Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1959 1959 (11) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA Law of Competition PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2025 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 2 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 41 to 45 of 45 Records

• 1959 (11) TMI 23
  
  Issues: Application for dispensing with the calling of an extraordinary general meeting for amalgamation approval.
  
  In this judgment delivered by Ramaswamy, J., the High Court of Madras addressed an application seeking dispensation of an extraordinary general meeting for the approval of an amalgamation between two companies. The applicant argued that since a general meeting had already unanimously approved the amalgamation, holding an extraordinary general meeting would be redundant, causing unnecessary expense and delay. However, the court found no valid reasons presented by the applicant to bypass the requirement under Section 394 of the Indian Companies Act, 1956. The court emphasized the importance of convening an extraordinary general meeting under the court's direction to ensure proper consideration and approval of the amalgamation arrangement. The court highlighted that shareholders' meetings are crucial for exercising control over directors and making decisions that bind the company and its members. It underscored that shareholders have fiduciary responsibilities to act in the best interests of all shareholders, and the Act provides mechanisms to protect minority shareholders in case of oppressive actions by the majority. The court reiterated that shareholders' rights are to be exercised in accordance with the Act and the company's memorandum and articles of association.
  
  Furthermore, the court discussed the shareholder's control over company affairs, noting concerns about dispersed shareholding and lack of active shareholder participation in company matters. Quoting observations from the Company Law Committee and other sources, the court highlighted the challenges faced in ensuring effective shareholder engagement in corporate governance. The court emphasized the need for full disclosure of company-related facts and suitable provisions for conducting company meetings to enable active and competent shareholders to participate effectively. The judgment concluded by directing the applicant to hold the extraordinary general meeting as mandated by Section 391 of the Companies Act and subsequently seek court approval under Section 394, ensuring compliance with the statutory requirements for amalgamation approval.

  ---

• 1959 (11) TMI 22
  

  Whether the liquidators had remained in occupation of the premises not for the purpose of winding up but "because they could not think of any suitable method of getting rid of the premises in spite of all their desire to do so?

  Held that:- Unable to agree with the High Court that under rule 97 of the Company Rules, if the premises remained in the occupation of the liquidators, not for the purpose of winding up, the landlord is entitled to priority in respect of payment of rent. On the view taken by us, the appeal will be allowed, the order passed by the High Court set aside and the order passed by Mr. Justice Brij Mohan Lall restored with costs in this court and in the High Court.

  ---

• 1959 (11) TMI 21
  
  The High Court of Kerala allowed the appeal, setting aside the lower court's order in an execution petition case. The court clarified that the decree did not need to be amended, as the rights under the decree had been transferred to a new bank through amalgamation. The lower court was directed to proceed with the execution application in accordance with the law. (Case citation: 1959 (11) TMI 21 - High Court of Kerala)

  ---

• 1959 (11) TMI 2
  
  Issues:
  Challenge to the validity of penalty under the Sea Customs Act based on importation of smuggled gold and violation of restrictions.
  
  Analysis:
  The petition challenged an order imposing penalties on the petitioners under the Sea Customs Act for their involvement in the importation of smuggled gold. The facts revealed that the petitioners were linked to the smuggling activities through their role in melting the gold. However, the main contention raised was regarding the jurisdiction of the authority to levy penalties based on the specific provisions of the Sea Customs Act.
  
  The petitioners argued that the penalties imposed were beyond the jurisdiction of the authority as per Section 167(8) of the Act. They contended that the act of importation is completed when goods cross the customs barrier, and any subsequent actions do not constitute importation contrary to restrictions. The court analyzed the language of the relevant provisions and emphasized the strict construction of penal provisions in statutes. It concluded that the offense of importation contrary to prohibition is complete when goods cross the customs barrier, and actions taken afterward, such as destroying evidence, do not fall within the scope of the offense under Section 167(8).
  
  The court further examined the phrase "person concerned in any such offense" in Section 167(8) and referenced legal precedents to interpret its meaning. It distinguished between individuals directly involved in the act of smuggling and those with an interest in the illegal importation prior to its completion. The court clarified that the petitioners, who were aiding in destroying evidence of smuggling after the importation, were not considered persons concerned in the offense of importation under the Sea Customs Act.
  
  Based on the analysis of the statutory provisions and legal interpretations, the court held that the penalties imposed on the petitioners were without jurisdiction. It quashed the order imposing penalties, ruling in favor of the petitioners and declaring the penalties null and void. The judgment highlighted the importance of strict interpretation of penal provisions and clarified the scope of liability under the Sea Customs Act in cases of smuggling activities.

  ---

• 1959 (11) TMI 1
  
  Issues:
  1. Determination of customs duty under item 295 or item 301 of the Tariff Schedule for imported goods described as "Sirens."
  2. Correct application of tests to ascertain whether the goods are adapted for use in motor cycles or motor scooters.
  
  Analysis:
  The petitioner, an importer of goods, imported "Sirens" from Japan, claiming they are pre-eminently fitted for use in motor cycles and motor scooters. The dispute arose regarding the classification of customs duty under item 295 or item 301 of the Tariff Schedule. The Customs authorities contended the goods fell under item 301, resulting in a higher duty. The Court referred to a previous judgment emphasizing the need to apply specific tests to determine the classification accurately. The authorities found the sirens were essentially adapted for use on cycles, leading to an order of confiscation. However, the Court found the tests were not correctly applied as the crucial determination of whether the goods were adapted for use in motor cycles or motor scooters was missing. The Court clarified that a part or accessory adapted for use in a motor cycle should be distinguished from one adapted for use with a motor cycle or scooter. The findings lacked the necessary analysis to establish the classification under the Tariff Schedule accurately.
  
  The Court highlighted that exhaustive inquiries were conducted ex parte and without notice to the petitioner, which was deemed improper in quasi-judicial proceedings. Relying on the principle of natural justice, the Court deemed the proceedings unfair due to the lack of opportunity for the petitioner to present their case. Consequently, the Court quashed the order of confiscation and directed the authorities not to enforce it. The Court emphasized the need for a lawful determination of the matter and urged expeditious resolution in accordance with the law. The judgment underscored the importance of fair procedures and correct application of tests in customs classification disputes to ensure a just outcome.

  ---

123