9911796707
TMI Blog1962 (4) TMI 40X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as sold to the company for a sum of Rs. 43,663-8-0. The vendee was given credit for the lease money towards the sale price. It has claimed that a sum of Rs. 14,761-10-3 still remains outstanding. The Union of India has further claimed that a sum of Rs. 5,040-2-0 was due as rent till March, 1956, of the premises known as May Villa, Simla. The third claim of the petitioner is that a sum of Rs. 6,662-7-0 was due as rent till 28th February, 1955, for the premises known as Bank Building, Simla, from the company. It was prayed that the recoveries of these amounts, which are due to the Government of India, be ordered as arrears of land revenue and be treated as a preferential claim. In the written statement filed by the official liquidator, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e item of Rs. 6,662-7-0 as it has already been received. The only dispute which remains to be decided is whether the claim of Rs. 16,804.27 which is admittedly due to the Union of India is to be treated as a preferential claim. On behalf of the Union of India reliance has been placed upon a case decided by me in Excise and Taxation Officer v. Gauri Mal Butail Trust AIR 1961 Punj. 292. In that case, property tax under the Punjab Urban Immoveable Property Tax Act, 1940, had been imposed. The question arose as to the recovery of this tax being deemed as a preferential claim. Relying upon Union of India v. Amar Nath (ILR 1958 Punj. 1040) Bank of India v. John Bowman (AIR 1955 Bom. 305) and Builders Supply Corporation v. Union ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... question arose. In that case, the State Government had advanced a loan to the company. The question was whether this debt could be given priority under section 530 of the Companies Act, 1956. Relying upon Governor-General in Council v. Shiromani Sugar Mills Ltd. ([1946] 16 Comp. Cas. 71 ; AIR 1946 FC 16) I expressed the view that such a loan could not be given priority under section 530. I also maintained that the decision in Excise and Taxation Officer v. Gauri Mal Butail Trust (ILR [1960] 1 Punj. 809) was distinguishable as that was a case of tax whereas the case against the Pure Milk Supply Company Ltd. was of loan advanced by the State. It may be said that the State has certain prerogatives, but it is also open to the State ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
