|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 300 Records
-
1989 (9) TMI 322 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Penalty for wrongful with holding of property ... ... ... ... ..... rescribed date and thus the offence is committed and completed as soon as the same were not filed within the prescribed date. On the other hand, section 630(1)(b) of the said Act, as already pointed out, makes wrongful withholding of the property of the company an offence, necessarily implying that the offence continues as long as the property is so withheld. Neither section 159 nor section 220 of the Companies Act provides that withholding the annual return or the copy of the balance-sheet constitutes an offence punishable under section 162 of the same Act. It is because of this distinction in the language of the different sections pointed out above that analogy sought to be drawn by learned Advocate for the petitioner does not apply. For the reasons stated above, it is held that the instant revisional application is without any merit and it is rejected. All interim orders are vacated and the learned Magistrate is directed to dispose of the proceeding with utmost expedition.
-
1989 (9) TMI 321 - HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Oppression and mismanagement – Right to apply under sections 397 and 398 ... ... ... ... ..... roup. Relying upon Sindhri Iron Foundry (P.) Ltd., In re 1964 34 Comp. Cas. 510 , he contended that a petition under sections 397 and 398 of the Act can be maintained by a majority group also. There is no force in this preliminary objection. Section 399(1) of the Act requires minimum shareholding. It does not speak of the maximum shareholding. It cannot, therefore, be said that a petitioner having a majority shareholding cannot move such a petition. This preliminary objection has no substance. The other objections, i.e., (1) highly disputed questions of fact cannot be agitated under sections 397 and 398 of the Act, (2) internal management cannot be the subject-matter of challenge under sections 397 and 398, and (3) petitioners have not come with clean hands, cannot be decided without going into the merits of the case. In view of the aforesaid findings, the petition deserves to be dismissed. Consequently, the petition is dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs.
-
1989 (9) TMI 320 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Share certificate ... ... ... ... ..... shares and debentures of the company. This decree is still in force. The petitioner has also prayed for initiating appropriate action against the company for its failure to pay the dividends and to deliver the shares and debentures to her. I am not inclined to grant this relief on the ground that the approval of the Reserve Bank of India was obtained by the company in May, 1987, to allot the shares to the non-resident Indians. According to the company, the dividends could not be paid and shares could not be delivered to the petitioner and other members of her family on account of the ex parte decree and subsequently the stay order. I accept this defence of the company. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the petition is partly allowed. I direct that the shares certificates, debentures and dividends, now lying in deposit in the court, be delivered and paid to the petitioner subject to her completing the other legal formalities by the registry. No order as to costs.
-
1989 (9) TMI 319 - HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Powers of Court to rectify register of members ... ... ... ... ..... presentation. These are issues which can very well be decided in a civil court where detailed evidence can be led by the parties pertaining to the relationship between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 and the circumstances under which the will was executed and the letters were sent to the company in respect of inclusion of the name of respondent No. 2 in the shares as a joint holder and also intimation to the company that in the event of the death of the petitioner, respondent No. 2 shall be the sole owner of the shares. This question cannot be decided on the basis of affidavits and in summary proceedings before this court. Therefore, in view of the aforementioned decisions of different High Courts with which I respectfully agree, it is not a fit case wherein, invoking the jurisdiction of this court under section 155 of the Companies Act, the petition may be admitted for adjudication. This petition filed by the petitioner is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
1989 (9) TMI 318 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Compensation for loss of office ... ... ... ... ..... think that that provision was intended as a provision conferring jurisdiction on the company court to determine the quantum of compensation. The language is clear and that section is no more than a declaratory provision authorising the company to compensate loss of office to the categories of employees mentioned therein and no more. It does not confer jurisdiction on this court to determine the quantum which the company is required to pay as compensation. Therefore, the argument of learned counsel is rejected. However, it is submitted by learned counsel for the respondent that whatever was admitted to be due to the petitioner as arrears of salary has been paid after the presentation of this petition in this court and that is not disputed by counsel for the petitioner. In that view of the matter, this company petition is not maintainable and for that reason, it is dismissed. The application filed to summon documents, etc., does not survive for consideration. Order accordingly.
-
1989 (9) TMI 290 - HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Winding up – Company when deemed unable to pay its debts ... ... ... ... ..... in respect of the enquiry under section 16 of the Act to the company and a photostat copy of this notice has been filed as annexure R-1 with the application dated August 16, 1988, moved under section 22 of the Act along with an affidavit. It is clearly provided in sub-section (1) of section 22 of the Act that no application under the Companies Act will lie after the commencement of the enquiry under section 16 of the Act except with the consent of the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction. Admittedly, no consent has been filed so far. As such, the petition moved under section 434 of the Companies Act is not maintainable. Consequently, the petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
-
1989 (9) TMI 281 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Stay/Dispensation of prior deposit ... ... ... ... ..... leepers are being manufactured. This represents the factual position. We follow the above reasoning. The Ld. J.D.R. has also explained the same position in his arguments referred to earlier. Accordingly, we feel that the appellants have not established that they have a prima facie case warranting grant of stay of operation of the order of the Collector (Appeals). The stay granted by the Supreme Court in the Bum Standard case and by this Bench in the Jessop case are on account of the hardship factor. In the present case, apart from the absence of a prima facie case in their favour, the hardship factor also does not support their plea for stay. We accordingly reject their application in this regard. As the matter is, however, to be decided by the Special Bench of the Tribunal concerning as it does a question of valuation, we direct that these three appeals be transferred to the Registry of the Tribunal, New Delhi for being put up to the concerned Special Bench for hearing them.
-
1989 (9) TMI 280 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation - Related persons ... ... ... ... ..... s it stood prior to 1-10-1975, there had to be one price for the manufactured article computed in the manner contemplated either by clause (a) or clause (b) of Section 4 of the Act. Trade discount generally comes out of post-manufacturing profits. Therefore, where a manufacturer has allowed various rates of trade discounts it is the maximum rate of discount which will be allowable abatement in such cases. Following this principle and in view of the fact that in the instant case, the goods were not sold at an unduly low price to CMO and in view of the submission of the counsel that excess discount allowed to the CMO, the CMO was bound to pass to their wholesale dealers as per agreement and excess is only 10 in this case compared to CSD and after taking all the facts into consideration, we hold that the appellant rsquo s claim is justified. 7. In the result, we set aside the orders passed by the authorities below and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
1989 (9) TMI 279 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Refund - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... on in the Rules as to the modality of expressing protest against the duty livability. The form in which the respondents had expressed their protest, has been accepted as sufficient to constitute a letter of protest even by the department in respect of DMEU. In this respect the India Cement case cited and relied on by the respondents (supra) decided by the Supreme Court is based on similar facts and also related to the period when there was no particular form prescribed for protesting against the levy of payment of duty under protest. From the perusal of the letter of protest dated 16-11-1971 we also find that they had raised the objection against the levy of duty on padding solutions as such. Therefore, we are of the view that the reasoning given by the Collector (Appeals) in the impugned order is well-founded and we under the circumstances see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Collector (Appeals). 6. The appeal filed by the department is therefore rejected.
-
1989 (9) TMI 278 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... (C.C.E. v. Sundek), the appeal is dismissed. (xx) In Appeal No. E/229/89-C (Jay), the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is modified as per directions in para (i) above. (xxi) In Appeal No. E/472/89-C (CCE v. Jay), the appeal is dismissed. (xxii) In Appeal No. E/1070/89-C (Sunlame), the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The matter shall go back to the Assistant Collector for deciding refund claim on merits as per provisions of law and in light of our directions regarding classification in para (i) above. The appeals, which are allowed, are allowed with consequential relief to the appellants, permissible under Act and Rules, which should be granted within three months from the date of the receipt of the order by the concerned authority. The matters which will go back to the Assistant Collectors, shall be decided by him within three months from the date of receipt of this order by them after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant.
-
1989 (9) TMI 277 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... the learned senior advocate, had argued that no reliance should be placed on unsigned documents. As already discussed above, the genuineness of the price list is not doubted by the respondents. Neither side has placed any material on record as to the margin of profit. We are of the view that there is violation of provisions of Section 111(d) and 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. We direct the Collector of Customs to fix the quantum of fine and penalty keeping in view the gravity of the offence and the margin of profit. 18. Appeal Nos. C/1473/87-A, C/2426/87-A, C/2435/87-A and C/2472/87-A. The facts of the above said four appeals filed by M/s. Skefko India Bearing Co. Ltd. are similar to appeal Nos. C/1925/85-A, C/1926/85-A, C/1927/85-A filed by the Collector of Customs, Bombay. In view of our observations in the above paras, we do not find any justification in interfering with the order passed by the Collector of Customs, Bombay. We uphold his findings and dismiss the appeals.
-
1989 (9) TMI 276 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Confiscation and Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... d there is no dispute that this is a watch of Japanese origin. This is admitted by the appellant. On the very day of seizure the appellant gave a statement that one person has given him this watch for its repair. The date of statement was on 18-9-1981. The appellant also produced that person by name - Pradip - on the date of personal hearing on 22-4-1982. The mere fact that Pradip had not claimed it prior to that date is no reason to disbelieve this statement of appellant as had been done by the authorities below. The mere fact that the watch is of foreign in origin is not sufficient to hold that the same is smuggled. The appellant has discharged the burden cast on him in view of his earliest statement that the same was given to him by a person for repair and by producing that person by name Pradip, on 22-4-1982 at the time of personal hearing. The benefit of doubt is accordingly extended to the appellant. Hence I allow this appeal with consequential reliefs to the appellant.
-
1989 (9) TMI 275 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Refund - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... the ground that the money received by the assessee was not in the nature of refund. This was the view taken by the Tribunal in a previous decision in the case of Miles India Ltd. v. The Assistant Collector of Customs but it was assailed before this Court. The appeal was withdrawn. This Court observed that the Customs Authorities, acting under the Act, were justified in disallowing the claim for refund as they were bound by the period of limitation provided therefore in the relevant provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. If really the payment of the duty was under a mistake of law the party might seek recourse to such alternative remedy as it might be advised. rdquo Therefore, in view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court extracted above, we hold that the refund claim of the appellant is clearly barred by limitation as rightly held by the authorities below and in this view of the matter the impugned order appealed against is upheld and the appeal is dismissed.
-
1989 (9) TMI 274 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Show Cause Notice - Service on partners instead of firm ... ... ... ... ..... ppellants was duly approved and appellants have removed the goods after payment of duty on the basis of approved value. Difference arose on account of assessable value adopted by the Department by taking the sale price of the goods sold by the related person cannot be the basis of non-declaration or suppression to bring the appellants under residuary Rule 10A of the Act as envisaged in the decided cases cited by the appellant mis-statement, charge of under-valuation was specifically covered under Rule 10 itself and hence the Rule 10A was not applicable. The demand having been issued after the expiry of the time limit as provided in Rule 10, the appellants succeed on this second ground also. 9. In the view we have taken, we do not find any justification in the imposition of fine and penalty levied by the Collector and reduced by the Board. Accordingly, we set aside the fine and penalty. 10. In the result, we allow the appeal in full with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
1989 (9) TMI 273 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ed that the appellants have imported the machine for Rigid Can trimming and they have also stated in their appeal that they are manufacturers of Cans, their name indicates as lsquo rsquo Universal Cans and Containers . Therefore, there is no doubt that they have imported this machine for the purpose of manufacturing the Cans and Containers and for trimming and threading etc. etc. While it is an admitted fact that the notification should be read strictly according to the wording contained therein that if at the time of importation the details of import were not scrutinised thoroughly and the assessment has been done at the higher rate on the basis of the invoice description only, it would be incorrect to deny the exemption if at a later stage the appellants produced the necessary documentary evidences which conforms to the items imported. Therefore, the appellants are eligible for exemption under Notifcation No. 40/78-Cus dated 01-03-1978 and the appeal is, therefore, allowed.
-
1989 (9) TMI 272 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Modvat Credit ... ... ... ... ..... he case has no application and therefore, reversal of credit by invoking Rule 57E is not sustainable in law. In this view of the matter, we set aside the impugned order appealed against and allow the appeal.... In the present case also the duty was paid at the rate of Rs. 500/- per MT instead of Rs. 715/- per MT and subsequently the difference was paid by the manufacturer of the inputs and the appellant claimed the MODVAT credit accordingly. Following the ruling of this Bench in the case cited above, I hold that Rule 57E in the facts and circumstances of the case as held by lower authority is not applicable, when the inputs in question suffered the correct duty as per law based on the classification of goods as originally done and the same amount has also been taken credit by the appellant and the credit therefore under Rule 57A has to be allowed under the MODVAT Scheme. In this view of the matter, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief.
-
1989 (9) TMI 271 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Accounts, records and returns ... ... ... ... ..... re intended to see whether the duty has been paid in terms of the approved classification and price list in law. In the present case, the benefit of the Notification was given in terms of an appellate order of the Collector (Appeals) and it can be seen that the lower rate of 10 stood approved for the purpose and the assessee did make payment in terms of the approval granted in respect of the classification and price list. Therefore, the action of the Superintendent in not raising the demand on RT 12 is correct in law and the Collector (Appeals) rsquo decision not to interfere as pleaded by the Revenue is maintainable. As held by the Collector (Appeals), the authorities could have raised the demand under Section 11A to keep the cause of action alive for recovery in case of the Final decision went against them. Demand on RT 12 return cannot be a substitute for raising demand under Section 11A. In view of above, we find no merits in the plea of the Revenue and reject the appeal.
-
1989 (9) TMI 270 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Project import ... ... ... ... ..... oject import registration and hence the case of the appellant is not acceptable for extending the concession under Heading 84.66. 8. As for the other evidences in support of their claim, viz. the Order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) to indicate that theirs was a manufacturing activity and the letter of the Joint Director of Industries to the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports recommending that endorsement of Project Import has been made on the licence, it has to be pointed that the concerned authorities to allow a project import concessions are the Customs Authorities as per the Project Import (Registration of Contract) Regulations, 1965 and references to other agencies not in context will not by itself render the claims for project import acceptable. The citation on Tribunal rsquo s decisions in Uma Art Studio supra is applicable. 8A. Consequentially, in view of the analysis above made, the appellant have no case and the appeal is therefore dismissed.
-
1989 (9) TMI 269 - CEGAT, MADRAS
SSI Exemption to first clearances of 15 lakhs ... ... ... ... ..... the benefit of the Notification for exemption upto 15 lakhs limit for each category of goods in the notification is available and the same should not be denied to the appellants as has been done in the present case. We, therefore direct the lower authority to go into the matter de novo and allow the refund claim in respect of goods in question if they satisfy other parameters in the notification notwithstanding the fact that the clearances have exceeded the limit of 15 lakhs in respect of the first category of goods namely plywood and blockboards since we have held above that the exemption is available for the first clearance upto 15 lakhs in terms of the Notification for each of the specified items in the Schedule to the Notification notwithstanding the fact that first clearance of duty paid and non-duty paid in respect of one specified item have exceeded 15 lakhs so long as other conditions of the Notifications are satisfied. The appeals are thus allowed in the above terms.
-
1989 (9) TMI 268 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Value of clearances ... ... ... ... ..... he benefit of the Notification for exemption upto 15 lakhs limit for each category of goods in the notification is available and the same should not be denied to the appellants as has been done in the present case. We, therefore direct the lower authority to go into the matter de novo and allow the refund claim in respect of goods in question if they satisfy other parameters in the notification notwithstanding the fact that the clearances have exceeded the limit of 15 lakhs in respect of the first category of goods namely plywood and blockboards. Since we have held above that the exemption is available for the first clearance upto 15 lakhs in terms of the Notification for each of the specified items in the schedule to the Notification notwithstanding the fact that first clearance of duty paid and non-duty paid in respect of one specified item have exceeded 15 lakhs so long as other conditions of the Notifications are satisfied. The appeals are thus allowed in the above terms.
........
|
