The company in liquidation is entitled to invoke the provisions of section 171 of the Contract Act relating to general lien over the properties offered as security to cover all the loans availed by the owners’ POA and the claim of the owners seeking redemption of the title deeds in terms of section 91 of the Transfer of Property Act must yield to such right and consequently the right to claim redemption cannot be accepted.
On a reference to the Board for Industrial and financial Reconstruction (BIFR) by the company, a scheme of rehabilitation was sanctioned and the management of the company was taken over under the directions of the Board. The scheme sanctioned by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction failed to reflect the dues of the Petitioners.
The Appellant filed a Civil Suit upon refusal by the Second Respondent Company to register shares transferred by the First Respondent in the name of the Appellant on the ground that the signature of the transferor did not tally with the signature in the company records. The transferor did not contest the suit and the trial court passed a decree in favour of the Appellants.
The Appellant, a State level institution incorporated for the purpose of development of industries in the State, was an equity shareholder in the Third Respondent Company. The company was referred to the Board For Industrial Reconstruction (BIFR) for the purpose of framing a scheme for rehabilitation. The Board approved the draft revival scheme and circulated the scheme seeking suggestions and objections of the shareholders including the Appellant.
Originally the ancestor of the plaintiffs and the defendants, namely, B had started a proprietary concern. His son constituted six private limited companies and registered them under the Companies Act, 1956, and all the shareholders of these companies being the heirs of the late B, the companies were family concerns. The Defendants Nos. 2 to 6 started defendants Nos. 7 to 12 companies out of the funds of the original concern.
In the facts and circumstances of this case, the determining of date when the loss was incurred will have to be derived from the admitted facts. It is not a matter of dispute that the fire which resulted in destruction of the stock of the applicant-assessee took place on 26.3.1978. The aforesaid fire destroyed the stock/goods of the applicant-assessee lying with the PSWC
There is a difference between dismissal of a Special Leave Petition and dismissal of an Appeal. While the dismissal of a SLP does not result in merger of the judgment of the High Court with that of the Supreme Court and there is no affirmation, the dismissal of an Appeal results in an affirmation and merger of the order of the High Court into that of the Supreme Court.
Where the assessee had its own funds as well as borrowed funds and it advanced funds to its sister concerns for allegedly non-business purposes and the question arose whether the AO was justified in disallowing the interest on the borrowed funds on the ground that they had been used for non-business purposes, HELD: Where an assessee has his own funds as well as borrowed funds, a presumption can be made that t
(i) S. 149, which imposes the limitation period, requires the notice to be “issued” but not “served” within the limitation period. Once a notice is issued within the period of limitation, jurisdiction becomes vested in the AO to proceed to reassess. Service is not a condition precedent to conferment of jurisdiction but it is a condition precedent to the making of the order of assessment;
17.1 According to us, as correctly held by the Tribunal, the assessee’s claim for deduction had to be allowed, in one lump sum, keeping in view the provisions of Section 43B(d) which provides that any sum payable by the assessee as interest on any loan or borrowing from any financial institution shall be allowed to the assessee in the year in which the same is paid irrespective of the provisions in which the liability to pay
