|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 333 Records
-
1999 (1) TMI 479 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Import - Smuggling - Ultra sound scanner ... ... ... ... ..... ved on 7-3-1992. The Show cause Notice has been issued on 17-12-1992. The premises were searched on 24-6-1993. It is doubtless whether the provisions of Imports and Exports Act, 1947 could be invoked after passing of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. Moreover, in the decision rendered by the Tribunal in Pooja Enterprises v. Addl. Collector of Customs (P) - 1993 (65) E.L.T. 112, the goods are not notified one and the question of smuggling as well as invoking of provision of Section 123 of the Customs Act is not possible. Here the goods have been imported by placing the order to the supplier and the payment has been made by demand draft. It is in the normal trade channel. I therefore feel that the authorities have wrongly invoked the provisions of the Customs Act. So it appears that the entire action of the Customs Department is wrong in law in this case. Hence I allow the appeal setting aside the impugned order ordering any consequential relief, if any.
-
1999 (1) TMI 461 - SUPREME COURT
Does the doctrine of promissory estoppel apply in the facts and circumstances of this case, so as to prevent the amendments from even having prospective effect in the case of the present applicant?
Held that:- Appeal allowed. As before applying the doctrine of promissory estoppel, as it did, the Tribunal should have reached a finding as to whether or not the respondent's plant qualified as a small-scale industry or as a mini cement plant within the meaning of the amended scheme. This was the respondent's only case before it. If the particulars in this behalf were not, as it stated, before the Tribunal, the Tribunal should have called for the same or sought a finding on this aspect from the tax authorities.
-
1999 (1) TMI 456 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Winding up - Report by Official Liquidator of ... ... ... ... ..... ch further directions will be passed in the matter. (3)On this Court passing further orders in the matter of appointment of Chartered Accountants to write the books and thereafter appointment of auditors, the secured creditors to bear the expenses pro rata in terms of their secured debts as on 21-4-1998. 2. Prayer (b ) of the Report is accepted. Whilst preparing valuation the Official Liquidator to give notice to the Union through their counsel at the address to be left at the office of the Official Liquidator. The Union to nominate two persons for that purpose. The Official Liquidator permitted to carry out the valuation by appointing three valuers for the three units. 3. Prayer (c ) of the Report is accepted. 4. Prayer (d ) of the Report is accepted. Secured creditors are directed to advance the amount pro rata. 5. It is made clear that amounts towards the insurance, valuation and charges of security agencies to be borne by the secured creditors in proportion of their dues.
-
1999 (1) TMI 455 - ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Deficiency in service ... ... ... ... ..... civil suit, when he is not satisfied with the letter of repudiation. Keeping in view the above decisions of the National Commission and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of controversy between the parties, we are of the opinion that the opposite party applied its mind to various relevant aspects of the case and made a repudiation and that there is no deficiency in service on its part, and the complainant will have to pursue his remedies by way of civil suit. Accordingly we hold that the order of the District Forum is liable to be set aside. 9. In the result both the appeals i.e. F.A. No. 859 of 1996 and F.A. No. 860 of 1996 are allowed and the order of the Guntur District Forum is set aside and the complaints O.P. No. 426 of 1995 and O.P. No. 427 of 1995 are dismissed without prejudice to the right of the complainant to approach the civil court for appropriate reliefs. There shall be no order as to costs in these appeals. Appeals allowed.
-
1999 (1) TMI 444 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Natural justice - Appeal - Condonation of delay ... ... ... ... ..... he appellant dated 7-4-1998, denying the case of the appellant that there was an assurance to issue amendment of the said order. Detention proceedings were initiated. So under these circumstances the appellants were justified in waiting for the reply of the Assistant Commissioner as the order-in-original was not cleared. When the notice itself was discharged the demand will not survive. So under these circumstances I find that the delay of 76 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) deserves to be condoned. Accordingly the said delay is condoned. Now the Commissioner (Appeals) has to here the appeal on merits and dispose of the case according to law. Hence I pass the following order. ORDER For the reasons discussed above the appeal is admitted and the delay of 76 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner is condoned. The appeal is allowed and remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) to hear the appellant, and dispose of the case according to law.
-
1999 (1) TMI 436 - SUPREME COURT
Demand of differential tax - Held that:- Appeal dismissed. That the State Legislature had the power to amend the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act is not in dispute. It also is not disputed that the amendment made by the 1996 Act was in exercise of its legislative powers by the State Legislature. The validity of the amendment had not been questioned either in the writ petition or even before us. That being the fact situation, the grievance made by learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that the demand of differential tax based on the amendment of entry 37 could not have been made, is wholly mis-conceived. It is settled-position that an assessee is liable to pay sales tax and the question whether he has collected it from consumer or not is of no consequence. His liability is by virtue of being an assessee under the Act.
-
1999 (1) TMI 429 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation - Service charges - Canalising agency ... ... ... ... ..... ince this commission was collected by the canalising agency, it cannot be termed as commission or brokerage if paid by the foreign supplier to the Indian importer or any one acting on its behalf. In the instant case, this commission or service charge was collected by a canalising agency and had nothing to do with the transaction value of the goods nor was it paid by a foreign supplier to the canalising agency. In this view of the matter, it was only buying commission collected by the canalising agency. Buying commission, according to Rule 9(1)(a)(i), is exempted from inclusion in the cost and services to ascertain the assessable value. In these circumstances, we hold that this 3 collected as service charges by a canalising agency is not to be included in the invoice value of the imported goods. 7. emsp In this view of the matter, the impugned order is set aside and the appeals are allowed. Consequential relief, if any, shall be admissible to appellants in accordance with law.
-
1999 (1) TMI 422 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Transfer of shares ... ... ... ... ..... person. He never claimed substantial relief before the Board nor this appeal showed any cause of action arising under section 111(2). This appeal does not raise any question of law by a person aggrieved by the order of the Board. He being neither transferor nor transferee can be called the person aggrieved. 8. Even otherwise, this appeal is barred by time. The appellant ought to have filed the appeal within sixty days from the date of communication of the decision or the order of the Board. The impugned order is dated 6-3-1997 whereas the appeal was filed on 17-5-1997, i.e., beyond the period of sixty days. No explanation has been given for this delay. In fact no application seeking condonation of delay has been filed nor sufficient cause shown in the appeal for condoning the delay. 9. For the reasons stated above, it can be said that this appeal by the present appellant is not maintainable and it is also barred by time. The same is accordingly dismissed. SCL q AUGUST 5, 1999
-
1999 (1) TMI 421 - HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Winding up - Power of court to stay ... ... ... ... ..... rs whether they are in favour of running the mill on the aforesaid conditions. That before the start of the mill, the Samiti will give the undertaking by means of an affidavit as stated above and shall also give the consent of the internal auditor who has to be appointed in terms of this order and fix his remuneration, etc. On the receipt of the said undertaking in the light of this order, the official liquidator will submit his report to the Court and obtain necessary orders before the mill is made to run. (11)The Samiti shall also produce before the official liquidator a report as to what steps have been taken regarding the conversion of the Barachakia Sugar Mill into a sulphitation plant and also report the ways and means for generating funds from land and other immovable properties for running the Barachakia Sugar Mill. (12)It shall be open to the parties to seek any clarification or further directions of this order. The aforesaid applications are disposed of accordingly.
-
1999 (1) TMI 420 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Attachment and sale of property in execution of decree ... ... ... ... ..... consonance with the Supreme Court decision referred to above. In the present case since the decree is very clear that all the defendants are personally liable, the decree cannot be said to be a nullity, since there is no contention that the decree was passed without jurisdiction. The question whether defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are personally liable is a question of law and fact. If the trial court was wrong, then defendants Nos. 2 and 3 ought to have agitated the matter by taking it in the hierarchy of proceedings. Added to this, there is the other fact that defendants Nos. 2 and 3 attempted to correct the judgment and decree. The court held that it was not a mistake, but defendants Nos. 2 and 3 were personally made liable on judicial reasoning. 8. In the above view of the matter, I set aside the impugned order. I hold that respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are personally liable for the decree and their properties can be proceeded against. 9. The C.R.P. is allowed. SCL q NOVEMBER 20, 1999
-
1999 (1) TMI 419 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Circumstances in which a company may be wound up ... ... ... ... ..... oughly as it is the intention of this court that no guilty person be he a director or employee of the company should be spared. It has become endemic for companies to avail of large sums of public finance, for the funds to be imprudently used, for the money to be diverted, siphoned off or misappropriated and for the company to be thereafter taken into liquidation and when this happens, all the sins are forgiven because no steps are taken against the guilty persons. It is high time that those in charge of the affairs of companies realise that they are the trustees not only of corporate assets but also in respect of the massive amounts of money made available by financial institutions and it would be necessary for the courts, in order to bring about a level of purity in corporate affairs, to make a glaring example of those guilty persons involved in a few cases, which step is very much in the public interest. Copy of the order to be furnished to the learned advocates forthwith.
-
1999 (1) TMI 417 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Suspension of legal proceedings, contracts, etc. ... ... ... ... ..... e proceeded further. As pointed out earlier it was also sought to be contended that on account of various acts of the company, this court should not consider the same. To my mind, in view of para 15 of the Judgment in Real Value Appliances Ltd. rsquo s case (supra) the issue is no longer res integra. If a part is aggrieved by suppression of material fact, it is open to such party to move the Board for recalling the order and/or such other steps which in law they may be entitled to. At any rate it cannot be held that the order is non est. 10. In the light of that all further proceedings against the company are stayed in terms of section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. Needless to say the Petitioners can always move this Court in the event the order by the BIFR is set aside or BIFR passes any other order which would have the effect of the court assuming jurisdic- tion in the matter of appointment of provisional liquidator. SCL q APRIL 5, 1999
-
1999 (1) TMI 416 - HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Offences and prosecution - Non-production of records etc. ... ... ... ... ..... n the prosecution is launched. The non-production of the records is one of the offences under the Companies Act which is enlisted along with other Acts in the G.O. constituting the Special Court. Certainly, the Special Court has jurisdiction to try the offence. We respectably disagree with the view taken by Shri P. Ramakrishnam Raju, J. We agree with the ratio of the Judgment rendered in the case of K.K. Maheswari ( supra). 15. The complainant may take such steps for filing the complaint before the Special Court for Economic Offences to try the offences. Consequently, the proceedings in S.T.C. No. 93 of 1995 on the file of IV Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada are quashed. The Judg ment passed in C.C. No. 31 of 1986 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Hyderabad West and South, Ranga Reddy District, is upheld. 16. In the result, Criminal Petition No. 3570 of 1995 is allowed and Criminal Revision Case No. 527 of 1995 is dismissed. SCL q OCTOBER 20, 1999
-
1999 (1) TMI 415 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Winding up – Appointment and powers of provisional liquidator ... ... ... ... ..... e proceeded further. As pointed out earlier it was also sought to be contended that on account of various acts of the company, this court should not consider the same. To my mind, in view of para 15 of the judgment in Real Value Appliances Ltd. v. Canara Bank 1998 93 Comp. Cas. 26 (SC) the issue is no longer res integra. If a party is aggrieved by suppression of material fact, it is open to such party to move the Board for recalling the order and/or such other steps which in law they may be entitled to. At any rate it cannot be held that the order is non est. In the light of that all further proceedings against the company are stayed in terms of section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. Needless to say the petitioners can always move this court in the event the order of the BIFR is set aside or the BIFR passes any other order which would have the effect of the court assuming jurisdiction in the matter of appointment of provisional liquidator.
-
1999 (1) TMI 414 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Winding up - Unclaimed dividends ... ... ... ... ..... to the Official Liquidator if he is satisfied about the capacity of the person making the application, to disburse the amount below Rs. 500 without insistence on production of a succession certificate with the permission of the Company Court. This also indicates that the proper course to adopt is to insist on the production of a succession certificate, or a certificate from the Administrator General in appropriate cases, before orders are made for payment out of amounts due to the deceased. I think that this is also the course of prudence. I am, therefore, of the view that the prayer in this application cannot be allowed. The only direction that can be issued to the Liquidator is the one to pay out the amounts to the applicants on their producing a succession certificate in terms of section 214 of the Indian Succession Act or if permissible a certificate from the Administrator General under the relevant Act. This application is ordered in the above manner. SCL q APRIL 5, 1999
-
1999 (1) TMI 413 - SUPREME COURT
Whether under section 9 of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 the Court has jurisdiction to pass interim orders even before arbitral proceedings commence and before an arbitrator is appointed?
Held that:- Appeal allowed. The High Court erred in coming to the conclusion that the Trial Court had no jurisdiction in entertaining the application under section 9 because arbitration proceed- ings had not been initiated by the appellant.
Accordingly set aside the judgment of the High Court but as the High Court has not considered the merits of the case, it is directed that the petition filed by the respondent, challenging the order of the Trial Court, be decided on merits
-
1999 (1) TMI 412 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Stock exchange - Bombay stock exchange ... ... ... ... ..... re frustrated for six months. In spite of that, he allowed VFSSL to carry on the business resulting in the liability of more than Rs. 4 crores. It is also pertinent to note that the Petitioner failed to produce the original books of account, receipts and vouchers when he was called upon to do so by the Committee. Thus, there was total non-compliance with the relevant rules relating to readmission of member to the Stock Exchange. In these circumstances, there is no illegality committed by the Committee in declining to accept the Petition-er s request for readmission as a member of the Stock Exchange. In the Affidavit-in-rejoinder, the Petitioner has tried to contend that the Stock Exchange has permitted a similar agreement in the case of one Karamchand Chunilal We have perused the said agreement and we find that in that case the arrangement is totally different and has no bearing to the facts of the present case. Hence, this petition is dismissed summarily. SCL q MARCH 5, 1999
-
1999 (1) TMI 411 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Company Court - Power to grant relief in certain cases ... ... ... ... ..... se that the Petitioners had acted honestly and reasonably. In a similar situation which arose in the case of Bank of Deccan Ltd. In re 1960 30 Comp. Cas. 284, a Single Judge of the Kerala High Court took the view that the Company Court could exercise such jurisdiction under sub-section (2) of section 633.I am in respectful agreement with the said Judgment. In that light of the matter, the following order Petition allowed in terms of prayer clause (a), which reads as under that this Honourable Court be pleased to grant relief under the provisions of section 633(2) of the Act to each of the Petitioners by relieving each of them from criminal liability in the event of it being held by this Honourable Court that the Petitioners of either of them are guilty of negligence, breach of trust, breach of duty, misfeasance, or default for non-compliance with the provisions of section 113 of the Act. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. SCL q JUNE 5, 1999
-
1999 (1) TMI 409 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Non-banking finance companies - Application for registration of ... ... ... ... ..... t, the application would be in time. The counsel for the petitioners has rightly placed reliance on the judgment of the Kerala High Court referred to above. In that case the Court while considering the as the whether the application for reference under sub-section (2) of section 20 of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act was within time or not, has interpreted the aforesaid provision of General Clauses Act has held that the day of receipt of the application should be excluded for computing the period. In view of section 9 of the General Clauses Act and the law laid down by the Kerala High Court in the decision referred to above, the impugned communication at Annexure - H is not correct and the same is liable to be quashed. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned letter at Annexure - H is quashed. A Writ of Mandamus is issued to the respondents to receive the application from the petitioners and dispose of the same in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
-
1999 (1) TMI 408 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Winding up - Provisions as applicable to ... ... ... ... ..... ertain claims of the Coffee Board but at the same time certain counter claims had been made against the Coffee Board. In this context it may be noticed that an auditor had been appointed to verify the accounts as per the order of the court dated 1-10-1996. It has come out from the pleadings that various amounts are due from the company to the Coffee Board and from Coffee Board to the company. From the findings entered by the learned company judge for ordering substitution, it is axiomatic that a prima facie case had been made out that the Coffee Board is a creditor who is entitled to file a petition for substitution under rule 101. In that view of the matter, this appeal filed by the company is liable to be dismissed. 13. However, the appellant company is allowed to file an affidavit in opposition under rule 103 as against the amended petition within the time that may be allowed by the company court. The appeal is dismissed as above. No order as to costs. SCL q MARCH 20, 1999
........
|
