|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 306 Records
-
1984 (7) TMI 330
Winding up - Appointment and powers of provisional liquidator ... ... ... ... ..... connection therewith. I am sure that the District Collector, Ernakulam, the Commissioner of Police, Ernakulam, and other police officials, whosoever is contacted in that behalf by the official liquidator, will extend all aid and help for a proper and peaceful taking possession of and for assuming and continuing the management of M/s. Brunton and Company (Engineers) Ltd., Fort Cochin-1. A carbon copy of this order will be served immediately on the official liquidator for necessary compliance. The Registrar will forward a carbon copy of this order to the District Collector, Ernakulam, for necessary action on the lines indicated in para 14 above. The applicant, Canara Bank, Mattancherry, Cochin-2, will place at the disposal of the provisional liquidator, a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 (rupees one lakh), now, on account, for the expenses to be incurred by the provisional liquidator in the matter. The bank can also claim this amount as a first charge against the properties of the company.
-
1984 (7) TMI 321
Public deposits ... ... ... ... ..... deposit of Rs. 1,95,000 has remained unpaid till March 31, 1976, though claimed by the depositors and have continued to remain unpaid till the date of complaint which has been filed on December 17, 1976. Nor have they been renewed, as admitted by the learned counsel, in accordance with clause (b) of sub-section (3) of section 58A of the Act. Section 58A does not provide for punishment for the non-repayment of deposits accepted in accordance with the directions of the Reserve Bank of India. The offence is, therefore, punishable under the residuary section 629A of the Companies Act which provides for a punishment of fine which may extend to five hundred rupees and where the contravention is a continuing one with a further fine which may extend to fifty rupees for every day. The prosecution has, therefore, been rightly laid under section 58A(3)(a) read with section 629A of the Companies Act. No other point was urged before me. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed.
-
1984 (7) TMI 320
Company when deemed unable to pay its debts, Winding up - Appeals from orders ... ... ... ... ..... ppeals (contempt), company appeals, sales tax cases and gift-tax cases shall be before a Bench of two judges. Rule 1 above stated clearly provides that a motion for the admission of matters mentioned in clause (i) thereof shall ordinarily be heard and disposed of by a judge sitting alone. The Explanation is an exception to clause (i) and by virtue of the Explanation, in matters including company appeals for the above purpose, that is, a motion for the admission, be set down before a Bench of two judges instead of a judge sitting alone. It would thus be evident that the relevant rules of this court expressly envisage a company appeal to be listed for motion hearing before a Division Bench. Once a matter comes up for admission purposes, it would be for the Division Bench while hearing the matter either to admit it for final hearing or to dismiss it, if it finds no merits therein. For the reasons aforementioned, the appeal is dismissed in limine. Surinder Singh J. mdash I agree.
-
1984 (7) TMI 319
... ...
... ... ..... ally affected by reason of the transfer to the institute of the assets and liabilities of the dissolved company or of anything contained in this Act, but the suit, appeal or other proceeding may be continued, prosecuted and enforced by or against the Institute in the same manner and to the same extent as it would or may be continued, prosecuted and enforced by or against the dissolved company as if this Act has not been passed. It is clear from the above provision that even after the company has been dissolved, the writ proceedings filed against the dissolved company can be prosecuted and writ, writs or any other directions passed against the dissolved company would be enforceable against the Institute. For the reasons stated, I allow the petition and quash the order dated April 26, 1976, rejecting the application of the petitioner for associate membership and direct the respondents to admit the petitioner as its associate member. The parties are left to bear their own costs.
-
1984 (7) TMI 318
Shares warrants and entries in register of members ... ... ... ... ..... in the books of the company in her name. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree passed on August 17, 1982, is set aside. There will be a decree declaring that the plaintiff is the owner of the 900 equity shares of East India Film Co. P. Ltd. described in the plaint. There will also be a decree directing rectification of the share register and/or register of members of East India Film Co. P. Ltd. by inserting the name of the plaintiff and/or her nominee in respect of the said shares. There will also be a mandatory injunction directing East India Film Co. P. Ltd. to deliver to the plaintiff the shares scrips and/or certificates in respect of the said 900 shares after rectification of the share register. In default, East India Film Co. P. Ltd. is directed to issue duplicate share scrips in respect of the aforesaid 905 shares of the company to the plaintiff in accordance with law. There will be no order as to costs. Dipak Kumar Sen J. mdash I agree.
-
1984 (7) TMI 293
Powers of court to grant relief in certain cases ... ... ... ... ..... o raise their claim in this regard before the criminal court which will deal with it in accordance with law. During the course of the hearing, my attention was also invited to section 637B of the Act, which empowers the Central Govt. to condone the delay in filing any document with the Registrar of Companies. Suffice it to say, the power under section 637B is that of the Central Govt. and not of the High Court. The order passed by me will not preclude any of the seven petitioners from moving the Central Govt. for condonation of delay in filing the requisite documents under section 637B of the Act. If and when any such application is moved, the Central Govt. will be free to dispose of it in accordance with law. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the opinion that the petitioners are neither entitled to the relief claimed by them nor to invoke the jurisdiction of this court under section 633(2) of the Act. In the result, this petition fails and is dismissed with costs.
-
1984 (7) TMI 284
... ...
... ... ..... from the price for arriving at the assessable value. The submission made by Shri Mehta, therefore, cannot be accepted. The expression lsquo selling expenses rsquo stands out distinctly vis- agrave -vis tax elements like the sales tax, octroi, etc. In any event, we observe from the record that this point was never agitated before the lower authorities nor set out in the grounds of the appeal. 3. emsp We would like to set out here that we have scrutinised the record pertaining to Appeal No. 262/77-A which relates to glycerine. The record pertaining to Appeal No. 263/77-A relating to cosmetics and toilet preparations has also been shown to us. Shri Mehta submits that the format and general contents with regard to the remaining two appeals were identical Appeal No. 242/77-A covered lsquo Organic Surface Active Agents rsquo and Appeal No. 287/77-A pertains to lsquo Soaps rsquo . 4. emsp For the reasons discussed above, we see no merit in all the four appeals and dismiss the same.
-
1984 (7) TMI 276
Refund - Duty whether paid under protest ... ... ... ... ..... ven though the actions may have begun earlier or the claim on which the actions may be based may be of an anterior date rdquo . AIR 1964 SC 1256 - Memmon Abdul Karim Haji-Tayab v. Dy. Custodian General, New Delhi and Ors. (c) emsp Unless, therefore, the payment of duty during the relevant period was under protest, a claim for refund would appear to have been barred by limitation in terms of the said Rule (d) emsp The letter dated 11-6-1974, relied upon to establish a protest, does not, in reality, spell out any protest whatsoever. After answering certain queries it merely asserts that packing charges are not included in the price and proceeds further to say that if the Department felt that the duty is leviable on packing charges, they have no option. In our opinion there is absolutely no hint even of a protest anywhere in the said letter (e) Accordingly, we have necessarily to hold that the claim for refund was barred by limitation. 4. In the premises the Appeal is dismissed.
-
1984 (7) TMI 275
Refund - Duty whether paid under protest ... ... ... ... ..... ven though the actions may have begun earlier or the claim on which the actions may be based may be of an anterior date rdquo . AIR 1964 SC 1256 - Memmon Abdul Karim Haji-Tayab v. Dy. Custodian General, New Delhi and Ors. (c) emsp Unless, therefore, the payment of duty during the relevant period was under protest, a claim for refund would appear to have been barred by limitation in terms of the said Rule (d) emsp The letter dated 11-6-1974, relied upon to establish a protest, does not, in reality, spell out any protest whatsoever. After answering certain queries it merely asserts that packing charges are not included in the price and proceeds further to say that if the Department felt that the duty is leviable on packing charges, they have no option. In our opinion there is absolutely no hint even of a protest anywhere in the said letter (e) Accordingly, we have necessarily to hold that the claim for refund was barred by limitation. 4. In the premises the Appeal is dismissed.
-
1984 (7) TMI 274
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... position in regard to their plea of time-bar. Since we have decided the appeal in favour of the appellants on the substantive point of dispute, we do not consider it necessary to go into their other arguments. 8. In the light of our above discussion, we hold that Nylon Monomer Castings manufactured by the appellants from caprolactum did not fall under Item 15A(2) but, with effect from 1-3-1975, were classifiable under Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. Accordingly, we set aside the Collector rsquo s impugned order and allow this appeal. The Department will be at liberty to re-determine the duty liability of the appellants under Item 68 as permissible under law. In their appeal, in prayers (e) and (f), the appellants have sought relief in respect of certain other demands for duty which were not the subject-matter of the Collector rsquo s impugned order. Since the proceedings relating to these demands were not before us, we refrain from passing any order in respect thereof.
-
1984 (7) TMI 270
Manufacturer ... ... ... ... ..... pplicable as we had held that there was no suppression of fact and the appellant had maintained accounts. No specific and detailed grounds are given as to why the appellant was penalised. It appears to us that the appellant was under the impression that by fragmenting his unit and creating a new one in the name of his wife he could avail of the benefit of the Notification No. 80/80-C.E. in respect of both the units. We had held that he is not so entitled and upheld the Collector rsquo s Orders in this regard. We do not however find justification for imposing a penalty. We, therefore, set aside the penalty. 21. ensp To sum up, we order that the production of both the units namely Quality and Unity should be clubbed for the purposes of Notification No. 80/80. Any demand as a consequence will be limited to the normal time limit under section 11A of CES Act. We set aside the confiscation of the goods as also the penalty imposed on the appellant. The appeal is thus partly allowed.
-
1984 (7) TMI 267
Import licence - Revalidation ... ... ... ... ..... petitioner had entered into a contract with the foreign supplier for the supply of the cylinders. The material placed on the record does not show that there was any firm commitment with the firm at Budapest regarding the supply of cylinders. As already stated, the licence was granted on 8th May 1974 and it was not utilised till December 1977 when an application for revalidation was made. On the facts stated it can not be said that the reason given by the respondents that the petitioner had not shown any progress in the utilisation of the import licence was wrong. In aay case, it was for the authority concerned to take a decision on the material placed before it to revalidate the licenceor not. This court cannot substitute its opinion for die opinion formed by the competent authority. 10. In my opinion no case has been made out for interference. The petition is dismissed. As there has been no appearance on behalf of the respondents, I leave the parties to bear their own costs.
-
1984 (7) TMI 264
Whether petitioner was a gold control dealer ... ... ... ... ..... who was a relation of Paresh Nath Shaw. Secondly, it was claimed before us that the said statement was not recorded in the language of Paresh Nath who claimed to be an illeterate person. In our view, this point has also no substance and does not raise any question of law. We find that Paresh Nath Shaw has himself verified the application before us by affirming the same. He has signed in English. He did not take the assistance of any interpreter to have the contents of the said application read over and explained to him. We are unable to read Section 70 of the Act as laying down that in all cases the recording of the statement must be made manually by the officer making the seizure. The petitioners have not alleged that the person, who had taken down the statement of Paresh Nath had not correctly recorded the same. In our views, no prejudice has been caused by the said manner of recording. 6. For the foregoing reasons we dismiss this application without any order as to costs.
-
1984 (7) TMI 261
Penalty - Evasion of duty ... ... ... ... ..... ying excise duty to the extent of Rs. 12 lakhs per month without any allegation of evading duty and the fact that the amount of Rs. 1,05,000/- stands already deposited in the government treasury, though under wrong heads, clearly indicate that there was no intention on the part of the appellants to evade the payment of duty. Even the Addl. Collector of Central Excise, Meerut in his impugned order, dated 18-4-1984 has admitted that it was only an irregularity and a genuine mistake but he took the view that this type of irregularity and genuine mistakes are not sufficient to mitigate the offence and violation of the Central. Excise Rules and Procedure. 7. In the absence of the proof of any mala fide intention on the part of the appellants and from the fact that it is a case of genuine mistake, we find that there was no intent on the part of the appellants to evade duty and therefore, we set aside the impugned order of the Addl. Collector of Central Excise and accept the appeal.
-
1984 (7) TMI 258
Appeal to Tribunal - Order of acquittal of a criminal court not binding on the Tribunal ... ... ... ... ..... than five workers and had, therefore, claimed exemption but that in reply thereto under Letter dated 3-12-1976 itself the Superintendent had rejected the said claim and has specifically indicated that licence should be applied for and manufactured product should be cleared only in accordance with rules after payment of duty also. It is thereafter that licence had been applied for though under protest and it is in that connection that the Superintendent had written the Letter dated 31-12-1976 referring to the appeal preferred also. In these circumstances, the continued infraction by the appellant cannot be said to be an act without the requisite mens rea so as to exclude a case requiring imposition of penalty. We are satisfied that the appellant was liable to pay penalty. The quantum of penalty has been reduced by the Board under its order and we see no reason to reduce it further. 11.In the result, the order of the lower authorities is confirmed and this appeal is dismissed.
-
1984 (7) TMI 257
Tissue paper does not fall within the ambit of ‘consumable’. ... ... ... ... ..... ore him. In the first instance, the Collector has made a specific mention that he had rejected the appellant rsquo s contention after inspecting the sample. Secondly, this plea was not taken at the earlier stages and appears to us to have been adopted by the appellants as an after thought. Lastly, no technical literature has been shown to us indicating that tissue paper is used in the leather footwear of the types being lsquo manufactured by the appellants. 14. emsp Grievance has been made that the fine in lieu of confiscation is high. We were told by the learned S.D.R. that the redemption fine is fixed keeping in view the margin of profit pertaining to the goods in question. Since this is the usual practice, we do not see any force in the contention of the appellants that the lower authorities have fixed the fine at an excessive level. 15. In the result, we reject the various contentions made by the appellants, uphold the impugned Order dated 7-3-1984 and dismiss the appeal.
-
1984 (7) TMI 256
Appeal to Collector ... ... ... ... ..... nts. Sh. Jain, therefore, submitted that the matter should be remanded to the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Delhi for considering the submissions of the appellants on merits and for passing a speaking and reasoned order after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the appellants. 4. emsp Sh. K.V. Kunhikrishnan, D.R. on behalf of the respondent could not make any submission on the points raised by Sh. Jain for want of information. He, however, conceded that the matter was such as required de novo consideration by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi. 5. emsp Having considered the submissions, we are of the view that the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) seems to have decided the matter in hurry and without complying with the statutory requirements of giving personal hearing to the appellants. In view of this, we set aside the order in appeal and remand the case to the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi for de novo consideration.
-
1984 (7) TMI 246
Appeal filed to Appellate Tribunal liable to be transferred to the Collector ... ... ... ... ..... ed 27-12-1980, serial number 3 and the entries relating thereto shall be omitted. The effect of this amendment, prima facie, seems to be to remove the limitations on the powers to be exercised by the Additional Collector while adjudicating under the Gold (Control) Act. 3. emsp We have examined this Notification with reference to the Tribunal rsquo s order referred to earlier. This order passed by a 3-Member Bench, dated 24-11-1983 held that inasmuch as the Additional Collector has not been equated to a Collector in the Gold (Control) Act, the appeal would lie to the Collector (Appeals) and not to the Tribunal. The present amendment, in our opinion, does not change the situation. We, therefore, hold that in this case the correct appellate authority is the Collector (Appeals) and not the Tribunal. 4. emsp We, accordingly order that this appeal be transferred to the Collector (Appeals), New Delhi, under intimation to the appellant and his Counsel. 5. Announced in the open court.
-
1984 (7) TMI 242
... ...
... ... ..... he matter should be remitted back to the file of the ITO for proper determination of the value of leasehold right in question. The assessee as well as the ITO will be free to get the said assets, viz., leasehold rights properly valued by expert valuers and adduce such evidence and material in support thereof as they may deem necessary. 19. In summing up, we hold that the various leasehold rights held by the assessee and referred to in valuation report filed at pages 59 and 60 of the compilation are the assets of the assessee s industrial undertaking and their market value when they became the assets of the business has to be taken for the determination of the capital employed for the purpose of section 80J. The ITO will determine the market value of those assets in the manner stated above and shall give proper deduction under section 80J for all the years in question. 20. In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are deemed to have been allowed for statistical purpose.
-
1984 (7) TMI 241
Residential status ... ... ... ... ..... d commencing from 1-4-1970 to 31-3-1976. The Board in its circular referred to earlier has required that both the conditions should be satisfied for an individual to be treated as a resident and ordinarily resident. In the present case, the assessee was resident in India in 9 out of 10 previous years preceding the previous year in question and she was also during the 7 previous years preceding the accounting year was physically present in India for a period of more than 730 days. Therefore, both the conditions required for the treatment of an individual as ordinarily resident are satisfied in this case. Therefore, we have to hold, that the assessee was resident and ordinarily resident during the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration and, consequently, the income accruing or arising outside India is taxable as part of the total income of the assessee. We, therefore, allow the appeal filed by the department and restore the assessment made by the ITO.
........
|
