Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1965]35CompCas706(Cal),69CWN369
Bose, C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order of A. N. Ray J. refusing an application for an interlocutory injunction restraining the passing of certain resolutions of a company known as National Co. Ltd. at the proposed annual general meeting of the company. The appellant is a shareholder of the National Co. Ltd, The case of the appellant is that in the middle of1961, the National Co. Ltd. purported to appoint in Calcutta one B.M.T. Commodity Corporation of New York State in the United States of America as its sole selling agent. After the said appointment the first general meeting of the National Co. Ltd. was held on July 17, 1961. On January 27,1962. the board of directors of the said company by an agreement in writing appointed the said B.M.T. Commodity Corporation as its sole selling agent for the sale of jute backing cloth and ordinary burlap over the width of hundred inches manufactured by the said company for the territories of the United States of America, its possessions, Cana...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1959Cal715,[1960]30CompCas582(Cal)
P.C. Mallick, J.1. This is a suit in which the plaintiff seeks to establish his title to a bunch of 26752 ordinary shares in the defendant company. The Company and one Ramapada Gupta in whose name the shares are registered in the books of the company have been impleaded as defendants.2. The plaintiff who was born in Iraq came over to India some years prior to 1938 and started business in medicine first under the name and style of Albert David Bros, and then of Albert David and Co. In 1938 the plaintiff promoted a private company which in 1948 was converted into a public company. To this company in 1938 the plaintiffs business of Albert David and Co. was made over. The company was given the same name. Till September 1954, the plaintiff and his wife owned more than 90 per cent. of the ordinary shares. The plaintiff was also the largest holder of preference shares. Under the Articles, only the ordinary shares had voting rights. To become a director, one need not hold any share at all. The...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1967Cal338,[1966]18STC379(Cal)
D. Basu, J. 1. The facts, as stated in the Statement of Case in this Reference, are as follows : 2. The assessment year is the year ending March, 1952, and the Assessee is the Bhowrah Coal Co., a registered dealer under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The Assessee's claim for exemption from being taxed under the Act, on two categories of transactions have been disallowed and this disallowance has led to this reference. These two transactions are (i) 'Sales of coal made to certain shipping agents for shipment of coal to countries outside India and (ii) Sales of coal made to B. N. R.' (i) As regards the first item, the facts are that at the relevant period, under the provisions of the Colliery Control Order, 1945 coal could not he exported out of India without the sanction of the Government. The latter placed orders for export through dealers selected by it and such dealers delivered the good to the shipping agents as directed in the orde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1963Cal483,67CWN662,[1962(4)FLR121]
..... government from any embarrassment in connection with such a controversy.'41. on november 15, 1961 the appellant moved an application before the circuit bench of the punjab high court at delhi under the provisions of article 226(1) of the constitution praying for a declaration that he was entitled to hold office as a judge of this court till december 27 .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR2009Cal140,(2008)4CALLT420(HC),2008(4)CHN420
..... laid down by the supreme court in the case of l. chandra kumar (supra), as also in the case of govind (supra), by the division bench judgment of the delhi high court. the case of govind (supra) has been specifically approved by the supreme court.45. the division bench, however, has further justified its conclusion that a combined petition ..... v. karan singh : air1957all414 and by the punjab high court in raj kishan jain v. tulsi dass and barham dutt v. peoples' co-operative transport society ltd. new delhi and we are in agreement with it.39. as noticed above, the judgment rendered by the full bench of the allahabad high court in aidal singh (supra) has been specifically ..... resulting into manifest injustice. in this context it would be appropriate to make a reference to some of the prominent judgments.14. in the case of the bharat bank ltd. delhi v. the employees of the bharat bank ltd. reported in : (1950)nullllj921sc , it is clearly laid down as follows:11. it is well known that a writ of .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1987)62CTR(Cal)83,[1987]164ITR574(Cal)
..... voluntary return as a result of a compromise did not bar the contention that the return filed was barred by time. (h) ganga saran & sons (huf) v. ito : [1981]130itr212(delhi) : in this case, the assessee had challenged the validity of a notice under sections 147 and 148 of the income-tax act, 1961, in a writ petition before the ..... delhi high court. the high court held that the impugned notice was not one without jurisdiction and upheld the contentions of the revenue. the high court observed as follows (at page .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1978]48CompCas698(Cal)
Ajay K. Bash, J. 1. This is a misfeasance summons taken out by the official liquidator in November, 1963, under Section 543(1) of the Companies Act against six respondents, respondent No. 1, Haridas Mundhra ; respondent No. 2, his father, Gwaldas Mundhra ; respondent No, 3, his brother,Tulsidas Mundhra; respondent No. 4, Manickchand Bagree ; respondent No. 5, L.R. Josse, since deceased, and respondent No. 6, Shew Bux Mohta. Of the six respondents, Haridas Mundhra, though he was duly served with the summons yet he has neither entered appearance nor has defended these proceedings or appeared before me except just before the commencement of the proceeding. Early this year, an application was filed by him and others by his counsel, Mr. Partha Mukharji, for adjournment on frivolous and mala fide grounds which I dismissed by a speaking order.2. A point was raised by the learned counsel appearing for some other respondents that this application should not continue in its present form as Harid...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (2006)3CALLT547(HC)
..... committee of capital issue etc. the applicant lodha is also director of the boards of a large number of companies viz. national security depository limited, mumbai; pnb equities limited, new delhi; sbi life insurance company limited, mumbai: henkel spiek india limited, chennai. he has also served important policy making and regulatory committees constituted by the government of india/regulatory bodies viz ..... articles, and other properties, which include ornaments, jewellary, gold coins and artifacts. these were found from the houses and residences used by pdb in four different cities viz. allahabad, calcutta, delhi and mumbai. these could neither be found nor be described in the affidavit-of-assets of lodha.35. according to lodha, in the affidavit-of-assets, the value of the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1957Cal33
Chakravartti, C.J.1. This is a reference under Section 21(1), Chartered Accountants Act with respect to a complaint against one Mr. A. K. Joscelyne, who is a partner of Messrs. Lovelock and Lewes, a firm of Chartered Accountants of Calcutta. The Council's finding against him is that in certifying a Profit and Loss Account of a company, called the Deccan Sugar and Abkhari Co., Ltd.. for the year ending on 31-12-1946, as correct and prepared in accordance with law, he has been guilty of misconduct of the varieties mentioned under items (o) and (p) of the Schedule to the Act.2. It appears that from 1946 to 1952, Messrs. Lovelock and Lewes were appointed auditors of the Deccan Sugar and Abhkari Co., Ltd., in each successive year; The work was handled in different years by different partners of the firm. The Managing Agents of the company were another company, called Parry and Co., Ltd. At the time the Indian Companies Act was amended in 1936. the Managing Agents were already holding their ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1974Cal193
..... , 1973 lawfully rejected the claim of the alleged loss of the cargo of the petitioner. the said letter dated the 16th of february, 1973 is set out hereunder :head officenew delhi. 2nd feb., 1973 c/e/rf/1012. registered a/d 16th february, 1973. m/s. planters airways pvt. ltd.,calcutta. dear sirs, re: loss of cargo from truck no. wgh .....
Tag this Judgment!