Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • 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
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • 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
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 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
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • 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
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Court allows set-off in insolvency case for mutual dealings under Companies Act & Provincial Insolvency Act</h1> <h3>Official Liquidator Versus Smt. B. Lakshmikutty</h3> Official Liquidator Versus Smt. B. Lakshmikutty - [1975] 45 COMP. CAS. 679 (KAR.) Issues Involved:1. Right to claim set-off under Section 529(1)(c) of the Companies Act, 1956 read with Section 46 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920.2. Applicability of mutual dealings and set-off in the context of liquidation.3. Interpretation of relevant legal provisions and case laws.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Right to Claim Set-off under Section 529(1)(c) of the Companies Act, 1956 read with Section 46 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920:The official liquidator and the additional liquidator filed applications under Section 446(2) of the Companies Act, 1956, to direct the respondents to pay the sums owed with interest. The respondents contended that they were entitled to claim a set-off under Section 529(1)(c) of the Companies Act, 1956, read with Section 46 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920, due to mutual dealings. The court examined the relevant legal provisions and concluded that Section 46 of the Provincial Insolvency Act allows for set-off where there have been mutual dealings, and the balance of the account, and no more, shall be claimed or paid on either side respectively. The court held that the respondents were entitled to claim a set-off for the amounts due to them from the company under other chit fund accounts or fixed deposits.2. Applicability of Mutual Dealings and Set-off in the Context of Liquidation:The court considered whether the claims arising under different and independent accounts, such as chit fund accounts and fixed deposit accounts, could be considered mutual dealings. The court referred to several case laws, including Naoroji v. Chartered Bank of India [1868] LR 3 CP 444, Sovereign Life Insurance Company v. Dodd [1891-4] All ER 246, and Cox v. Rolls Razor Ltd. [1891-4] All ER 246 [1967] 1 QB 552, 569 (CA), to interpret the concept of mutual dealings. The court observed that mutual dealings imply reciprocal demands which must naturally terminate in a debt. The court held that the respondents were entitled to set-off the sums due to them from the company under other accounts against the amounts they owed to the company.3. Interpretation of Relevant Legal Provisions and Case Laws:The court examined the relevant provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, including Sections 528, 529, and 530, and Section 46 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920. The court also referred to various case laws, including Paschal Nazareth v. Denis Lobo AIR 1953 Mys. 126, In re Travancore National Bank Subsidiary Co. Ltd. (In liquidation) [1940] 10 Comp Cas 87, 91 (Mad.), and decisions of the Kerala High Court in In re Free India Bank Ltd. (In liquidation) [1962] 32 Comp Cas 113 (Ker.) and State of Kerala v. Kerala Water Transport Corporation Ltd. (In liquidation) AIR 1967 Ker. 150. The court concluded that under ordinary law, the respondents could have pleaded the sums due to them by way of set-off if suits had been filed before liquidation. The court found no provision in the Companies Act that takes away this right upon the company's liquidation.Conclusion:The court held that the respondents were entitled to plead by way of set-off the amounts they were entitled to recover from the company under other chit fund accounts or fixed deposits. They were liable to pay only the balances remaining after giving credit to the sums in respect of which set-off was pleaded. The objections raised by the official liquidator and the additional liquidator were overruled.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found