|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 577 Records
-
2001 (3) TMI 969 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Imports - High Seas sale/transfer of ownership from bond ... ... ... ... ..... erim protection as granted by learned Single Judge. Moreover, a categorical statement has been made by learned Counsel for the appellant at the bar, which we take on record that in the event of the suit for specific performance being decreed in favour of the respondent, two machines of the same and similar specifications will be made available and supplied by the appellant to the respondent at the same costs. 15. emsp For the reasons aforementioned, we are of the view that the impugned order is not liable to be sustained in law. While taking the statement of the appellant on record and holding the appellant to be bound by the same, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order and thereby dismiss the respondent rsquo s application (IA.1636/99) and allow the application of the appellant (IA.12589/99). Needless to add that the observations made by us are meant only for the purpose of deciding this appeal and will not cause prejudice to the case of either party on merits.
-
2001 (3) TMI 967 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Winding up - Circumstances in which a company may be wound up ... ... ... ... ..... t it has defaulted in paying several creditors and is unable to pay its debts. As the petition is filed invoking section 434(1)(c), the creditor should produce the documents in support of its claim and the company should be given an opportunity to file its objections and documents to rebut the case of the creditor under section 434(1)(c). 14. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed in part. The order of the learned single Judge dated 26-3-1999/1-4-1999 in Co. P. No. 168/1988 (reported in 2000 CLC 981) overruling the preliminary objection regar- ding non-compliance with section 434(1)(a), is set aside. As a consequence, we request the company Court to now hear the parties in regard to admission of the petition on the ground based on section 434(1)(c), after giving an opportunity to the creditor to file documents in support of its case under section 434(1)(c) and an opportunity to the company to file its objections to the case under section 434(1)(c). Appeal partly allowed.
-
2001 (3) TMI 966 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Articles prescribing regulations ... ... ... ... ..... the travel, lodging and other expenses shall be met by the company. The Chairman shall be paid remuneration of Rs. 60,000 per month. 69. Persons connected with foreign companies who are business competitors of the JVA partners shall not be given any access to the Sky Cell rsquo s records, and no technical or managerial information concerning Sky Cell divulged to them. 70. This arrangement shall remain in force till the award, if any, in the arbitration, if initiated, attains finality. In the event of arbitration not taking place, this arrangement shall remain in force during the pendency of the two suits 930 and 931 of 2000, unless the parties resolve their differences earlier and report the same to this Court. 71. The impugned order of the learned Single Judge is set aside, and these appeals are allowed with costs throughout subject to the directions given in this judgment. 72. C.M.P. Nos. 19515, 19516, 19560, 19561, 19573, 19574 of 2000 and 1276 to 1281 of 2001 are closed.
-
2001 (3) TMI 965 - UTTAR PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Deficiency in service ... ... ... ... ..... of NSCs in the name of the firm, then the same should have been rejected but this was not done by the employees of the appellant and in violation of the instructions, they issued the NSCs in the name of the firm. The department is guilty and the complainant should not be allowed to suffer because of this. The learned District Forum has taken a realistic view of the situation and has rightly decreed the claim of the complainant ignoring the objections of the department. It has clearly stated that there was deficiency of service on behalf of the Postal Authorities. Thus, in view of what has been said above, the judgment and order of the learned District Forum are correct and do not require any interference. ORDER The appeal is dismissed and the judgment and order of the learned District Forum are confirmed. There will be no order as to the costs. Let compliance of the order be made within a period of two months from today. Let copy as per rules be made available to the parties.
-
2001 (3) TMI 964 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Winding up - Custody of company’s property ... ... ... ... ..... that the protection which is now available to banks or Financial Institutions has been substantially restricted under the new Rent Act. So far as this aspect is concerned, a suit for eviction which has been filed by the applicant in the small causes Court is already pending. It would be open to the applicant to pursue such remedies as are open under the provisions of the law. 9. In these circumstances, I am of the view that no case for the return of the premises is made out. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submitted that the applicant would make efforts to make available to the liquidator alternative premises. It is always open to the applicant to do so and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the liquidator has not expressed any objection thereto, save and except, that it is for the liquidator, if any premises are forthcoming to determine their suitability with reference to his requirements. In these circumstances, the application is rejected.
-
2001 (3) TMI 963 - SUPREME COURT
Unfair Trade Practice - Held that:- Appeal dismissed. The impugned order suffers from no infirmity. The appellants could not have, on the basis of the changed Policy on 15-7-1996, refused to complete the formalities so far as the 1st respondent is concerned. In the case of 1st respondent there had already been an allotment. Thus, the process of allotment had been completed. In this view of the matter the Commission was right in issuing the directions that it did. As the allotment was completed the 1st respondent could not be asked to pay any rate higher than the one of which he had been allotted the plot. We see no reason to interfere.
-
2001 (3) TMI 962 - UNION TERRITORY CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Deficiency in service ... ... ... ... ..... s returned and, hence, it kept lying in their office, is not a reason sufficient enough in the eye of law to exonerate them from their liability towards this depositor/consumer. The District Forum-II, erred in law by accepting the version of the respondent, especially so when it was totally uncorroborated by any document like proof by the courier agency, etc. We are of the considered opinion that the District Forum-II has not noticed and appreciated the facts of case in the proper perspective. We hold, the respondents, clearly deficient in the service rendered to this complainant and liable to pay interest for the 9 months period but at the rate of 9 per cent. The complainant since put to some inconvenience and harassment as a consequence of deficient services of the respondent is also held entitled to compensation of Rs. 250 towards the same, and Rs. 250 towards the costs of litigation. Thus, the impugned order of the District Forum-II is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
-
2001 (3) TMI 961 - GUJARAT STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
... ...
... ... ..... of case in Anilkant Gajendrarai Buch (supra). The basic feature of the decision rendered in Anilkant Gajendrarai Buch rsquo s case (supra) is that the consumer had parted with Rs. 5,000 in favour of the consumer (sic.) whose employee appeared to have committed fraud and consumer was left with total loss. Again that was a case of applying for right shares and the complainant in that case clearly appeared to have been beneficiary of the service rendered by the concerned bank in that case. 5. In above view of the matter, as the present case is squarely covered by aforesaid two decisions, namely, decision of the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court in Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund rsquo s case (supra) and Kailash Rajnikant Shah rsquo s case (supra), the appellant being the complainant will not be entitled to the claim set out in the complaint. We find that the complaint had rightly been dismissed by the learned City Forum. 6. This appeal is, accordingly, dismissed, with no order as to costs.
-
2001 (3) TMI 960 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Shares - Nature of ... ... ... ... ..... on behalf of the transferor, article 25 is not complied with, inasmuch as the transferor has not personally signed the letter. It was held, lsquo such a restriction of article 25 will not apply to a court sale rsquo and rightly so, because order 21, rule 80, provides for such a procedure. This is not the same thing as to say that lsquo the company is bound to transfer and register the share sold by court auction rsquo or the judgment-debtor rsquo s right gets enlarged. 16. The learned trial judge has failed to notice this distinction while he came to the conclusion that the restrictions of article 7 of the articles of association of the company have no application in cases where shares are sold by court auction and equally was in error in holding that the Calcutta High Court in Mahadeo Lal Agarwala rsquo s case (supra) has taken such a view and thereby decreeing the suit and the appellate court was therefore justified in reversing this decree. 17. Appeal dismissed. No costs.
-
2001 (3) TMI 959 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Winding up of sick industrial company, Closure of sick industry - Proposal for ... ... ... ... ..... d (during) agitation when the question of determining their pensionary benefits under the said scheme arose. The contention that it was not approved by the Management and issued by the Deputy General Manager in his personal capacity is incorrect. The circular is issued in pursuance of the Government of India direction referred to therein. Therefore, I do not find much substance in these writ petitions. Accordingly, they are liable to be dismissed. 42. In the result, writ petition Nos. 154 to 156 of 2001 are dismissed. W.P. 157 to 159, 1343, 4503 to 4507, 5118 and 7987 of 2001 are allowed. The orders passed by the BIFR dated 12-6-2000 in case No. 505 of 1992 AAIFR dated 15-11-2000 in Appeal Nos. 277 of 2000, 290 of 2000 and 291 of 2000 and the order passed by the Government of India dated 29-1-2001 closing BGML under section 25-O are quashed. The BIFR is directed to reconsider the claim made by the writ petitioners and find ways and means to revive the BGML. Order accordingly.
-
2001 (3) TMI 958 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
Winding up - Appointment and powers of provisional liquidator, Avoidance of certain attachments, executions etc.
-
2001 (3) TMI 944 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Writ jurisdiction - Territorial jurisdiction of High Courts ... ... ... ... ..... appeal to the DRAT was from a decree and order of the DRT and the Petition before the learned single Judge was filed challenging the order of the DRAT. The learned single Judge relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Sita Ram Singhania (supra) held that since the transaction between the parties had taken place in Chandigarh, it would be desirable for the parties to approach the appropriate forum at Chandigarh and accordingly rejected the petition. The judgment, however, does not take into account the distinction between the facts in that case and the facts in Sita Ram Singhania rsquo s case. We, therefore, hold that the judgment of the Learned Single Judge does not lay down the law correctly. We are in agreement with the aforesaid submissions of Mr. Tulzapurkar on behalf of the Petitioners and hold that this Court has jurisdiction in the present petition. The Petition stands adjourned to 2nd March, 2001 for consideration on merits. Certified copy expedited.
-
2001 (3) TMI 943 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Component - Meaning of - Order - Speaking order ... ... ... ... ..... ined in the Notification as in this case, has been settled by the Larger Bench in the case of Jindal Strips Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Bombay 1997 (94) E.L.T. 234 and following the same the distinction. (b) We find that the impugned goods have been imported along with the machines and the import would otherwise be also covered and assessed along with the machines in the case No. C/R-712/96 as per provisions of Accessories Conditions Rules under Section 19 of the Customs Act, 1962. (c) In view of the Larger Bench decision supra, we find no substance in the Commissioner (Appeals) rsquo s order. (d) We find that it was for the department to issue a speaking order and not for the importers to have sought for the same as held in the grounds of the rejection by the lower authorities. 6. emsp In view of our findings above, we set aside the order of the lower authorities and appeals allowed. Ordered accordingly. The refunds to be considered on submission of the original documents.
-
2001 (3) TMI 938 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation - Depot sales - Depreciation towards bottles - Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... ng and markets costs were known to the Central Excise authorities through previous proceedings. Aerated water became liable to ad valorem duty only w.e.f. 1st March, 1994. During the previous period goods were subject to duty at specific rate. The question of valuation under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act did not arise, prior to 1-3-1994 and the price list filed by the appellant did not mention that cost of godown was being excluded. Therefore, we hold that proviso to Section 11A is attracted in the present case. 8. emsp In view of what has been stated above the appeal is partially allowed and is ordered by way of remand. The Commissioner shall reconsider the issue relating to includability of depreciation for bottles and rent. The rest of the demand is confirmed. The case is remitted back to the Commissioner for re-consideration of the above mentioned two items and recomputation of the demand. The quantum of penalty shall also be re-considered in the remand proceedings.
-
2001 (3) TMI 933 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Winding up - Circumstances in which a company may be wound up ... ... ... ... ..... lf of the petitioner stated that the last payment which was made by the respondent-company was in 1997 after which on 1-4-1998 it has acknowledged that there are outstanding dues of Rs. 4.42 crores to the petitioner. Thereafter, various amounts have been paid by the company in pursuance of the act interim order which was passed by this Court. The fact that the company has offered additional security to the petitioners is one indicator of the fact that the security which has been made available to the petitioner is inadequate to meet the dues. This question, however, need not detain the Court any further since in my view the acknowledgement of the liability in the present case shows that there are substantial dues owing to the petitioner at least to the extent of Rs. 4.42 crores as on 1-4-1998. In these circumstances, the company petition is required to be admitted. 19. The company petition is accordingly admitted and made returnable on 4-7-2001. The respondent waives service.
-
2001 (3) TMI 932 - HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Meetings and proceedings - Annual General Meeting ... ... ... ... ..... bsequent events. That cannot be said to be mala fide at this stage. Hence, there is no force in this argument for awarding exemplary costs or even costs. 59. The learned counsel for the appellant may be right in submitting that the order passed by the court below has not specifically dealt with the points raised by the appellant but I am unable to accept that the ultimate decision given by the court below is wrong or can be set aside. 60. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in case the injunction application is dismissed, the shareholders may be given further time to avail the benefit of the resolution. The relief cannot be granted in view of the fact that none of the shareholders came forward with any such relief and so far as the plaintiff is concerned he was fully aware of the litigation and no ground is made out for any relief. 61. Therefore, the appeal of the appellant has no force and the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.
-
2001 (3) TMI 931 - SUPREME COURT
Oppression and mismanagement - Held that:- Appeal dismissed. The Division Bench noticed that the position that petitioner No. 1 ceased to be a director is seriously disputed and the Division Bench ultimately concluded that the termination of directorship would not entitle such person to ask for winding up on just and equitable grounds inasmuch as there is an appropriate remedy by way of company suit which can give him full relief if such action had been taken by the company on inadequate ground. The Division Bench found that if a director even if illegally terminated cannot bring his grievance as to termination to winding up the company for that single and isolated act, even if it was doing good business and even if the director would obtain each and every adequate relief in a suit in a court. Thus no good reason to interfere with such an order
-
2001 (3) TMI 930 - HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Offences and prosecution ... ... ... ... ..... Registrar, or a shareholder of the company or a person authorised by the Central Government. The petitioner is neither a Registrar nor a person authorised by the Central Government. Undisputedly, the complainant is not a shareholder of the company as yet. His application for transfer of shares held by his late father is still pending and the shares are not yet transferred in his name in accordance with the procedure laid down in Schedule I to Table A to the Act, in particular, regulations 25 to 28. Till such time, he cannot be a shareholder of the company. Therefore, the complaint filed by the complainant should not have been taken cognizance by the Special Judge in view of the clear prohibition contained in section 621. 8. The criminal petition, therefore, succeeds and it is accordingly allowed. Consequently, the criminal proceedings in Calendar Case No. 34 of 2000, pending on the file of the Special Judge for Economic Offences, City Criminal Courts, Hyderabad, are quashed.
-
2001 (3) TMI 929 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Suspension of legal proceedings ... ... ... ... ..... . I hold that the wording of section 22 is clear that the protection under section 22 is not available to the directors and officers of the company and the mere fact that the ultimate scheme that may be framed by the BIFR may provide for repayment to depositors is not a ground to hold that no proceedings should be taken as against the directors and officers of the petitioner-company and no investigation should be conducted and no criminal proceedings should be taken. I have already held that section 22 does not even give protection to the investigation into the affairs of the company. In my view, section 22 is limited in its scope and there is no bar for taking criminal proceedings against the directors or officers of the company or even against the company. In this view of the matter, I find no merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and it is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, W.M.P. Nos. 30326 and 30327 of 2000 are closed.
-
2001 (3) TMI 928 - SUPREME COURT
Infringement of trademarks - Held that:- Keeping in view the provisions of section 17B of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 which inter alia indicates an imitation or resemblance of another drug in a manner likely to deceive being regarded as a spurious drug it is but proper that before granting permission to manufacture a drug under a brand name the authority under that Act is satisfied that there will be no confusion or deception in the market. The authorities should consider requiring such an applicant to submit an official search report from the Trade Mark office pertaining to the trade mark in question which will enable the drug authority to arrive at a correct conclusion.
Broadly stated in an action for passing off on the basis of unregistered trade mark generally for deciding the question of deceptive similarity the following factors to be considered :
(a)The nature of the marks, i.e., whether the marks are word marks or label marks or composite marks, i.e., both words and label works.
(b)The degree of resembleness between the marks, phonetically similar and hence similar in idea.
(c)The nature of the goods in respect of which they are used as trade marks.
(d)The similarity in the nature, character and performance of the goods of the rival traders.
(e)The class of purchasers who are likely to buy the goods bearing the marks they require, on their education and intelligence and a degree of care they are likely to exercise in purchasing and/or using the goods.
(f)The mode of purchasing the goods or placing orders for the goods, and
(g)Any other surrounding circumstances which may be relevant in the extent of dissimilarity between the competing marks.
Weightage to be given to each of the aforesaid factors depends upon facts of each case and the same weightage cannot be given to each factor in every case. The Trial Court will now decide the suit keeping in view the observations made in this judgment.
............
|
