In cases where the expenditure is made for the initial outlay or for extension of a business or a substantial replacement of the equipment, there is no doubt that it is capital expenditure. As far as we can see, there is no conflict on the question of the applicability of Section 529-A read with Section 529 of the Companies Act to cases where the debtor is a company and is in liquidation. Canara Bank was not adverted to in this decision. The source or the manner of the payment would then be of no consequence.
This view was taken in Allahabad Bank v. I submit that, without prejudice to the rights of the Respondent No. A capital asset of the business is either acquired or extended or substantially replaced and that outlay whatever be its source whether it is drawn from the capital or the income of the concern is certainly in the nature of capital expenditure. If any such asset or advantage for the enduring benefit of the business is thus acquired or brought into existence it would be immaterial whether the source of the payment was the capital or the income of the concern or whether the payment was made once and for all or was made periodically.
If on the other hand it is made not for the purpose of bringing into existence any such asset or advantage but for running the business or working it with a view to produce the profits it is a revenue expenditure. This argument is not available as far as the SFC Act is concerned, since Section 529-A was introduced by Act 35 of 1985 and the overriding provision therein would prevail over the SFC Act of 1951 as amended in 1956 and notwithstanding Section 46-B of the SFC Act.
2 to contest the present appeal, the answering Respondent with the approval of Government of Gujarat has already shown its willingness to pay compensatory tariff prospectively (from next month of CERC order i. asset or advantage for the enduring benefit of the 987 business it is properly attributable to capital and is of the nature of capital expenditure. Learned counsel for the respondent, per contra, would support the judgment passed by the High Court on the foundation that this High Court has ascribed adequate reasons to come to the conclusion and, http://lexlords.in/power-of-attorney-for-nri/">Advocate in Chandigarh any case, the punishment of dismissal in the facts and circumstances is too harsh and shocks the conscience.
It seems to us that whether the assets are realised by a secured creditor even if it be by proceeding under the SFC Act or under the Recovery of Debts Act, the distribution of the assets could only http://lawyerinchandigarh.com">Chandigarh Lawyer be in terms of Section 529-A of the Act and by recognising the right of the Liquidator to calculate the workmens dues and collect it for distribution among them pari passu with the secured creditors. This synthesis attempted by the Full Bench of the Lahore High Court truly enunciates the principles which emerge from the authorities.
Learned counsel for the State has further contended that once Section 32-A of the NDPS Act has been held to be constitutionally valid, the effort to compare the conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC with that under Section 32-A of the NDPS Act is an exercise in futility Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer of the petitioners on the ground that Section 32-A of the NDPS Act curtails the statutory power of the concerned Government and accordingly the same has been stipulated in the Manual and hence, no fault can be found with action taken by the State Government.
If the expenditure is made for acquiring or bringing into existence an. Official http://lawyerchandigarh.com/contact/" />Advocate in Chandigarh Liquidator was approved. Chidambaram, learned senior counsel in rejoinder and in response to the three contentions advanced at the hands of the respondents, invited this Courts attention to Sections 18, 19 and 34 of the RDB Act. This decision recognises that, whether a creditor is standing outside the winding up or not, the distribution of the proceeds has to be in terms of Section 529 of the Companies Act read with Section 529-A of that Act in a case where the debtor is a company-in-liquidation.
Such expenditure can be looked at either from the point of view of what is acquired or from the point of view of what is the source from which the expenditure is incurred. The conflict, if any, is in the view that the Debts Recovery Tribunal could sell the properties of the company in terms of the Recovery of Debts Act. The reference to a larger Bench was occasioned by the fact that the decision in Allahabad Bank v.
The question however arises for consideration where expenditure is incurred while the business is going on and is not incurred either for extension of the business or for the substantial replacement of its equipment. March 2014) subject to paras 12 and 13 above to resolve the issue by making suitable adjustments in tariff which till date is not implemented because of non acceptance by Appellant and other stakeholders. As regards distribution of assets, there is no conflict.
Canara Bank https://simranlaw.com/designs/">Lawyer in Chandigarh view of the Recovery of Debts Act being a subsequent legislation and being a special law which would prevail over the general law, the Companies Act. The Official Liquidator representing a ranked secured creditor working under the control of the Company Court cannot, therefore, be kept out of the process. The aim and object of the expenditure would determine the character of the expenditure whether it is a capital expenditure or a revenue expenditure.