|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 374 Records
-
1987 (7) TMI 527 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Powers of Court to rectify register of members, Meetings and proceedings - Presumptions to be drawn where minutes duly drawn and signed
-
1987 (7) TMI 526 - SUPREME COURT
Official liquidator has moved this court for allowing two months further time for effecting sales and thereby raising funds with a view to complying with the directions given by this court on April 27, 1987
Held that:- Direct the matter to be called on July 30, 1987, when the learned Attorney-General would, on the basis of up-to-date instructions, make a statement to this court in that regard. Whether the company's assets are sufficient to meet all the liabilities is a matter which is yet to be seen and this court really intended to say that there were other assets against which the financial institutions could pitch their claims. So far as the remaining prayer of the banks is concerned, they have asked the court to say that the payments to the workmen should be considered as coming within sections 529 and 529A of the Companies Act of 1956
-
1987 (7) TMI 525 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Winding up - Unpaid dividends and undistributed liquidation account ... ... ... ... ..... no question of the company after reconstruction, to lay its claim on such amount on the plea that such amounts are the assets of the company. We fail to see how the company is entitled to such amount which is earmarked for the contributory and it is he who has the right to claim and receive the amount. In our opinion, if we were to accept the contention of Mr. Bharucha that the unclaimed surplus assets of the company which belong to the contributories continue to remain as assets of the company after liquidation and as such entitled to claim the same, it would amount to defeating the very object of the provisions of section 555, apart from the fact that such an interpretation is not warranted by the express wording of section 555. We, therefore, hold that the learned single judge was justified in rejecting the application of the company as not maintainable. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
-
1987 (7) TMI 524 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Charges - Registration of ... ... ... ... ..... ntitled to rateable distribution of the assets of the company. In the present case, the company is a going concern and the decree-holder-purchaser in court auction had no prior interest in the properties sold. The court auction sale and purchase by the decreeholder can convey only the judgment debtor-company s title in the property to the decree-holder-auction purchaser. The company s rights in the properties are subject to the mortgage in favour of the claimant-bank created by deposit of title deeds. For the aforesaid reasons, we set aside the impugned order of the court below and declare that the title obtained by the decree-holder-auction purchaser in the properties sold on October 11, 1985 in execution of the decree of the court below in O.S. No. 165 of 1982 is subject to the mortgage in favour of the claimant-bank created by the judgment debtor-company by deposit of title deeds as per exhibit A-2. The appeal is allowed as stated above. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1987 (7) TMI 500 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Company when deemed unable to pay its debts, Winding up - Company when deemed unable to pay its debts, Admission of petition and directions as to advertisement
-
1987 (7) TMI 499 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Offences against the act to be cognizable only on complaints by registrar, etc. ... ... ... ... ..... e company shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and punished accordingly, yet it would appear there is no point in proceeding against the company, whether it amounts to abuse of the process of court or not. Since, as pointed out by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Sheoratan Agarwal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1984 SC 1824, there is no statutory compulsion to prosecute a company alongside the officers or persons in charge of and responsible to the company and such officers or the persons responsible to the company may be prosecuted without prosecuting the company, it appears, these criminal proceedings instituted against the petitioner-company, being futile, deserve to be quashed. In the result and for the reasons stated above, the petition is allowed. The criminal proceedings instituted as against the petitioner-company in C. C. Nos. 4 to 17 of 1982, on the file of the Presiding Officer, Special Court for Economic Offences, Bangalore, are quashed.
-
1987 (7) TMI 498 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Court - Jurisdiction of, Reference to Tribunal of cases against managerial personnel ... ... ... ... ..... for passing a decree against a person who has committed acts of malfeasance, misfeasance and non-feasance. Hence, I find that there is no provision in the Companies Act to deal with the subject-matter of this suit for accounts. The case on hand, does not, therefore, fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the court having jurisdiction under the Companies Act. It is the ordinary civil court which has jurisdiction in the matter. The learned Subordinate Judge is, therefore, in error in holding that the suit is barred under section 10 of the Act and in dismissing the same. The point is answered in favour of the appellant. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the judgment and decree of the court below is set aside and the suit is remitted to the court below for trial on merits. The court fee paid on the memorandum of appeal shall be refunded. The parties are directed to appear before the court below on August 27, 1987. The costs of this appeal will abide the result of the suit.
-
1987 (7) TMI 476 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Entitled to benefit of concessional rate under Notification No. 395/76-Cus. ... ... ... ... ..... cision is not binding on the Tribunal but it carries persuasive value and we do not find any reason in differing from the decision of the Government of India. During the course of arguments we had enquired from Shri J. Gopinath whether he is aware of any contrary judgment of the Tribunal or in any other court. To our query, the learned Departmental Representative rsquo s reply was in negative. Accordingly we hold that the appellant is entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 395/76-Cus., dated 2nd August, 1976. 6. emsp For the levy of the CV duty we would like to observe that CV duty was not leviable in terms of Notification No. 395/76, dated 2-8-1976. In the present matter before us the Bill of Entry is dated 15th January, 1977 and the importation was prior to 1st March, 1979. Accordingly we hold that no CV duty was leviable. In the result we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal. The Revenue authorities are directed to give consequential effect to this order.
-
1987 (7) TMI 474 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Natural Justice ... ... ... ... ..... on merits after affording the appellant an opportunity of being heard as per law. The learned D.R. with characteristic fairness submits that notwithstanding the fact that the owner of the ornaments Shri Bhaskar Rao has not preferred any appeal, he may also be given an opportunity in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. I entirely agree with the submission of the learned D.R. and direct that notice of hearing should also be sent to the claimant Shri Bhaskar Rao. At this stage the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the G.S. 13 register, which the adjudicating authority summoned from the Superintendent of Central Excise, Bhubaneswar, may be secured and made available during adjudication. The adjudicating authority is further directed to get the G.S. 13 register, which admittedly is in the custody of the Superintendent of Central Excise, Bhubaneswar, and make the same available in the interests of justice at the time of adjudication. Ordered accordingly.
-
1987 (7) TMI 473 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Adjudication ... ... ... ... ..... essary material was being obtained on the 6th, 7th and in fact on the 8th also. 12. Since we are thus satisfied that normal principles of natural justice that would safeguard the interests of the appellants also in the proceedings of adjudication had not been observed by the Collector during his adjudication, we hold that the impugned order could not be supported. We feel that interests of justice would require that the same be set aside and the matter remitted to the Collector for re-adjudication. 13. Accordingly, we allow these appeals, set aside the order of the Collector and remand the matter for fresh adjudication. We may observe that before us the appellants have produced various documents claiming that they should be permitted to produce them in order to rebut the documents relied upon by the Collector in his order. It would be open to the appellants to produce these documents to the Collector when he commences proceedings for fresh adjudication in terms of this order.
-
1987 (7) TMI 472 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Manufacture ... ... ... ... ..... the manufacture of cycle tyre. Such tyres are exempted from payment of Central Excise duty under Notification No. 24/65, but components for tyre are not classifiable under Tariff Item No. 16, they are classifiable under Tariff Item 68 and attract duty under Notification No. 89/79. She said the Collector (Appeal) of Central Excise, Calcutta in his order No. 358/Cal./83 dated 23-3-1983 accepted the factory rsquo s contention that what goes into the manufacture of a cycle tyre is also a part of a cycle. This is not correct. A part of a tyre remains a part of a tyre, it is not a part of a bicycle. A tyre and a cycle are different goods and are traded as different commodities. In commercial parlance, they are understood to represent different commodities, with different name, character or use. 3. A part of a cycle tyre is also a part of a bicycle in our opinion that is the more reasonable view. Therefore, we support the order of the Collector (Appeal). 4. This appeal is rejected.
-
1987 (7) TMI 471 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand and adjudication ... ... ... ... ..... he General Manager, Distt. Industries Center. We feel that these materials (under item 7 and 9) ought to be considered individually and decision taken on merits after such a consideration. This has not been done under the order of the Addl. Collector. 8. In the circumstances, we are unable to accept the conclusion of the Addl. Collector that there is sufficient material to establish that the value of plant and machinery installed in the factory of the appellants exceeded the relevant monetary limit. We are of opinion that this matter has to be investigated factually and decision taken thereafter only. 9. In the circumstances, we held that the order of the Addl. Collector will have to be set aside but that a proper decision could be arrived at only after factual verification on further adjudication. 10. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, the order of the Addl. Collector is set aside and the matter is remanded to him for readjudication in the light of the observations earlier.
-
1987 (7) TMI 470 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Manufacture ... ... ... ... ..... suade us into differing from our earlier decision. Tariff Item 14AA which specifies only certain chemicals falling under that item. Merely because the product is not specified in that Tariff Item would not disqualify it from being called lsquo chemicals rsquo if it is otherwise so. Besides, while the decision supra hold that paints and varnishes would qualify for description as chemicals under Sl. No. 3, we might point out that the goods could also be covered under description lsquo chemical formulations rsquo Sl. No. 4 of the schedule. It would not, be proper to read Tariff Items as expressions used in the schedule. Following the earlier decision, we set aside the impugned order and allow this appeal with consequential relief. 4. Revenue should implement this order within six months from the date of receipt of this order by the respondent unless they get a stay from the appellate court. Cross objection filed is in the nature of comments on the grounds of appeal. It is filed.
-
1987 (7) TMI 469 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Set-off of duty ... ... ... ... ..... um Carbonate used in the manufacture of Caustics Soda Lye. 5. Our attention has been drawn to a decision of this Tribunal in Collector of Central Excise. Bhubaneshwar v. Jaishree Chemical Limited, Order No. 436/85-C, dated 6-6-1985. The decision covers the identical issue as in the present case. Both the parties agree that decision covers the issue involved in the present appeals. In the decision, the Tribunal held that Barium Carbonate would be eligible for benefit of exemption under Notification. Shri Shishir Kumar, to secure the rights of Revenue, urged the same grounds which were earlier urged before the Tribunal when it took the aforesaid decision so that the same, if necessary, could be agitated before the Supreme Court. So far as the Tribunal is concerned, there would appear no reason to differ with that decision. Following the decision, we dismiss the present appeal. 6. Cross-objection which is in the nature of comments to the ground of appeal is filed as incompetent.
-
1987 (7) TMI 468 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand for differential duty quashable ... ... ... ... ..... ered by electric meters installed when the tube well motor is not working rdquo . 4. In the above context, Shri Y.N. Chopra drew our attention to this Tribunal rsquo s order No. 181/85-D, dated 16-5-1985 in appeal No. ED/(SB) A. No. 2880 of 1984-D Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh v. Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala by which it was held that electricity consumed for lighting the pump house was also electricity consumed for agricultural purposes. 5. In view of the above decision of this Tribunal, the demand created by the Superintendent on this account has to be set aside which we hereby do. The appeal is allowed with consequential relief to the appellants. 6. The Collector has purported to file what is called lsquo cross-objection rsquo to the appeal filed by the Punjab State Electricity Board. Since the relief asked for is upholding the impugned order, there is no cause for filing the purported cross-objection, which is accordingly dismissed as not maintainable.
-
1987 (7) TMI 461 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Durability of common packing of duty paid goods ... ... ... ... ..... ich the duty had already been paid and put the two in a common container for the purpose of marketing. The operation of putting the two materials separately, it is not denied, has been carried out outside the factory. It has not been shown to us that putting these separately manufactured products in a common container, amounts to manufacture. It may well be a final product for a particular consumer end use emerges after the two are mixed, but until it has been done, it has to be shown as to whether under the law by putting the two items together separately packed condition would amount to manufacture. There is no plea before us that this is so nor in our view this can be held as manufacture in terms of Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. We therefore hold that the Collector (Appeals) was right in holding that inasmuch as the appellants manufactured only aluminium medium, the duty was liable to be paid only on that product. The appeal is therefore rejected.
-
1987 (7) TMI 460 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... thus substance in the claim of the manufacturers that their goods were flattened wire rods. 7. The Additional Collector does not seem to have taken into account the fact that there are such things as flattened wires and flattened wire rods. Flattened wire rods are made from round wire rods which are rolled, extruded, drawn etc. to flatten them. Here is the definition under Chapter 76 for Wrought Bars and Rods (including wire rods) any extruded, rolled, drawn or forged products of solid section, of which the width or the maximum cross-sectional dimension exceeds 6 millimetres and which if they are flat, have a thickness exceeding one-tenth of the width. 8. It is the same chapter drawn upon by the Additional Collector for the definition of strips. The thickness of these wires all exceed one-tenth of the width and, therefore, they are flattened wire rods. 9. It is not lawful to classify them as strips, as they are not strips. The Additional Collector rsquo s order is set aside.
-
1987 (7) TMI 459 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Import Policy ... ... ... ... ..... 12. We may mention here that in another case which went from this court by way of special leave to appeal SLP (Civil) Nos. 6179-80/87 M/s. Suresh Chand Bonsai and another v. Union of India and Ors. the Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition with the following observations ldquo Having heard Shri F.S. Nariman, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri B. Datta, learned Addl. Solicitor Genl. at quite some length, we do not think that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, any interference with the impugned order passed by the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, dated 12-5-1987, shifting the items lsquo Cinnamon/Cassia, Cloves rsquo from Appendix 5, part lsquo A rsquo to Appendix 5, part lsquo B rsquo , is called for as it was done in the public interest. Special leave petitions are accordingly dismissed. rdquo In the result we see no merit in the petition and dismiss the same. The stay order granted on 3rd June 1987 in CM. No. 2490/87 is vacated.
-
1987 (7) TMI 458 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... (Appeals) is not correct when he states that the assessee paid the duty on his own. The payment was made only because demand was made therefor. In the circumstances the payment cannot be said to have been voluntary. To hold that an assessee to whom a demand is issued for payment of duty the recovery of which has become barred by time could validly resist the demand but that if, following the demand, he makes the payment but then appeals against the demand he cannot be heard in support of such an appeal, does not appear to us to be correct. To take such a view would mean protection of a recaldtrant assessee but denial of the same to a honest assessee who meets the demand but protests against the same. 5. In this view we are satisfied that the orders of the lower authorities are to be set aside on this ground of time bar itself. It is, therefore, unnecessary to consider the other issues. 6. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the orders of the lower authorities are set aside.
-
1987 (7) TMI 449 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... specifically designed manufacture of steel like counter, storage cabins, cat walks etc. used in industrial establishments are said to be not classifiable as steel furniture. But here again it may be seen that this relates to completed products and not parts. As earlier seen, we are concerned with parts out of which normal items of furniture such as storage racks etc. could be erected though other articles such as cat walks, ladders, platforms etc. could also be erected by customers if they felt the need therefore. Hence this clarification is also of no assistance to the respondents. 12. emsp Hence on a careful consideration of the submissions of both sides and the materials in issue we hold that the Asstt. Collector was correct in classifying the products in issue under item 40 CET and that the Collector (Appeals) erred in setting aside the same. Accordingly, we allow this appeal, set aside the order of the Collector (Appeals) and restore the order of the Assistant Collector.
........
|
