|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 375 Records
-
1995 (3) TMI 344 - SUPREME COURT
Whether a petition under section 630 of the Act is maintainable against the legal heirs of a deceased officer or an employee for retrieval of the company's property?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. As our answer to the question posed in the earlier part of this judgment is in the affirmative and we hold that a petition under section 630 of the Act is maintainable against the legal heirs of the deceased officer/employee for retrieval of the company's property wrongfully withheld by them after the demise of the employee concerned. The High Court was, therefore, right in dismissing the petitions filed by the appellants under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code and declining to quash the proceedings initiated by the employer of the deceased employee for retrieval of the company's property under section 630 of the Act.
-
1995 (3) TMI 342 - HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
... ...
... ... ..... sh and Bank Balances of the Transferor Company relating and/or appertaining to the said Lohpohia Tea Estate. ANNEXURE A TO THE AFORESAID SCHEDULE OF ASSETS Land of Lohpohia Tea in the Khongia Mouza, Jorhat District. Village Patta/Grant No. Dag No. Area B-K-L Gariahabi Grant F.S.I. 60/22 1 to 11 13 to 31 36 to 54, 59, 60 112 to 141, 1931-0-07 143 to 164 61 to 74 76 to 111 -do- T.P.I. 57 25-4-17 -do- P.P.I. 55, 56 and 74 8-1-16 -do- P.P.2 58 and 242 2-1-09 Charingia T.P. 126 145,207,218, 242, 269, 279, 280, 284,344, 397, 437, 446, 448, 449,462, 464, 505, 508, 511,537,545, 89-3-11 571, 572, 596, 597, 599, 600, 601,619,621, 624, 634, 636, 641 -do- T.P.I. 338 6-2-15 Chalihagaon T.P.III 22, 29, 32, 89, 133, 136, 143, 146, 188, 191, 20-1-03 200,437,518, 584 Kuhiar Baria P.P. 225 87, 88,124, 387, 418,488, 509,510,576, 18-3-07 577, 737,787, 795. 27 Bar Ahom Gaon P.P.I. 2 and Part of 78 607-3-12 (This land of Parbatia Mouza also mutated in the name of Lohpohia T.E.) Total 2710B-2K-17L
-
1995 (3) TMI 341 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Condonation of delays, Register of members ... ... ... ... ..... icles give any power which is residuary in character. Even assuming that there is residuary power, when the company find reasons for its refusal to register transfer of shares, that reason alone will have to be examined as good or bad. That is exactly what the CLB has done in this case. Hence, I find no merit in any of the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 16. The other submission raised is that a proceeding arising under Companies Act is pending for rectification of registers and hence this matter could not be decided. I do not think I can put off consideration of this matter for in no proceeding arising under Companies Act can correctness of the order of CLB be examined. If that is so, it would be proper to decide this matter now. 17. Thus, I find no substance in these petitions. Petitions are therefore dismissed. Rule discharged. 18. In the circumstances, the company will have to comply with the order of the CLB within a period of two weeks from today.
-
1995 (3) TMI 334 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Winding up - Appeals from orders ... ... ... ... ..... t may deem necessary for proper functioning of the company or the factory (4)A further affidavit and commitment by any of the financiers (who have already expressed their willingness to assist the company) by committing funds at least to the extent of Rs. 1.5 crores within ten days on such terms and conditions that may be agreed upon between the board of management and such financiers (5)Any of the parties are at liberty to move the AAIFR for any further directions. The AAIFR is directed to dispose of the appeal before it expeditiously and in any event within four months from the date of receipt of this judgment. In view of the above judgment, I.As-II, V and IX stand disposed of. Order on oral application Soon after pronouncement of the judgment, an oral application is made on behalf of the ICICI to stay the operation of this judgment for a period of 4 weeks. In the circumstances, neither it is just nor expedient to stay the operation of the judgment. The request is rejected.
-
1995 (3) TMI 332 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Power to adjudicate, Repel and savings ... ... ... ... ..... dents who have issued the impugned proceedings do not lack jurisdiction to initiate the adjudication proceedings and finalise the same in accordance with law, these proceedings are liable to be rejected on the said ground also. For all the reasons stated above, we are of the view that the challenge made to the impugned proceedings does not merit our acceptance and consequently, the writ petition, as also the writ appeal shall stand dismissed, but in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected W.M.P. and C.M.P in the above writ petition and writ appeal shall also stand dismissed. Before parting with the case, we would like to observe that in order to avoid such technical contention which only tends to delay the proceedings, it is always advisable to state in the show-cause notice the order under which the officer or the authority is empowered to issue such notice and issue such notice under the same designation as authorised.
-
1995 (3) TMI 331 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the use of the words 'civil court' in sub-section (1) excludes the application of section 9A to the CLB?
Held that:- The appeal is allowed. Section 9A(2) of the Special Court Act speaks of the transfer of 'every suit, claim or other legal proceeding (other than an appeal)' does not exclude the 'application' or 'appeal' made under the provisions of section 111 of the Companies Act from the purview of section 9A(1) of the Special Court Act. The judgment and order of the CLB under appeal is set aside. The application of the Canara Bank pending before the CLB shall stand transferred to the Special Court constituted under the provisions of the Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act.
-
1995 (3) TMI 330 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Stock exchanges ... ... ... ... ..... - IV Edition - the grounds for the award of mandamus is discussed to explain in what circumstances a writ of mandamus would lie. It is stated that mandamus lies to secure the performance of a public duty, in the performance of which the applicant has a sufficient legal interest. The duty to be performed must be a public nature and mandamus will not lie to order admission or restoration to an office that is essentially of a private character, as in the present case restoration of a membership of a Stock Exchange that is essentially of a private character, nor, in general, will it lie to secure the due performance of the obligations owed by a company towards its members, unless it be that is a case to secure performance of statutory duty, which is not the position in the present case. Hence, this ground is sufficient to dismiss the Petition and therefore I do not propose to consider the other contentions raised in this Petition. Petition is therefore dismissed. Rule discharged.
-
1995 (3) TMI 328 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Register of members ... ... ... ... ..... ircum- stances, it would be presumed that he had the knowledge from the date of the allotment of shares. The present petition, under the circumstances, would be barred by limitation. 6. On merits also, the petitioner cannot succeed as the petition involves disputed questions of fact which can only be gone into by a civil court. A learned Single Judge of this Court in S. Gurucharan Singh Mahant v. Rattan Sports (P.) Ltd. 1986 59 Comp. Cas. 279 dismissed the petition filed under section 155 where disputed questions of fact were involved holding that the proceedings under section 155 were of summary nature wherein the Court was not expected to go into intricate and disputed questions of fact. The petitioner had to resort to a civil suit to establish his claim . For the reasons recorded above, this petition is dismissed, being barred by limitation as well as because it involves disputed questions of fact which can only be decided by a civil court. No costs. 7. Petition dismissed.
-
1995 (3) TMI 327 - HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Court – Jurisdiction of, Company when deemed unable to pay its debts ... ... ... ... ..... fice means the place which has longest been the registered office of the company during the six months immediately preceding the presentation of the petition for winding-up. The court having jurisdiction under the Act is the High Court having jurisdiction in relation to the place at which the registered office of the company concerned is situate, except to the extent to which jurisdiction has been conferred on any District Courts subordinate to the High Court in pursuance of sub-section (2). Except to the extent to which any jurisdiction is expressly conferred on the District Court either by the Act or by the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette, all residuary jurisdiction under the Act is vested only in the High Courts. In the petition itself, it has been accepted that registered office of the company is at Hyderabad. In that view of the matter, this court has no jurisdiction to deal with this application. The application is accordingly not entertained.
-
1995 (3) TMI 292 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
EXIM - Advance licence - Demand ... ... ... ... ..... ping bill and invoices that such goods were manufactured. These in fact, had not been manufactured. Therefore, there is wilful misstatement before the customs authorities also. 13. emsp The demand for duty has in our view been rightly made. From the conduct of the parties as has been revealed in the transaction, it is not possible for us to conclude that either of them parties was acting in good faith or in ignorance of law. The collector rsquo s order of imposing penalty on the appellant is therefore is sound in law. However, we consider this in the circumstances of the case, some reduction is called for. We also note that it was primarily the responsibility of the licence holder M/s. Nicolian Brothers to comply with the condition of the licence and exemption by them. Taking those into account, we reduce the penalty imposed on M/s. Nicolian Brothers to Rs. 5,00,000/- and that imposed on Titan to Rs. 2,00,000/-. But for this reduction, the order of the Collector is confirmed.
-
1995 (3) TMI 284 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Demand - Modvat ... ... ... ... ..... fic notification issued under that rule prescribing a built-in specific period of limitation excluding Section 11A and its application the Tribunal being a creature of the statute cannot traverse out of the statutory provisions and incorporate and read it into the notification something which is not there. From a plain and literal interpretation of the notification in question particularly with reference to the period of limitation of six months, we hold that in the facts and circumstances for recovery of the refund allegedly refunded erroneously during the period April, 1990 to December, 1991, the show cause notice issued on 19-1-1993 is barred by limitation. In the light of the view we have taken on the plea of limitation, in terms of the notification in question, we do not feel called upon to pronounce on the other pleas of the appellants canvassed before us set out above. In the result, for the reasons stated above, the impugned order is set aside and the appeals allowed.
-
1995 (3) TMI 283 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... D.R. is not parallel on facts because there the Department had relied upon several documents including invoices of the goods in question which had been obtained by the DRI in India from German Customs. It was not a case of reliance being placed solely on unverified or unauthenticated copy of a document filed with the Customs, as in the present case. Moreover, the appellants in that case did not question the authenticity of the documents received from German Customs unlike in the present case. We, therefore, allow the appeal and set aside the adjudication order of the Collector and direct re-assessment of the goods on the basis of their appropriate assessable value in the light of such evidence as may be adduced by either side excluding the copies of export declaration. While giving such a disposal to the appeal, we note that this was the same line followed by the Tribunal in its decision in the case of East Punjab Traders (supra). The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
-
1995 (3) TMI 282 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Modvat - Higher notional credit ... ... ... ... ..... nder Notification 72/86. A plea has been made by the learned Consultant that no verification in respect of the facts as to what has been stated by the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad, regarding the clearances made by the suppliers stated to have been made under Notification 72/86 was made. We observe once the Gate Passes show the clearances under Notification 72/86 and the letter of the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad, confirms this and nothing further remained to be verified by the authorities. The appellants, if they had any doubt in this regard, should have made enquiries from the suppliers and got the information as to the Notification under which the inputs received by them had been cleared. They have produced no such evidence and their plea in this regard, therefore, carries no force. In view of the above discussion we hold that the learned lower appellate authority rsquo s order is maintainable in law and the appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
-
1995 (3) TMI 281 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... ere was no loss of revenue as it was rightly argued by the appellants. Following the ratio of the aforesaid decisions, we hold that the demand of duty was not justifiable as the goods have been actually exported in this case and the goods cleared for home consumption was negligible. But as regards penalty there is some force in the arguments advanced by the Departmental Representative that persons should not be allowed to go scot free who have shown scant respect to law and contravening the provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act and relevant Rules. Giving credence to the submissions made by him, we find that imposition of penalty was justified, but we are of the view that it is excessive and not commensurate with the gravity of offence. In the circumstances penalty amount deserves to be reduced. Accordingly penalty amount is reduced to Rs. 25,000/- (twenty five thousand) as against Rs. 4 lakhs. But for this reduction in quantum of penalty, Appeal is otherwise allowed.
-
1995 (3) TMI 277 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... e final order. Further, there is nothing in the operative part of the Collector rsquo s order which would go to show that this demand has been raised in pursuance or as a consequence to the Collector rsquo s order or flows therefrom. 11. We have considered the submissions. We feel that prima facie the learned Counsel rsquo s contentions have a strong force. The impugned order describes itself as an addendum to the original order and has been signed by the Collector himself. It does not indicate that this additional demand is being made in pursuance of or as a consequence to the order No. 90/93. There is also nothing before us at this stage which would go to show that it flows therefrom. 12. emsp In view of the above position we waive the pre-deposit of the amount in question and stay the recovery thereof during the pendency of the appeal. It is made clear that we are only staying the addendum rsquo i.e. the so called that portion of the order and the amount mentioned therein.
-
1995 (3) TMI 276 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation - Testing and inspection charges ... ... ... ... ..... f primary concern without any tests by themselves. The documentary evidence put up by them bears out the actual position and supports their contention. Because of the safety factor, the Railways apparently want to reassure themselves about the quality of the goods and had entrusted the work of additional tests to the specialised agency, RITES which is also under the Ministry of Railways. Such tests are carried out at the instance of the Railways, the buyers and the expenses incurred therefore are not part of the manufacturing cost. The present case is fully covered by the Tribunal decision in the Shree Pipes case which has also been upheld by the Honourable Supreme Court. In the circumstances, we set aside the impugned orders and allow the appeals. 5. emsp As the appeals are allowed on merits, we have not considered the alternate plea raised by the appellants about the extended period beyond six months being not available to the department for issue of the show cause notices.
-
1995 (3) TMI 275 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Penalty/Redemption Fine ... ... ... ... ..... mpugned order, the order of the Tribunal cited by the learned Consultant under which the appellant rsquo s appeal in regard to the additional duty demanded has been dismissed was not available and the appellants also had not brought to the notice of the adjudicating authority about the demands raised against them by the lower authorities for additional duty. Any duty liability fixed on the goods is a relevant factor for consideration for working out the margin of the profit based on the payments actually made and other expenses incurred. In this context it will also be relevant to take into consideration the use of the funds the appellants had after sale of the goods. In view of the above, I agree with my learned Brother that the matter will have to be considered afresh for fixing the margin of profit taking into consideration the above. Sd/- emsp emsp emsp emsp emsp emsp emsp emsp emsp emsp emsp (V.P. Gulati) emsp emsp emsp emsp emsp emsp emsp emsp emsp emsp emsp Member (T)
-
1995 (3) TMI 271 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... the presumption that the impugned goods are electronic equipment/system. On this count also, I have no option but to uphold the belief of the lower authority that the impugned goods are not eligible for clearance under OGL rdquo . Member (Judicial) in his order has reproduced the observations of the Collector (Appeals) while remitting the redemption fine and as such, I need not reproduce the same. I am of the view that the goods do not fall under OGL. 28. emsp In view of the above discussion, the point referred to me is answered accordingly. I concur with the views and reasons expressed by Member (Judicial). Registry is directed to place the matter before the Bench which has passed the order originally, for passing appropriate orders in accordance with law. Sd/- (Harish Chander) Dated 31-1-1995 President FINAL ORDER In view of the majority opinion, the appeal is rejected. Sd/- emsp emsp emsp Sd/- (G.P. Agarwal) (S.K. Bhatnagar) Dated 14-3-1995 Member (J) emsp Vice President
-
1995 (3) TMI 270 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... tay could be granted. This approach in granting stay in these matters has been also set out in the latest order of the Tribunal Misc. Order No. E-346/94-B1, dated 14-12-1994. The approach adopted by the Tribunal in all these cases is to grant waiver of duty where verification report covers full amount of duty demanded. In the cases, now taken up, it has been reported that verification has been done by the Departmental Authorities and the amount covers the duty demanded. Therefore, following the previous orders on the identical stay applications, we grant stay in these matters also. These matters are now posted for hearing alongwith other matters already listed for hearing on 3-4-1995.
-
1995 (3) TMI 269 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Natural Justice - Evidence - Cross-examination ... ... ... ... ..... delivered to other consignee, the charge for illicit removal would be reduced to that extent despite of technical violation. 10. emsp The Collector has also not taken into account the fact that some of the samples listed showed that they made are (sic.) of chemical pulp, there being a small amount of mechanical pulp whether paper made out of such pulp would be known as Kraft paper even if it would not be technical pulp is to be considered. A question of whether paper upto 250 gms is in fact paper or Board also may have to be considered, in the light of the decision in the Wapi Paper and Laxmi Paper which were passed subsequent to the Collector rsquo s orders. 11. emsp As to the limitation there would be no misdeclaration if it is held that goods are in fact commercially known as Kraft Paper. This would also have to be examined for considering the statements of witnesses and other evidence in question. 12. In the result we allow the appeal by way of remand as indicated above.
............
|
