|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 515 Records
-
2000 (3) TMI 933 - HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Offence by Company ... ... ... ... ..... he cheque issued by V. Johar, even if that person is an employee of the company in question, would scarcely arise inasmuch as the cheque is not stated to have been issued on behalf of the company. 9. Under these circumstances, there can be no escape from holding that the criminal proceedings against the petitioner cannot be maintained. 10. It may be mentioned here that there is a mis-description of the company in the complaint. In the complaint, the first accused is described as lsquo the Branch Manager, Janachaitanya Housing (P.) Ltd., Kakinada rsquo . In view of what has been described above, neither the Branch Manager of Janachaitanya Housing (P.) Ltd., Kakinada nor the company itself would be liable in respect of cheque issued by accused No. 2. 11. In the result, the petition is allowed and the criminal proceedings against the petitioner-company in CC No. 381 of 1998 on the file of the III Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada are quashed. Petition allowed.
-
2000 (3) TMI 931 - HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Appeals - Time limit for filing of ... ... ... ... ..... mmediately after the order is passed by the BIFR. Having issued statutory instructions by the appellate authority, it is not open to the appellate authority to hold that applying for certified copy of the BIFR rsquo s order is not relevant for the purpose of considering the period of limitation under section 25(1) of Act 1 of 1986. The order of the 1st respondent dated 16-12-1999 admitting the appeal and granting stay and the order dated 20-1-2000 rejecting the objection regarding limitation raised by the writ petitioner and holding that the appeal is filed within the period of limitation prescribed under section 25(1) of Act 1 of 1986 are unsustainable. 13. In the result, I hold that the appeal filed by respondents 3 to 15 is barred by limitation and consequently there shall be a Writ of Certiorari quashing the orders dated 16-12-1999 and 20-1-2000 passed by the 1st respondent-appellate authority. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
2000 (3) TMI 930 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Amalgamation ... ... ... ... ..... e Judge. We are also not prepared to accept the argument of the appellants that the majority of the shareholders had not understood the nature of the scheme and they had committed a blunder by accepting the scheme. 22. Looking to the facts stated hereinabove, and as we do not find any irregularity or illegality committed by the learned Single Judge, we do not interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge and this appeal is rejected with no order as to costs. 23. The learned Advocate Shri Bhavsar has submitted that implementation of this order be stayed for some time. We do not think that any fruitful purpose would be served by granting such a stay for the reason that the companies have already merged into each other as the scheme of amalgamation has already been sanctioned. It is not possible to set the clock back by making them separate and, therefore, the request with regard to staying implementation of this order is not reasonable and we therefore, reject it.
-
2000 (3) TMI 929 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Transfer of shares ... ... ... ... ..... of the CLB under section 111A and section 108. The share transfers effected under the Depositories Act are not to be registered under section 108. They are to be registered by virtue of the provisions of the Depositories Act read with the regulations made thereunder or SEBI. 21. For the reasons recorded above, it has to be held that the conclusion arrived at by the CLB in the case of Shashi Prakash Khemka (supra) which has been reproduced in para 3 hereinabove is also erroneous. The conclusion is, therefore, overruled and it is held that the remedies under the proviso to sections 111A(2) and 111A(3) are available to transfer as well as transmission matters. 22. Since the CLB has held that the appeals are maintainable and the relief has been granted to the respondent, there is no need to interfere with the direction given. The reasons for the lsquo drafting error rsquo conclusion are, however, overruled as indicated above. Both the appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs.
-
2000 (3) TMI 927 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Winding up - Avoidance of transfers, etc. ... ... ... ... ..... raud the creditors. The decision to transfer the business of the company rsquo s pellet plant is in context of forming a subsidiary company which was found to be necessary for restructuring its business. That decision taken nearly two-and-half-years prior to filing of the winding up petition and nearly two years before the issuance of notice of demand to the respondent No. 2 could not be said to have been taken with a view to defeat the claim of the appellant or to defraud the creditors. Therefore, the learned Company Judge was right in holding that the proposed transaction was not intended to defraud the creditors and that granting of permission under section 536(2) was warranted in this case. In this view of the matter, there is no substance in this appeal and it is summarily dismissed. 7. At this stage, the learned counsel for the appellant prays for staying the order of the learned Company Judge. There is no warrant for issuing such stay order and the request is rejected.
-
2000 (3) TMI 926 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Offences by Companies ... ... ... ... ..... voking section 10 can only be examined after conclusion of evidence at an appropriate stage by the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate. That apart, as observed earlier, the said plea was decided against the petitioner by the aforementioned order dated 7-7-1995, by the Additional Sessions Judge and the correctness thereof had not been challenged by the petitioner. For both the reasons the impugned charge does not call for any interference in exercise of the power under section 482 which power is to be exercised very sparingly. None of the decisions referred to above are of any assistance to the petitioner. In the result the petition is dismissed. 9. As the matter pertains to a complaint filed in the year 1984, the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate will ensure that the case is disposed of within a period of four months from today. Let the file together with a copy of this order be sent back immediately. The petitioner is directed to appear before the concerned Court on 16-3-2000.
-
2000 (3) TMI 925 - HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Amalgamation of companies ... ... ... ... ..... ree-company and 4.the transferee-company do without further application allot to such members of the transferor-company the shares in the transferee-company to which they are Entitled under the said Scheme of Amalgamation and 5.the transferor Company do with in 30 days after the date of this order cause a certified copy of this order to be delivered to the Registrar of Companies for registration and on such certified copy being so delivered the Transferor Company shall be dissolved and the Registrar of Companies shall place all documents relating to the Transferor Company, and registered with him and the file kept by him in relation to the Transferee Company and the files relating to the said two Companies shall be consolidated accordingly and 6.any person interested shall be at liberty to apply to the court in the above matter for any directions that may be necessary. The office is directed to draw the order in the prescribed form with such modification, as may be necessary.
-
2000 (3) TMI 924 - HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Amalgamation of companies ... ... ... ... ..... plication allot to such members of the Transferor Company the shares in the Transferee Company to which they are entitled under the said Scheme of Amalgamation and 5.the Transferor Company do within 30 days after the date of this order cause a certified copy of this order to be delivered to the Registrar of Companies for registration and on such certified copy being so delivered the Transferor Company shall be dissolved and the Registrar of Companies shall place documents relating to the Transferor Company, and registered with him on the file kept by him in relation to the Transferee Company and the files relating to the said two to the Transferee Company and the files relating to the said two Companies shall be consolidated accordingly and 6.any person interested shall be at liberty to apply to the Court in the above matter for any directions that may be necessary. 2. The office is directed to draw the order in the prescribed form with such modification, as may be necessary.
-
2000 (3) TMI 922 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Transfer of case ... ... ... ... ..... inister of India requesting the High Court to lend the services of the Court Receiver to DRT till alternate arrangements are made. The learned Acting Chief Justice, High Court, Bombay, thereafter invited submissions from the Prothonotary and Senior Master, High Court, Bombay. After due deliberation, it has been decided that administratively it would not be possible to lend the services of the Court Receiver to DRT. Detailed reasons in that regard have been given. Some of the reasons in that regard have been given. Some of the reasons have been mentioned hereinabove. It may be once again stated that in the past Court Receiver rsquo s services have not been lent to the Small Causes Court. In any event, in the light of this judgment, the question of lending services of the Court Receiver to DRT does not arise. 12. Before concluding it may be mentioned that the life of the law has not been logic. It has been experience. These words of Justice Holmes applies to this case squarely.
-
2000 (3) TMI 920 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Winding up - Circumstances in which a company may be wound up ... ... ... ... ..... 2000 is allowed and the order passed by the learned Company Judge is quashed and set aside. In the facts and circumstances, we do not deem it necessary to pass any order for costs. 38. In view of the order passed in O.J. Appeals, no any order, in company Application No. 2 of 2000 and Civil Application No. 2 of 2000, is required. Hence they are dismissed. At this stage, the learned counsel Mr. Kavina, appearing for the petitioning-company has requested for continuance of the interim order with regard to restraining the respondent-company from disposing of, transferring or parting with the possession of the assets of the respondent-company so as to enable the petitioning-company to avail further remedy. In the facts of the case, the request is accepted, with the result, the order recorded by the learned Company Judge with regard to restraining the company from disposing of transferring or parting with the possession etc. shall stand extended for a period of 10 weeks from today.
-
2000 (3) TMI 917 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Winding up - Powers of Liquidator ... ... ... ... ..... e in clause 10 of the report dated 7-7-1999 have been rejected. It is, therefore, necessary to dispose of the Official Liquidator rsquo s Report also. Mr. Gupta has pointed out that the premises have been locked by the Receiver as well as the Official Liquidator. Since the premises are locked up, obviously no business, which is necessary for the beneficial winding-up of the company, can be conducted from there. Following the directions given in the case of Ravindra Ishwardas Sethna rsquo s case (supra) by the Supreme Court, the application has to be allowed. 9. In view of the above, the application is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). Since the premises are in the possession of the receiver, the Receiver Lele is directed to hand over the possession of the same after removing the movable property of the company to the Official Liquidator within a period of four weeks from today. 10. The Official Liquidator rsquo s Report is also made absolute in the aforesaid terms.
-
2000 (3) TMI 916 - HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Offences - Penalty for false statements ... ... ... ... ..... l the documents relied upon by the complainant are examined, which can only be done after appropriate proof of those documents, it may not be possible for the court to come to any conclusion whether the offences alleged in the complaint are made out. Apart from that in exercise of the jurisdiction under section 482 this court would not go into the aspect of the appreciation of evidence or sufficiency of evidence. 22. The allegations made in the complaint are that the petitioners have issued some kind of a prospectus inviting investment in the Indian company without the appropriate authority of law and following the due process of law. If that allegation is ultimately proved, there would be a violation of the law subject of course to the various other aspects discussed above. 23. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that it is wholly inappropriate for this court at this stage to quash the case against the petitioners. 24. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed.
-
2000 (3) TMI 914 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Amalgamation, Compromise or arrangements ... ... ... ... ..... ur of the scheme. We do not find that the scheme in any way falls foul of the provisions of the Act. There are no grounds of public policy on which we could be persuaded to hold that the scheme is bad. For all these reasons, agreeing with the learned Single Judge rsquo s judgment under appeal, we dismiss these three appeals as without merit. Appeals stand dismissed. 21. Normally, we would be reluctant to impose costs on Trade Unions and workmen who litigate before the Court. However, in this case, it appears to us that trade union has taken upon itself a role much more than that of a trade union, virtually impeding business of the company being smoothly carried on. Hence, we direct the appellants to pay costs in the sum of Rs. 15,000. 22. Ad interim order vacated. 23. The Company Registrar to act on an ordinary copy of this judgment duly authenticated by the Court Associate. 24. Mr. Tilokani applies for stay of this judgment. Application refused. 25. Certified copy expedited.
-
2000 (3) TMI 884 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Valuation - Notional Interests on advances ... ... ... ... ..... s is itself rational thinking. This is no evidence to support his view, or to say, as appellant contends that the advances were received only as security against possible cancellation, was wrong. Advances were taken from the buyers who had ordered the goods. No advance would have been taken if the goods had not been ordered. It does not show that by the fact of these advances, the price of the goods, which would otherwise be higher, has been reduced. The contention of the departmental representative that the manufacturer takes the advance from each buyer does not affect the issue. The burden of substantially proving the allegation in the notice with sufficient evidence which lay upon the department has not been discharged. 5. emsp The decision of this Tribunal in Grasim Industries v. CCE - 1999 (112) E.L.T. 492 (T) 1999 (80) ECR 191 and many others follow the same line of reasoning as we have given in the preceding paragraphs. 6. emsp Appeal allowed. Impugned order set aside.
-
2000 (3) TMI 883 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Reference application - Maintainability ... ... ... ... ..... nt), by application in the prescribed form, accompanied, where the application is made by the other party, by a fee of two hundred rupees, require the Appellate Tribunal to refer to the High Court any question of law arising out of such order and, subject to the other provisions contained in this section, the Appellate Tribunal shall, within one hundred and twenty days of the receipt of such application, draw up a statement of the case and refer it to the high Court Provided that the Appellate Tribunal may, if it is statisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the application within the period hereinbefore specified, allow it to be presented within a further period not exceeding thirty days. rdquo 6. emsp Admittedly, the order in which the Revenue raised a question of law for referring to the Hon rsquo ble High Court is not passed under Section 35C of the Central Excise Act, therefore, the present application is rejected as not maintainable.
-
2000 (3) TMI 882 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... deny the benefit of Notification was not justified and subsequent show-cause notice invoking Larger period is also not sustainable, as there was no change in the manufacturing process and hence, the question of invoking of Larger period to allege suppression does not arise, as the department has not produced any material facts to show any change in the manufacturing process, which had been brought to the notice of the department. On a perusal of the grounds of appeal, we are satisfied that this appeal had been filed mere out of formality than any seriousness and application of mind. Even in terms of the ratio of the judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Cotspun Ltd. (supra), in matters like this where there is an approved classification list, the question of confirming demands prospectively does not arise. Therefore, on all counts, the Revenue appeal fails and the same is dismissed, with consequential relief to the assessee respondents, if any, as per law.
-
2000 (3) TMI 869 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal - New grounds ... ... ... ... ..... notification are not fulfilled by the respondents. He submits that now the Revenue filed this appeal on the grounds which were not taken in the show cause notice. He, therefore, prays that the appeal be dismissed. 4. emsp Heard both sides. 5. emsp In this case in the show cause notice dated 23-12-94, the respondent wants to deny the benefit of Notification No. 162/86-C.E. only on the ground that some of the conditions were not fulfilled by the respondent. 15. emsp In the appeal before us the Revenue now also raised the question such as that the Bodies manufactured by the respondent are Tipper bodies which are manufactured separately, therefore, classifiable under Heading 87.07. The issue of classification was never raised in the show cause notice. Therefore, we find that the appeal filed before us is on the different grounds then mentioned in the show cause notice. The Revenue cannot make a new case in appeal. Therefore, we find no merit in the appeal. The appeal is rejected.
-
2000 (3) TMI 868 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Demand - Short-levy - Re-classification ... ... ... ... ..... ue of show cause notice. The position of law prior to the Larger Bench judgment of the Apex Court in the case of CCE v. Cotspun Ltd. was that demands should be confirmed for six months period as short-levy prior to the date of issue of show cause notice even in cases where there was approved classification list. As there was contradictory judgment of the Apex Court, the matter was taken up by Larger Bench of Hon rsquo ble Five Judges of the Apex Court and now the position of law is clearly laid down that in cases where the department reopens the classification for reclassification of the product and in such cases, there cannot be a question of short-levy and demands have to be only prospective. The ratio of the Apex Court judgment cited above clearly applies to the facts of the present case and therefore we allow the appeal by setting aside the differential duty of Rs. 12,57,242.53 confirmed under Section 11A of the Act. Appeal is allowed with consequential relief as per law.
-
2000 (3) TMI 867 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Refund - Unjust enrichment ... ... ... ... ..... nt is entitled for the rebate under the substituted Notification No. 193/82, dated 11th June, 1982 even for a period of 1st May till 11th June, 1982. Consequently, if the amount has already been credited to the appellant it shall not be withdrawn, if not, shall be credited to it. rdquo 6. emsp The matter had not been discussed with reference to the provisions of unjust enrichment. 7. emsp The Tribunal rsquo s decision as well as the Supreme Court rsquo s judgment referred to by the ld. Advocate are with regard to the sugar incentive rebate and in the present case, we are not concerned with the provisions of that Scheme. 8. emsp As there is no dispute that the amount of the refund claim has been already collected from the customers, and the matter related to the Notification No. 198/76-C.E., in the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by the appellate authority. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Ordered accordingly.
-
2000 (3) TMI 866 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Forklift Trucks captively used in final product is entitled to benefit of Notification No. 217/86-C.E.
............
|
