Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1945All354
Braund, J.1. This is an application under the Companies Act, 1913, made in the winding up of the Shiromani Sugar Mills Limited in liquidation. The company prior to its winding up carried on business as the proprietors of Sugar Mills at Khalilabad in the Basti District of the United Provinces. In the course of its business, the company is said to have made profits amounting to Rs. 66,407 in the year ending 30th May 1941, in respect of which it was assessed to income-tax for the year of assessment 1941-42 for the sum of Rupees 18,493-12-0. This assessment was not, however, actually made by the Income-tax Officer until 25th February 1943, by which time an order for the compulsory winding up of the company had been made on the petition of a debenture holder. The date of the presentation of the petition for winding up was 26th November 1941. On 7th December 1941 a provisional liquidator had been appointed and on 17th April 1942 the winding up order was made by this Court. The position, ther...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [1945]13ITR480(All)
BRAUND, J. - This is an application under the Indian Companies Act, 1913, made in the winding-up of the Shiromani Sugar Mills, Ltd., in liquidation.The Company prior to its winding-up carried on business as the proprietors of Sugar Mills at Khalilabad in the Basti District of the United Provinces. In the course of its business the company is said to have made profits amounting to Rs. 66,407 in the year ending 30th May, 1941, in respect of which it was assessed to income-tax for the year of assessment 1941-42 in the sum of Rs. 18,493-12-0. This assessment was not however, actually made by the Income-tax Office until 25th February, 1943, by which time an order for the compulsory winding-up of the Company had been made on the petition of a debenture holder. The date of the presentation of the petition for winding-up was 26th November, 1941. On 7th April, 1942, the winding-up order was made by this Court. The position, therefore, was that the assessment was actually made by the Income-tax ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1980]50CompCas771(Cal)
Ghose, J.1. This application has been made in the appeal that is now pending from an order made in an application under Sections 397, 398, 402, 403 and 406 of the Companies Act, 1956, in the Company Petition No. 392 of 1975. The said company petition was made in regard to the affairs of Debijhora Tea Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the ' said company') and was disposed of by the judgment and order passed by Salil K. Roy Chowdhury J. on March 31, 1977.2. In the interlocutory application made in the appeal for stay of the said order under appeal, dated March 31, 1977, passed by Salil K. Roy Chowdhury J., superseding the board of directors of the company and appointing Mr. T, P. Das as special officer, the appeal court on April 6, 1977, passed, inter alia, the following orders :' The Court: The order of the learned trial judge will remain stayed subject to the following modifications : 1. The special officer, Mr. T.P. Das, appointed by the learned trial judge at the remuneration ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1960Ker243; [1960]30CompCas135(Ker)
P.T. Raman Nayar, J.1. On 4-11-1957 the defendant obtained a decree for money, charged on the property now in suit, against the plaintiff banking company. This was in O. S. No. 384 of 1957 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Alleppey. On 15-11-1957 the plaintiff company was ordered to be wound up by this court. On 13-12-1957 nearly a month later, the defendant applied to the Munsiff's Court Alleppey for execution of the decree he had obtained and, in pursuance thereof, the property was brought to sale and bought by the defendant himself on 3-3-1958. All this he did without obtaining the leave of court required by Sections 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 and, in due course, on 16-7-1938 he obtained delivery of the property he had bought.On 26-2-1959, the plaintiff bank came forward with the present suit asking for a declaration of its title to the property and for possession with mesne profits, past and future. In doing so it averred that the execution proceedings and the defendant's pur...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [2006]131CompCas652(Guj); [2005(107)FLR951]; (2005)3GLR2019; [2006]68SCL311(Guj)
ORDERR.S. Garg, J.1. The present matters have been placed before us because the learned single Judge, by his Order dated 3rd July, 2001 passed on Company Application No. 216 of 1997 in Company Petition No. 21 of 1984, found that there was a conflict of views in two judgments of the Supreme Court and as certain important issues were involved in the matter, the matter be decided by the Division Bench, the learned single Judge, accordingly, made the reference. The three questions, which have been referred to us, are as under:1. Whether the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur v. National Iron & Steel Rolling Corporation reported in 1995 AIR SCW 214 is binding or whether the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dena Bank v. Bhikhabhai Prabhudas Parekh & Co., reported in 2000 (4) Supreme Today 5000 is binding to this case.2. Whether amount standing to the credit of the workers regarding their contribution to Employees State Insurance Act in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1985Mad199; [1987]62CompCas414(Mad)
ORDER1. This revision petition is directed against a wholly unsustainable order which has the effect of divesting the petitioners of ownership of 12,387 shares by an ad interim mandatory injunction which has been almost machanically passed by the trial Court.2. It is not necessary to go into the merits of the suit which the Plaintiff-respondent 1 has filed in the City Civil Court, Madras, in which substantially the Plaintiffs case is that the first and second defendants (Petitioners 1 and 2) on behalf of defendants 3 to 21 (Petitioners 3 to 21) in the suit had agreed to transfer to the Plaintiff 1 6,387 equity shares of Messrs. Century Flour Mills Limited, Madras, respondent 2 herein.3. Respondent 2 herein is a Public Limited Company hereinafter referred to as the Company, in which admittedly defendants 1 to 20 had obtained 12,387 shares in pursuance of an agreement between the plaintiff and defendants dt. 12-12-1976. One of the terms of the agreement dt. 12-12-1976 was that the first,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1970Cal349,[1971]41CompCas477(Cal),[1971]80ITR108(Cal)
ORDERA.N. Sen, J.1. This application raises a question of law of some importance. The question is whether the Income-tax Authorities are competent to commence or continue an assessment proceeding against a company in liquidation without obtaining leave of Court.2. By an order made by this Court on the 16th of June, 1961, the company went into liquidation and the Official Liquidator was appointed Liquidator of the company. The company is now in the process of being wound up by this Court. The Official Liquidator of the company has been served with several notices of assessment in respect of the company by the Income-tax Authorities. He has been served with a notice under Section 142(1) of Income-tax Act, 1961 in respect of assessment year 1964-65 and he has also received notices under Section 143 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in respect of assessment years 1965-68, 1966-67 and 1967-68. All these notices are in respect of periods subsequent to the date of the winding up order. These notice...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1957Cal438,61CWN448
ORDERP.B. Mukharji, J.1. This is an application by a registered partnership firm called Srigopal Jalan & Co. for an order upon the Calcutta Stock Exchange Association Limited to file a return of allotment in the prescribed form giving all necessary particulars with the Registrar, Companies in respect of 70 forfeited shares re-issued and allotted by the Stock Exchange. The summons was taken out on the 29th June 1956 when the new Companies Act, 1956, had come into operation.2. The application is based on Section 75 of the Companies Act, 1956 and is made under Section 614 of that Act. It raises an important question of principle which involves construction and interpretation of Section 75 of the Companies Act. Before proceeding to discuss law I shall briefly state the facts which are short and simple:3. The applicant claims to be a member and shareholder of the Calcutta Stock Exchange Association Limited; Its case is that the company has from time to time forfeited 70 shares of Rs. 1,000/...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2004(3)BomCR317; (2004)3CompLJ58(Bom); [2004]52SCL224(Bom)
R.M. Lodha, J.1. The Maharashtra Power Development Corporation (MPDC) is the appellant; which we shall call 'the petitioner'. The company petition for diverse reliefs was filed by the petitioner under Sections 397, 402, 403 and 406 of the Companies Act, 1956. In view of the events that had taken place subsequently, the company petition was permitted to be amended. In the amended company petition the petitioner prayed that it be declared that the affairs of the Dabhol Power Company (for short 'the company') were being conducted in the manner oppressive to the petitioner and prejudicial to the public interest; that it may be considered whether it was just and equitable that the company be wound up or any provision be made with regard to the conduct of the affairs of the company in future, that the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 be restrained from acting and representing as directors of the company; that respondent Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 9 be restrained from acting, representing or holding themselves ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [2006]130CompCas32(All)
M. Katju, J.1. This special appeal has been filed against the impugned order of the learned Single Judge dated 12.3.2004 in Company Petition No. 1 of 2002 Modi Rubber Limited v. Madura Coats Limited. An impleadment application has been filed on behalf of Phillips Carbon Black Limited which we have allowed.2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.3. The facts of the case are given in some detail in the impugned order dated 12 3.2004 It appears that a bunch of creditors' petitions were filed in this Court praying for winding up of M/s Modi Rubber Limited on the ground that the said company is unable to pay its huge debts. On 13.3.2002 the Court passed an order giving its prima facie finding that the respondent company was unable to pay its debts and injuncted the respondent company from dealing with or encumbering any of its assets without seeking prior permission of the Court. Thereafter by order dated 17.5.2002 it was held by the Court that there...
Tag this Judgment!