Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1987]61CompCas628(Cal),91CWN596
Anil K. Sen, J. 1. Two writ petitions, preferred by the appellants, the Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ',' the Peerless ') and its shareholder-director, Sunil Kanti Roy, which were registered as C.R. No. 9764 (W) of 1979 and C.R. No. 6832(W) of 1980 were dismissed on contest by a learned single judge of this court by an order dated March 14, 1986. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants have preferred the present two appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. Though extensively argued, the point involved is a short one and such a point is common to both the appeals. The point is as to whether the business carried on by the appellant company, Peerless, conies within the prohibition of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978.2. There is not much dispute with regard to the nature of business carried on by the Peerless. It carries on a long standing business since 1932 in finance and investment. It offers certain schemes for...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1978]113ITR37(Cal)
Deb, J.1. This reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, relates to the assessment year 1957-58 for which the relevant previous year ended on the 31st December, 1956,2. The assessce is an insurance company. On January 19, 1956, the management of its life insurance business vested in the Central Government under the provisions of the Life Insurance (Emergency Provisions) Ordinance, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the ' Ordinance '). From the 19th January, 1956, to 31st August, 1956, a Custodian was in the management, of the said life insurance business under the provisions of the Ordinance and the corresponding section of the Life Insurance (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1956 (hereinafter stated as ' the Act '). The assessee was paid under Section 7 of the Act a compensation of Rs. 81,069 for the deprivation of the management of the said life insurance business for the aforesaid period when the Custodian was in the management of the said business. Thereafter, the l...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : [1974]96ITR101(P& H)
B.S. Dhillon, J.1. This judgment will dispose of Wealth-tax References Nos. 2, 3 and 4 of 1972. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to these references are that Yuvraj Arnrinder Singh, who is an assessee in W. T. References Nos. 2 and 3 of 1972, and Princess Rupinder Kumari, who is an assessee in W. T. Reference No. 4 of 1972, are individual assessees. The dispute regarding the assessment of Yuvraj Amrinder Singh relates to the assessment years 1964-65 and 1965-66, for which the valuation dates, respectively, are March 31, 1964 and March 31, 1965, whereas the assessment year in the case of Princess Rupinder Kumari is 1965-66 and the valuation date is March 31, 1965. The assessees claimed exemption under Section 5(1)(vi) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. The value of the annuity policy in the case of Yuvraj Amrinder Singh is Rs. 2,13,000, whereas in the case of Princess Rupinder Kumari, the value of the annuity policy is Rs. 2,35,176. The assessees claimed that the amount of the annuity po...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1993]201ITR716(Cal)
Suhas Chandra Sen, J.1. The Tribunal has referred to this court the following questions of law under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that, for the purpose of computing the fair market value of the capital asset of the assessee under Section 55(2) Of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the surplus to be taken into consideration was 3V: per cent., which was the minimum permissible under Explanation 2 to paragraph 1 of Part A of the First Schedule to the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956, and not the surplus allocated by the assessee to the shareholder during the relevant period ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a proper interpretation of Section 55(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal was right in holding that there was improvement in the capital asset of the assessee after January 1, 1954 ? 3. Whether there was any evidence to support th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2000(3)ALLMR(SC)475; 2000(2)CTC723; JT2000(4)SC411; 2000(3)SCALE169; (2000)4SCC406; [2000]2SCR1102
M. Jagannadha Rao, J.1. Leave granted.2. The case raises issues relating to the impact of the provisions of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter called the RDB Act) on the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. The immediate dispute before us is between two nationalised Banks, the Allahabad Bank (appellant) on the one hand which has obtained a simple money decree against the debtor-company [M/s. M.S. Shoes (East) Co, Ltd.] from the Debt Recovery Tribunal at Delhi under the RDB Act and the Canara Bank on the other, whose claim as a secured creditor is still pending before the same Tribunal at Delhi against the same company. The Allahabad Bank has appealed before us against an order passed by the learned Company Judge under Sections 442 and 537 of the Companies Act, (in a winding up petition by Ranbaxy Ltd.) staying the sale proceedings taken out by the Allahabad Bank before the Recovery Officer under the RDB Act. Applications for winding u...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chandigarh
(Order) Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member: 1. The appellants/opposite parties (hereinafter called œthe opposite parties?) have filed the present appeal against the order dated 10.11.2010 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Barnala(hereinafter called œthe District Forum?) in consumer complaint No.250 dated 9.9.2010 vide which the complaint filed by the complainant was allowed with the direction to the Ops to pay a sum of Rs. 3 lacs alongwith interest @ 9% from 14.3.2010 till its realization, pay Rs. 5,000/- as compensation. 2. The complaint was filed by the complainant(hereinafter called œthe complainant?) against the opposite parties on the allegations that OP No. 2 approached the wife of the complainant for the purchase of Life Insurance Policy and it was represented that in case insured deposit an amount of Rs. 50,000/- for three years continuously then she will be insured for an amount of Rs. 3 lacs for a period of 10 years and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [2000]243ITR709(Ker)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J. 1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following question has been referred for opinion of this court, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench (in short 'the Tribunal') :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, incentive bonus being part of salary, the assessee is entitled to claim any deduction out of incentive bonus received by the assessee over and above standard deduction available to salary income ?'2. The dispute relates to the question, (a) whether incentive bonus is salary, and (b) whether the assessee is entitled to claim any deduction over and above standard deduction available in respect of salary income.3. The factual position is as follows: The assessee is a Development Officer of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (in short, 'the LIC'). Different amounts were claimed as expenses in respect of incentive bonus received. The Assessing Officer disall...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC794; 1974CriLJ678; (1974)4SCC230; [1974]3SCR348
M.H. Beg, J. 1. This is an appeal on a certificate of fitness of the case for appeal to this Court granted by the Calcutta High Court under Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution of India.2. The Respondent was tried by a Special Court constituted under the West Bengal Criminal Law Amendment (Special Courts) Act XXI of 1949 (Hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), which empowers the Special Court, set up under it. to try offences mentioned in the Scheduled annexed to the Act. Item 2 of the schedule is:An offence punishable under Section 409 I.P.C. if committed by a public servant or by a person dealing with property belonging to government as an agent of government in respect of property with which he is entrusted or over which he has domain in his capacity of a public servant or in the way of his business as such agent. 3. The proviso to Section 4(1) of the Act reads as follows:Provided that when trying any case, a Special Court may also try any offence other than an offence specified in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2009)8MLJ15
M. Chockalingam, J.1. All these appeals challenge a common order of the learned Single Judge of this Court made in C.A. Nos. 1811 of 2005, 854 of 2006 and 2740 to 2742 of 2007 in C.P. Nos. 170 of 1995.2. All the above appeals have been filed under the following facts and circumstances:(a) One M/s. Dev Sugars Limited was ordered to be wound up in C.P. No. 170 of 1995 and C.P. No. 35 of 1997 by an order dated 16.9.1999. An Official Liquidator was appointed who took possession of the assets of the company on 28.9.1999. State Bank of Mysore who extended financial assistance to the said company, in order to secure the outstanding dues, filed O.A. No. 440 of 1997 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Bangalore, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 22,31,78,558.55. After the decree was made in the said O.A., the Recovery Officer issued an official notice for the sale of the properties in various newspapers fixing the date of auction as 11.8.2005. Since the said company was ordered to be wound up, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1989]65CompCas710(Bom)
H.H. Kantharia, J.1. A very important question of public importance that arises in this writ petition is whether the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under article 226 of the Constitution of India could be invoked for issuing a writ of mandamus against the Life Insurance Corporation of India directing it to make payment flowing from a life insurance policy. It arises thus :The petitioner, Smt. Asha Goel, is the window of the deceased, Naval Kishore Goel, who was am employee of the Digvijaya Woollen Mills Ltd., Jamnagar, as a Labour Office. He submitted a proposal for a life insurance policy at Meerut in Uttar Pradesh on May 29, 1979, which accepted and he was granted a policy bearing No. 48264637 for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 (one lakh). According to the petitioner, her husband maintained sound health and was hale and hearty throughout his life. However, he had retrosternal chest pain sometime in December, 1979, when he consulted Dr. P. S. Kulkarni, Professor of Medicine, M. P....
Tag this Judgment!