The assessment … M/s Kumar Wire & Conductors were not sole selling agents of the company and, therefore, the provisions of Section 294(2) were not attracted ?2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskA.V. Kasargod and ors. Vs. the Registrar of Companies in Karnataka, Ba ...
Karnataka
Feb-06-2001
Company
Companies Act, 1956 - Sections 294(2) and 629A; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 468(2), 472, 473 and 482
ILR2001KAR3674; 2002(2)KarLJ270
Bangalore seeking for quashing the above proceedings against them for the offence punishable under Section 629-A of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act').2. The respondent filed the above complaint registered as C.C. No. 202 of 1998 against … Special Court for Economic Offences, Bangalore alleging that the petitioners have not complied with the mandatory requirements of Section 294(2) of the Act while appointing M/s. Medley Marketing Private Limited, Bombay on 28-8-1989 and M/s. P.V. Kuruvilla, Calcutta
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskArantee Manufacturing Corporation Vs. Bright Bolts Private Ltd.
Mumbai
Dec-06-1965
Company
Companies Act, 1956 - Sections 9, 294 and 294(2)
AIR1967Bom440; (1967)69BOMLR444; 1967MhLJ38
in reply the defendants have also raised legal contentions based on the provisions of Section 294 of the Companies Act, 1956. The defendants have contended that in any case, the appointment of the plaintiffs as sole selling agents as
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask18-section briefs on any result in this list
Nanavati and Co. Private Ltd. Vs. R.C. Dutt and ors.
Mumbai
Feb-10-1966
Company
Companies Act, 1956 - Sections 2(50), 294, 294(5), 294(6), 397 and 398; Constitution of India - Article 14
[1967]37CompCas171(Bom)
entered into by J.K.Chemicals Ltd. (5th respondent) with the petitioner-company have been varied under section 294(5)(c) of the Companies Act, 1956. 2. The facts giving rise to the passing of the impugned order mentioned above may be stated :
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskNanavati and Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. R.C. Dutt and ors.
Mumbai
Feb-28-1973
Company
Companies Act, 1956 - Sections 2, 2(50), 6, 36, 237, 294, 294(5), 326, 326(2) and 637; Company Law
[1975]45CompCas91(Bom)
consignment basis. This being a sole selling agency agreement covered by the provisions of section 294 of the Companies Act, 1956, the approval of the general body of the shareholders was obtained which made the contract lawful and effective
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskArantee Manufacturing Corporation Vs. Bright Bolts Private Ltd.
Mumbai
Dec-06-1955
Company
Companies Act, 1956 - Sections 2, 9, 294, 294(2) and 297(2)
[1967]37CompCas758(Bom)
in reply the defendants have also raised legal contentions based on the provisions of section 294 of the Companies Act, 1956. The defendants have contended that in any case, the appointment of the plaintiffs as sole selling agents as
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskFirestone Tyre and Rubber Co. Vs. Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd. and or ...
Mumbai
Nov-07-1969
Company
Companies Act, 1956 - Sections 2(11), 3, 4, 10, 10(1), 10E, 12, 12(1), 12(2), 16, 32, 34, 36, 71, 88, 91B, 172(1), 173, 173(2), 176(3), 176(5), 189(2), 203, 204, 204(4), 205, 207, 208, 209(4), 277, 283(1), 294, 294(2), 294(2A), 294(5), 294A, 294A(1), 295(5), 299, 299(1), 299(4), 300, 300(1), 300(3), 300(4), 314, 314(1), 314(2), 314(3), 397 and 398; Companies (Amendment) Act, 1965
[1971]41CompCas377(Bom); [1971]41ITR377(Bom)
Suit No 522 of 1969. It is contended that the solicitor-director was prohibited by section 300 of the Companies Act, 1956, from taking any part in the discussion of or vote on, the said appointment for a further term … Mr. Ramdas Kilachand directors of this company are interested as directors and members.' 5. RESOLVED that pursuant to section 294 and other applicable provisions of the Companies Act, Messrs. Kilachand Devchand and Co. Pvt. Ltd. be and they
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskV.D. Swami and Co. (P.) Ltd. Vs. Southern Switchgear Ltd.
Chennai
Dec-16-1992
Company
Companies Act, 1956 - Sections 294, 294(1), 294(2) and 294(2A); Indian Contract Act, 1872 - Sections 64 and 65
[1995]84CompCas932(Mad); (1993)IMLJ483
costs. A learned single judge of this court has dismissed the suit, holding that section 294(2A) of the Companies Act, 1956, operated as a bar to the maintainability of the suit, and that besides the force majeure clause in
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskIn Re: Sumani Pvt. Ltd.
Mumbai
Mar-27-1979
Company
Companies Act, 1956 - Sections 294, 391, 394, 394(1), 394A, 448(2), 449 and 450; Companies (Amendment) Act, 1965
[1979]49CompCas547(Bom)
Manohar J., it was contended on behalf of the petitioners that under s. 394(1), second proviso, of the Companies Act, 1956, the official liquidator is required to make a report to the court only in respect of company which … dissolution is not made or an application under s. 391 or s. 294 is not granted, unless the court has considered the report or the … a compromise or a arrangement proposed between a company and any such persons as are mentioned in that section, and it is shown to the court - (a) that the compromise or arrangement has been proposed for
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskCossul and Co. (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Allahabad
Jan-18-2000
Direct Taxation
Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 37; Companies Act, 1956 - Sections 294, 294A and 314
[2000]245ITR312(All); [2000]113TAXMAN333(All)
sole selling agent, Tools Implements and Machinery Distributors, was in contravention of Sections 294 and 314 of the Companies Act, 1956, and, therefore, the sole selling agency commission paid by the assessee-company was not an admissible deduction in working … Tribunal's order shows that it failed to record any finding on question No. 2.6. The relevant portion of Section 294 is as under :'294. Appointment of sole selling agents to require approval of company in general meeting.--(1) No
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskAI Brief (18 sections) + Semantic Search - 7 days free
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »