|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 18 of 18 Records
-
1951 (7) TMI 27 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... statute provides that the proceedings 'shall stand transferred'. The transfer is automatic. No order of the Court is necessary. On formal information from the High Court, the records of the proceeding must be sent to the High Court. 18. The Legislature in its wisdom has provided for the transfer and trial of all proceedings that arise out of or in the course of the winding up of a company to the High Court and this Court is bound to act accordingly. The Court cannot construe the section in a way that whittles down the intention of the Legislature. 19. Our Court of appeal had to construe these sections in 'BHARATI CENTRAL BANK LTD. v. RATHINDRA NATH' 54 CW N 975, and this judgment is in consonance to the judgment delivered in that case. 20. I think therefore that the order by the learned Subordinate Judge was rightly made and cannot be assailed. The application is dismissed with costs. Arthur Trevor Harries, C.J. 21. I agree. Gopendra Nath Das, J. 22. I agree.
-
1951 (7) TMI 26 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... eemed always to have applied to such tenants. It did not apply in either of these two cases when the Small Cause Court decided in favour of the tenants. It may well be that having regard to the view that this Court took in the cases of 'NANDORANI DASSI v. SATYA NARAINM' ANU/WB/0242/1950 AIR1950Cal215 , and 'S. B. TRADING CO. LTD. v. SATYENDRA CHANDRA SEN' 54 CW N 756, the decisions of the Small Cause Court Judges were erroneous. Nevertheless, by reason of Section 5 of the Amending Act they must now be held to have been correct as the section as amended applies to pending cases and these two cases were clearly pending when the Amending Act came into force. 53. The orders of the Small Cause Court in each of these cases therefore cannot be challenged and the petitions fail and are dismissed with costs. The hearing fee in each Rule is assessed at five gold mohurs. 54. The Rule in each case is discharged. Gopendra Nath Das, J. 55. I agree. Banerjee, J. 56. I agree.
-
1951 (7) TMI 25 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
... ...
... ... ..... ed or if the discretion is arbitrarily exercised it can always be set right by the Court for as I have pointed out repeatedly an arbitrary exercise of discretion is no exercise at all. 14. So far as the merits are concerned the true facts appear to be that after the prosecution of the petitioner for contraventions of the Rice Mills Control Order ended in his conviction on 28-12-1950 the petitioner did no approach the Authorities any more for issue of a license to him as he perhaps despaired of getting any license after his conviction. It is denied in the counter-affidavit that there was any demand or refusal before this application for mandamus was made. The petition only sets out vaguely that the renewal of license was refused (Para 8). The petition does not set out clearly that any demand for performance preceded this application for prerogative writ. 15. In my view this petition must fail. The Rule is discharged with costs. The hearing fee is assessed at three gold mohurs.
-
1951 (7) TMI 24 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ere, although no actual execution case was pending on 1-1-1939, but an execution case could be filed after that date, and was in fact filed on that date it was "a suit to which this Act applies." I think, therefore, that we may safely in the present case interpret the word "pending" in Section 5 of Act LXII 62 of 1950 to include a case such as the present. 10. The result is, as I have said, that the appeal was to be disposed of on the basis that the law in force at the time when the decree was passed on 31-8-1950 was the law as it stood amended by Act LXII 62 of 1950, and in that view of the matter the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge is entirely correct. 11. I would also add that it would appear that the present view might also be supported on the basis of the amendment of the definition of "tenant" in Act XVII 17 of 1950 which was made by the amending Act LXII 62 of 1950. 12. The result is that this appeal must be dismissed with costs.
-
1951 (7) TMI 23 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... y the Court in the absence of irregularity or fraud and if the Court were to interfere with such bids, simply because there was a higher bid before the Court at the time of the confirmation. We realise that this may be the result if the Court were to refuse the highest bid, say, of ₹ 10,000 merely because a party at the time of confirmation offers ₹ 10,000. But in our opinion, a sale conducted by an officer of Court would equally become a farce if the Court is obliged to accept the highest bid at such a sale, though the court is convinced that the bid does not represent adequately the real price of the property. In these matters it is not safe to lay down any rule of thumb. The facts of each particular case would ultimately mould the exercise of discretion by the Court. We are convinced in this case that the discretion was very properly exercised and we see no reason to interfere with the order of the learned Judge. 5. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.
-
1951 (7) TMI 22 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
... ...
... ... ..... rocess server is still more profound. To attempt to serve a partner calling him an 'authorised employee' and at his residence, is by itself wrong, but even so, that service was by affixation and under circumstances under which no service by affixation could be effected. 40. As regards defendant 3, he has served on the third attempt because he could not be found and there was no 'authorised person living in the same mess.' This also shows the profound ignorance of the process server regarding the elementary principles governing service by affixation. 41. I, therefore, hold that there was no proper service in this case and I direct that the suit should go out of the undefended list and that a fresh Writ of Summons should issue for service upon the defendants (other than defendant 4) and that service be effected in accordance with law. Let the Writ issue upon counsel's endorsement, countersigned by my officer. 42. The question of costs of the day is reserved.
-
1951 (7) TMI 21 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rom the order that we are making with regard to the costs of the appeal. Therefore, the costs of the hearing of the petition will be that the petitioner must pay to the State three fourths of the costs of the hearing of the petition, Costs of the reference will be costs in the petition. Costs to be taxed on the Long Cause scale. 31. The respondent has cross-objected against the failure on the part of the learned Judge below to give a direction to the State to remove the lock and seal placed upon certain portions of the premises which wore sought to be requisitioned by the order which was held to be a bad order. In our opinion, the petitioner is entitled to possession of the premises which he was asked to hand over under the order of requisition. Therefore, we will direct that the State should hand over possession of the premises within seven days from today. The rest of the cross objections dismissed. No order as to costs. 32. Appeal dismissed; Gross-objection partly allowed.
-
1951 (7) TMI 20 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... en found framed as one for specific performance of contract. This view is totally misconceived. The only part of the contract that was necessary to be enforced was payment of the consideration by the lessee. They had already got the benefit from the lessor's performance of his part of the contract. They could not keep the benefit to themselves and repudiate the contract. Besides, this question had been raised before the first appellate Court and so it could be raised in Second Appeal provided, as is the case here, all the necessary findings of facts are there. In the circumstances, we direct that the plaintiff's suit be decreed for the claim. 8. As the plaintiff's approach to the subject-matter of the suit was wrong and he was vacillating from one point to another, he shall be deprived of the costs which should have otherwise followed his success. 9. In the result, the suit is decreed but each party should bear his own costs throughout. Narasimham, J. 10. I agree.
-
1951 (7) TMI 19 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... It was argued that the plaintiff should be given an opportunity in this case to amend his plaint so as to bring forth the original cause of action. 9. It is possible that in the view of law taken by the Jodhpur Chief Court the plaintiff and his lawyer may have been misled into drafting the plaint in the way they have done. The plaintiff is, therefore, allowed to amend his plaint by incorporating the original cause of action. He will, however, pay the costs incurred by the respondent in this Court and the lower appellate Court. 10. The appeal is, therefore, accepted, the judgment and decree of the lower Court are set aside, and the case is sent back to the trial Court. The plaintiff will be allowed to amend his plaint within one month of the record reaching the trial Court, and the trial Court will proceed further according to law. The appellant will pay costs of the first appellate Court and of this Court. The costs of the trial Court will abide the final result of the suit.
-
1951 (7) TMI 18 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... ision has reference to the additional constructions which may come into existence after the lease in the space outside the 35 feet ground granted under the lease and not to the lessee's buildings adverted to in Clause (4) of the later set of covenants in the document between the lessor and the lessee. It may still be a question at the same time, if Mr. Muthu Krishna Ayer's construction is to be accepted whether the effect of the failure on the part of the lessee to remove the building in accordance with the liberty given to him by Clause (4) of the later set of covenants will be to make of the lessee's building property of the lessor and that too without any liability to pay any compensation. As already stated, I do not feel called upon to express any final opinion upon this aspect of the matter in view of the conclusion that we have reached on the main point argued in concurrence with the court below. ( 38. ) I agree that the appeal must be dismissed with costs.
-
1951 (7) TMI 17 - PEPSU HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 51 Mad. 249. the conduct of the authorities concerned is such as to make it clear that they have not been discharging their duties and are not likely to do so without the guidance of the Court that the Court will be justified in issuing mandamus. In this case, there is nothing to show that the Sales Tax Officer or the Commissioner did not discharge their duties or that they were not likely to discharge their duties without the guidance of the Court and that accordingly this being an exceptional case appro- priate writs should be issued even though the petitioners have not availed of the remedies provided by the Ordinance. In fact, it appears to me that either because of the wrong advice given to them or because of certain other reasons which are not clear from the record, the peti- tioners rushed to this Court without any cause whatsoever. In the result I would dismiss the petitions with costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 20 in each case. GURNAM SINGH, J.-I agree. Petitions dismissed.
-
1951 (7) TMI 16 - PUNJAB HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Indian food preparations ordinarily sold by Tandur- walas, Lohwalas and Dhabawalas. We do not think, however, we should go into the merits of the applicants contentions, for by Sec- tions 20, 21 and 22 of the Act provision not only for appeal and for revision but also for statement of a case to the High Court in the manner of Section 66 of the Income-tax Act is made. We think it is for the applicants to take their proper remedies under the Act rather than here seek to invoke an extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Without therefore expressing any opinion on the merits of the contentions raised we think these applications should be dismissed. No order as to costs. Applications dismissed.
-
1951 (7) TMI 15 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... onable doubt, to put such a construction upon a taxing statute as is most bene- ficial to the subject. In view of these decisions we think the benefit of the ambiguity in the wording of the item ought to go to the appli- cants. This means that cloth of sample No. 4 ought also to be treated as subject to the general tax of half anna in the rupee and not to the special tax. 9.We find from the record that the figure of tax so far as the cloth of sample No. 4 is concerned has been fixed at Rs. 337-7-0 by the Sales Tax Officer under the orders of the Collector of Sales Tax. This figure will have to be reduced to half, i.e., Rs. 166-11-6. 10.We pass the following order. ORDER. The order of the Collector of Sales Tax is modified and it is direct- ed that the tax already assessed be reduced by Rs. 166-11-6. The applicants will have their costs throughout from the opponent. Ordered accordingly. (1) 1935 3 I.T.R. 147 37 Bom. L.R. 112 at p. 117. (2) 1948 16 I.T.R. 192 50 Bom. L.R. 349.
-
1951 (7) TMI 14 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... observe here that there is a defect in the drafting of the sec- tion and that it ought to be removed as soon as possible by mentioning the Collector of Sales Tax as an authority entitled to condone delay (in suitable cases) in filing revision applications. He mostly deals with revision applications. It will certainly be strange that he should have no such power. 4.Section 22A of the Act would have helped the applicant had Section 12 of the Indian Limitation Act covered cases of revision. We could then have deducted in his favour the time taken in obtaining the copy of the Assistant Commissioner s decision but unfortunately for the applicant Section 12 does not cover applications for revision. 5.For the reasons given above we think we have to uphold the decision of the Collector of Sales Tax, that the application to him was barred by limitation. This revision application fails. ORDER. The application is rejected. There will be no order as regards costs. Application rejected.
-
1951 (7) TMI 13 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... facts as stated in the petition, no such case as would justify us in asking the Revising Authority to refer it to this Court for decision. The next point urged by learned counsel for the applicant is that in calculating the sales tax the licence fee should have been deducted from the turnover. Rule 44 framed under the Act lays down that the tax under Section 3 shall be computed on the net turnover. In deter- mining that net turnover the amounts specified shall be deducted if they are found included in the gross turnover. Looking to the amounts which are to be deducted, we find that the licence fee is not one of them. It cannot come under any one of the sub-rules (a) to (g) of Rule 44. We consequently find that there is no force in this argument either. For the reasons given above, we hold that there is no force in this application. It is accordingly dismissed with costs. Learned standing counsel shall be entitled to a fee of Rs. 200 from the applicant. Application dismissed.
-
1951 (7) TMI 12 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... proviso to Section 7 as also under Rule 39 of Chapter VIII. This being the state of affairs there is no force in this case. We, therefore, reject this application with costs. The learned Standing Counsel shall be entitled to a fee of Rs. 200. We may say that a copy of the order of the learned Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, refusing to submit the case to this Court was not filed along with the application presented to this Court by the applicants. We are informed that no rules in regard to the papers to be filed along with applications under the Sales Tax Act have as yet been framed by this Court. Until such time as these rules come to be framed by this Court, the rules which apply in regard to the filling of judgments, orders and other papers in connection with Income-tax References should be deemed to be applicable to references under the Sales Tax Act. A copy of this order shall be sent to all the three Bar Associations and to other Honourable Judges. Application rejected.
-
1951 (7) TMI 11 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Winding up - Powers of liquidator and Prosecution of delinquent officers and members of company
-
1951 (7) TMI 10 - HIGH COURT OF TRAVANCORE-COCHIN
Winding up - Preferential payments ... ... ... ... ..... them and if they have only discharged their duties as required by the agreement entered into by them with the employers no extra compensation promised to them will come within the meaning of section 25, sub-section (2), of the Indian Contract Act. This is clear from the decided cases which are all collected together in the commentary of Pollock and Mulla on the Indian Contract Act, pages 182 and 183, (7th Edition). In these circumstances, we have no hesitation in allowing this appeal and setting aside the order made by the court below. We are leaving the question open as to whether when the list of creditors is ultimately settled the employees in whose favour a bonus has been sanctioned by the directors may come forward and prove their claims just like ordinary creditors. The main question then will be whether they are not persons to whom gifts have been promised. The appellant will be entitled to costs of this appeal payable out of the assets in the hands of the liquidators.
|
