|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 478 Records
-
2001 (4) TMI 857 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Winding up - Circumstances in which a company may be wound up ... ... ... ... ..... I find that there is no merit in the defence which has been raised in company petition. In the circumstances, the following order is passed The respondent shall deposit in the Court an amount of Rs. 6,66,701 within a period of twelve weeks from today. The petitioner shall file a suit for the recovery of its dues within a period of four weeks from the deposit of the amount. Thereupon the amount so deposited shall lie to the credit of the suit. The petitioner would be at liberty to make an application for withdrawal of the amount subject to furnishing of security. 9. The company petition shall stand admitted if there is any default on the part of the respondent in depositing the amount as aforesaid within period stipulated and in that event the petition to be advertised in Free Press Journal, Janmabhoomi and Maharashtra Government Gazette. The petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 2,000 with the Prothonotary and Senior Master within a period of four weeks from the date of default.
-
2001 (4) TMI 851 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Compromise and arrangement ... ... ... ... ..... made on the basis of the shareholding prior to the reduction which is to take place on the basis of clause 23 of the scheme. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has also stated before the court that the allotment of shares of the transferee-companies, shall take place on the basis of shareholding immediately prior to the appointed date. There is, hence, no substance in the objection. 14. In the circumstances, I am of the view that the objections which have been raised on the part of the objector must fail. The objections lack in bona fides. The objector who holds 300 shares cannot be heard to question the commercial wisdom of the large body of shareholders which has approved the scheme. Company Petition No. 381 of 2000 is accordingly made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a) to (i). Company Petition Nos. 382 of 2000 and 383 of 2000 are made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a) to (d). The costs of the regional director are quantified at Rs. 1,500.
-
2001 (4) TMI 850 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Winding up - Circumstances in which a company may be wound up ... ... ... ... ..... e credit of the suit. Accordingly, the following conditional order is passed. 12. The respondent shall within a period of ten weeks from today deposit in this Court an amount of Rs. 40 lakhs. Upon deposit of the aforesaid amount the petitioner shall within a period of 8 weeks of the respondent furnishing intimation to the petitioner of the deposit, file a suit for the recovery of its dues. The amount of deposit shall lie to the credit of the suit and it will be open to the parties to seek necessary directions from the appropriate Court in regard to the moneys which have been deposited. 13. The petition shall stand admitted upon the respondent failing to deposit the aforesaid amount within the stipulated period. In that event the petition to be advertised in Free Press Journal, Navshakti and Maharashtra Government Gazette. The petitioners to deposit a sum of Rs. 2000 with the Prothonotary and Senior Master within a period of four weeks from default towards publication charges.
-
2001 (4) TMI 849 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Suspension of legal proceedings ... ... ... ... ..... scope for constructive res judicata. Inasmuch as in the absence of lack of inherent jurisdiction the question even though not raised cannot be deemed to have been raised and decided, attracting the principle of constructive res judicata. 23. For the reasons foregoing, I am unable to persuade myself to agree with the contentions of Mr. Chatterjee. In the circumstances the G.A. No. 99 of 2001, upon being treated as an application under section 47 read with section 151 CPC succeeds. It is declared that the suit being CS 83 of 2000 was not maintainable and the Court had lacked inherent jurisdiction to entertain and proceed with the same in view of section 22(1) of SICA as discussed above and consequently the decree, though passed in the presence of the defendant, is void and a nullity and as such inexecutable. In view of above the GA No. 100 of 2001 also succeeds. The execution proceedings are rejected and all orders passed in the execution are hereby recalled. Order accordingly.
-
2001 (4) TMI 848 - PUNJAB STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
... ...
... ... ..... uo ble High Court of Bombay and there is no order of Hon rsquo ble High Court of Bombay staying the proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act initiated by the consumer in the case at hand. Thus, the complainant could pursue her remedy before the District Forum legally. 12. It stands proved vide receipts Exs. C-2 to C-4 that the complainant had deposited the amounts of Rs. 1,24,000 on 29-1-1999, Rs. 1,25,000 on 29-1-1999 and Rs. 50,000 on 6-4-1999 and the opposite party had given undertaking to her to pay maturity amount of Rs. 2,91,330 on 29-1-2000 and Rs. 58,500 on 6-4-2000. The opposite party did not deny the receipt of the amounts and it is proved on the record that the opposite party had not paid the maturity amounts, which act of the opposite party amounted to deficiency in service. In view of our discussion made above, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the District Forum. Resultantly, this appeal is dismissed with costs, which are quantified as Rs. 1,000.
-
2001 (4) TMI 847 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Winding up - Suits stayed on winding up order ... ... ... ... ..... circumstances, it will be in the interest of justice to direct the Official Liquidator, High Court, Calcutta to hand over possession of the demised premises to the owners and the auction-purchasers, who are in possession of the land for more than 15 years without making any payment whatsoever and who have not initiated any proceeding to assert their alleged right of renew of the lease during all these days, cannot be permitted to deprive the rightful owners of the premises. It will be unjust to relegate the owners to a regular suit, which is bound to continue for years. 53. The Official liquidator, High Court, Calcutta is, therefore, directed to hand over the possession of the demised premises within three months from today. However, it will be open to the owners to initiate appropriate proceedings for correction of the Municipal records in presence of the Municipal authorities. 54. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. 55. There is no order as to costs.
-
2001 (4) TMI 846 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Offences and prosecutions ... ... ... ... ..... y framed and there is no reason to take a different view. On the other hand, the cases cited by the learned senior counsel for petitioners clearly indicate that the offences took place earlier in point of time and as such, the amended provision cannot be made applicable. This Act has been introduced only to benefit the deposit holders because these finance companies have lured the public to deposit by giving false promises. Hence, I am of the view that although the reasoning given by the court below may not be proper and correct one, yet considering the fact that the charge-sheet has been laid only in respect of 144 deposit holders, as the principal and interest became due after the commencement of the Act and as the amount was not paid, there is no reason to take a different view and, hence, the points are answered accordingly. 16. For the reasons stated above, the revision fails and is dismissed. Consequently, the connected criminal miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.
-
2001 (4) TMI 833 - HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Arbitration agreement ... ... ... ... ..... ensation Commission had rejected a claim for compensation for a property already sold to a foreign buyer on the erroneous ground that the statutory Order in Council required that the successor in title should have been of British nationality at a certain date. The majority of the House of Lords held that this error destroyed the Commission rsquo s jurisdiction and rendered their decision a nullity, since on a true view of the law they had no jurisdiction to take the successor in title rsquo s nationality into account. By asking themselves the wrong question, and by imposing a requirement which they had no authority to impose, they had overstepped their powers. 26. For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned order of the learned single Judge cannot be sustained and as such the same is set aside and the writ petition is accordingly allowed. However, in the facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs. That rule nisi has been made absolute as above.
-
2001 (4) TMI 832 - SUPREME COURT
Challenging the action of the Respondent No. 1 declaring the appellants as defaulters by its resolution/notice dated 25-3-1987 and to re-admit them as member - Held that:- Appeal dismissed.The High Court having referred to the relevant bye-laws and rules noticed that after the appellants were declared as defaulters, their membership vested in the Respondent No. 1 and the respondent No. 1 had every right to sell the same. The High Court also noticed that the appellants did not make application for re-admission within the time and that in the meanwhile the rights were created in the third party. In these circumstances, the High Court has dismissed the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches and we find justification for such dismissal of the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches in the light of facts stated above. Hence, we do not think it necessary to go into the merits of other contentions raised, that too at this length of time.
-
2001 (4) TMI 831 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Winding up - Circumstances in which a company may be wound up ... ... ... ... ..... law. In my opinion, the Legislature has deliberately put the figure of Rs. 500 as debt which a company is unable to pay in that case. Such a company should get itself extinguished in the eyes of law to spare the public from the obvious danger of dealing with such companies which cannot pay the smallest debt of Rs. 500 to its creditors. The Legislature could have provided for a ceiling of a much higher amount but according to me it has not been done as the Legislature does not want this remedy to be used for recovery of debts which are required to be recovered by filing ordinary civil suits. 4. I need not discuss the above case law which is clear and well established. In the aforesaid circumstances, there is no substance in the company petition and the same is rejected at the admission stage itself. It is needless to mention that the petitioners would have liberty to institute suitable proceedings for recovery of their alleged debt from the respondents in accordance with law.
-
2001 (4) TMI 830 - SUPREME COURT
Special court orders - suit filed by the respondent was decreed and it was, inter alia, ordered that the appellant herein should purchase units which had been agreed to be sold to the respondent and deliver the same to it - Held that:- Modify the decree passed by the Special Court and direct that a sum of Rs. 212 crores was payable by the appellant to the respondent and as we value the said amount has already been received by the respondent the decree stands satisfied. We make it clear that the disposal of this appeal does not in any way approve or disapprove the reasoning of the Special Court.
-
2001 (4) TMI 829 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Winding up - Circumstances in which a company may be wound up ... ... ... ... ..... o the situation I repeat and say that the fact is whether the company is commercially solvent and able to pay its debts. 8. Under such circumstances, I hold in favour of the petitioning creditor. Therefore, the winding up petition is admitted. As a last chance, the company is directed to pay the entire amount in eight instalments starting with 18-6-2001, and continue on the same date of each and every month. In the case of any official holiday the next date will be counted as the appropriate date for payment of instalment. If the company paid the entire sum in instalments as directed above the winding up petition will be permanently stayed. In the case of default of the first, last or any two instalments the winding up petition will be advertised once in Times of India and once in Bartaman and there will be liberty to mention to place the matter in the list for the purpose of hearing after advertisement. 9. However, the advertisement in the Calcutta Gazette is dispensed with.
-
2001 (4) TMI 828 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the interest claimed by appellants is liable to be disbursed under section 11(2)(b) of the Act on a preferential basis or the same is to be distributed under section 11(2)(c) of the Act?
Do the secured creditors have the right to stand outside the distribution under section 11 of the Act and recover their dues?
Held that:- Appeal partly allowed. So far as the appellants’ claim for interest is concerned, if the interest fell due within the notified period, the same shall be distributed on the basis of the priority contemplated under section 11(2)(b), and so far as their claim for interest which fell due outside the notified period is concerned, the same can be entertained by the Custodian only under section 11(2)(c).
So far as the secured creditors are concerned, subject to the right of the Custodian under section 4 of the Act, they are entitled to recover the amounts due to them (principal and interest) from the property secured in their favour without taking recourse to section 11. But if the security is not large enough to extinguish their debt, they can seek payment of the shortfall only under section 11(2)(c).
-
2001 (4) TMI 827 - HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
... ...
... ... ..... urse is not permissible in law. It had already been noticed that each scheme made by the first respondent-corporation is self-contained and the Court cannot compel the first respondent to apply the money received by it for one scheme for the purpose of another. Any such direction from this Court would amount to compelling the respondent-corporation to act contrary to mandatory provisions contained in section 22(2). A writ of mandamus does not lie directing the State or its instrumentalities to act contrary to law. 43. It is required to notice that the High Courts of Bombay, Kerala, Patna, and Punjab and Haryana took a uniform view and accordingly upheld the very impugned decision. I do not find any reason or justification to take a different view other than the one taken by various High Courts in the country. 44. For all the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in these writ petitions. 45. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. Each party to bear their own costs.
-
2001 (4) TMI 826 - HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
... ...
... ... ..... impleading the Club as a party respondent to the writ petition, the writ petitioner is not entitled to any relief claimed by him in the writ petition and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties also. 27. In the result, I do not see any merits in the writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with exemplary costs. 28. What would be the exemplary costs will depend upon the nature of litigation and bona fides of the petitioner. The petitioner invoked the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under article 226 to decide the election dispute which is nothing but a luxurious litigation and it has consumed considerable time. Hence, I am constrained to impose exemplary costs, quantified at Rs. 5,000 to be paid by the petitioner to the A.P. State Legal Services Authority within four weeks from today. In default of such payment, A.P. State Legal Services Authority shall take appropriate action for recovery of the said amount.
-
2001 (4) TMI 825 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Winding up - Circumstances in which a company may be wound up, Avoidance of certain attachment, execution, etc., in winding up by Company Court
-
2001 (4) TMI 823 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Winding up - Overriding preferential payment ... ... ... ... ..... he above decisions, the learned Judges have relied on the new provision in section 529A of the Companies Act, 1956, added in 1985 which was not available when the Division Bench judgment was rendered. But section 529A only puts the claims of the workmen pari passu with the secured creditors. It can only be as regards the assets that are available for distribution which naturally must be after providing for the expenses in connection with the winding up. So the decision of the Division Bench that capital gains tax must be taken as part of the winding up expenses still holds good. However, in the light of the later decision in Giovanola Binny Ltd rsquo s case (supra) and also other instances pointed out by the Official Liquidator, it is considered necessary to have an authori- tative decision by a Division Bench. So the matter has to be placed before a Division Bench for decision. The Registrar will place the matter before the Hon rsquo ble Chief Justice for appropriate orders.
-
2001 (4) TMI 821 - HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Penalty - For wrongful withholding of property ... ... ... ... ..... an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted), to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. (9) In the decision, this court added a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing criminal proceedings should be exercised lsquo very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases rsquo . 11. In view of the aforementioned authoritative pronouncements, it must be held that there is no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. 12. No costs.
-
2001 (4) TMI 799 - SUPREME COURT
Reassessment notice issued u/s 12 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 in respect of the accounting year January 1, 1988 to December 31, 1988 - Held that:- Appeal allowed. The High Court has erred in coming to the conclusion that the assessment year in question was 1988-89. The assessment year in respect of the calendar year 1988, which was the accounting year of the respondent, can only be the year which commences on the 1st day of April after the end of the accounting year. This being so, the assessment year in respect of the calendar year 1988 could only be 1989-90 and, therefore, the notice for reassessment issued on March 15, 1995 was within the period of limitation.
-
2001 (4) TMI 794 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat/Cenvat - Modvat on inputs ... ... ... ... ..... account or by bank draft or by banker rsquo s cheque . 19. emsp From the above discussion, it appears to us that the benefit of the Modvat credit should not be denied in the present case solely on the ground that the duty paid inputs were captively used in the manufacture of dutiable final products. It had been submitted before us at the time of hearing that the price as declared by M/s. SIL in their invoices issued for captive consumption was the same as declared by them in the invoices for outside sales, and that no dispute had been raised by the Department in this regard. 20. emsp After giving our careful consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case and analysing the consequences of the construction as placed on the Modvat Notification by the learned Commission of Central Excise (Appeals), we set aside both the impugned order-in-appeal and as a result all the three appeals are allowed with consequential relief to the appellants, as per law. Ordered accordingly.
............
|
