|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 375 Records
-
1995 (3) TMI 422
Winding up - Circumstances in which a company may be wound up ... ... ... ... ..... find any substance in this submission as well. The amount of damages in the present case is not certain. The case of the respondent is that the machinery could not be lifted because of certain unavoidable circumstances for which the respondent was not responsible. A civil suit has already been filed for claiming damages. As to what would be the effect of cancellation of the contract and how much damages under these circumstances may/can be awarded to the petitioner shall have to be adjudicated upon which cannot be said to be an admitted debt for which the respondent-company can be ordered to be wound up. As observed in the earlier part of this judgment respondent No. 1 is a profit-earning company and it cannot be said that it is unable to pay its debt. 9. For the reasons recorded above, I refuse to entertain this petition and relegate the parties to their remedy of filing the civil suit which has already been filed. This petition stands disposed of with no order as to costs.
-
1995 (3) TMI 421
Winding up - Power of court to stay or restrain proceedings against company, Powers of court on hearing petition
-
1995 (3) TMI 414
Circumstances in which a company may be wound up ... ... ... ... ..... his became specially significant, as according to the appellant, its employee and representative, Mr. A.K. Mukherjee, was suspected to have colluded 1with the respondent-company. The appropriate course, in the facts and circumstances of the case, for the respondent was to have resorted to proceedings for the recovery of the amount rather than to move for winding up of the appellant-company. The facts and circumstances of the case in hand show that there were several triable issues including the significant issue whether the claim was within the period of limitation. All these issues could not be brushed aside and the appellant-company compelled to pay the amount of Rs. 90,000 odd, which had never been acknowledged to be due from the appellant-company to the respondent. For the foregoing reasons, we allow the appeal and set aside the order of the learned single judge, leaving the respondent to its remedy by a regular suit, if so advised. The parties shall bear their own costs.
-
1995 (3) TMI 413
Company when deemed unable to pay its debts ... ... ... ... ..... cient. I have heard counsel for the parties and without examining each and every document produced by the company in support of its defence, I am of the view that the amount claimed by the petitioner is bona fide disputed by it and that the defence put up by the company is not an excuse to hide its inability to pay the amount. There is not enough material on the record for this court to hold that the amount as claimed by the petitioner is definitely due from the company. The disputed questions raised by the company in its defence cannot be gone into in the present proceedings without a regular trial of those issues. In the result, the petition is dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner to pursue its remedies in a civil court. If the petitioner files a suit for the recovery of the amount claimed by it the company will within thirty days from the date of service in the suit furnish security to the satisfaction of the trial court for the amount claimed in the suit. No costs.
-
1995 (3) TMI 403
Winding up - Circumstances in which a company may be wound up, Company when deemed unable to pay its debts
-
1995 (3) TMI 398
Winding up - Suits stayed on winding-up order ... ... ... ... ..... aff. Even now it is not disputed on behalf of the official liquidator that the principal amount as claimed by the bank is due to it as per the statement of affairs filed by the ex-directors of the company though it is submitted by the bank that some more amount had become due to it by way of interest. Be that as it may, the official liquidator having virtually admitted the claim of the bank has not to lead much evidence in the trial court. The real dispute appears to be between the bank and the guarantors. If the plea of the official liquidator is accepted and the suit is transferred to this court the bank will have to produce all its witnesses here and for that a very heavy expenditure may have to be incurred with no useful purpose. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case and the convenience of the parties I am of the opinion that the suit should continue at Faridabad. The petition is consequently dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
-
1995 (3) TMI 395
Duty of persons entitled to receive foreign exchange ... ... ... ... ..... rve Bank of India taking a final decision on an application for permission where such permission is not expressly required to be previous, is premature and misconceived. In that view of the matter, the appeals must succeed. The appellants have, however, fairly conceded before us that they would not press for setting aside the entire adjudication proceedings but that the impugned order of the Board for the purpose of being decided in accordance with the Comp. Cas. 548. According, the appeals are allowed and the impugned order of the Board dated May 8, 1987 is set aside. The matters are remanded back to the Board for the purpose of reconsideration of the same after the Reserve Bank of India disposes of the application of the appellant-company for permission under section 16of the act for non-payment of erection charges by the Malaysian concern. It is expected that the Reserve Bank of India will dispose of the application as expeditiously as possible. K.C. Agarwal C.J.- I agree.
-
1995 (3) TMI 386
Winding up – Statement of affairs to be made to official liquidator ... ... ... ... ..... accused No. 2 (as accused No. 1 has already expired during the pendency of this prosecution) is sentenced to pay a lump sum fine of Rs. 2,500 for making default in filing the statement of affairs and failing to comply with the statutory provisions of section 454 of the Act. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and the plea of guilt of accused No. 2, this court has no hesitation in finding that the prosecution has, successfully, proved that accused No. 2 is guilty of the offence punishable under section 454(5) of the Act. Therefore, he is convicted under section 454(5) of the Act and is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 2,500 and, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for seven days. The learned advocate for accused No. 2 states that accused No. 2 may be given fifteen days time to pay up the amount of fine of Rs. 2,500. After hearing both the sides, this court finds that this request is quite reasonable and, therefore, fifteen days time is granted to pay up the fine.
-
1995 (3) TMI 385
Penalty for wrongful with holding of property ... ... ... ... ..... ion and eviction is also subserved. What should be the just and reasonable balance will have to be decided on the facts of each case. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, the respondent accused Popatbhai Haribhai Patel is held guilty for the offence punishable under section 630 of the Companies Act, and, consequently, he is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500 in default, to undergo SI for 7 days. The accused is also directed to deliver up and hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the disputed company s room No. 30 bearing Municipal Census No. 5/947, New Shorrock Nagar, Nadiad, belonging to the complainant-company on or before June 10, 1995, failing which or in default, he shall suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month. The accused is given time to pay the fine up to March 31, 1995. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the appeal is required to be allowed. Accordingly, it is allowed, setting aside the order of acquittal recorded by the trial court.
-
1995 (3) TMI 384
Deficiency in service, Complaint ... ... ... ... ..... ot a consumer . In our view, the ratioin that case is not applicable to the present case. 8. For the aforesaid reasons we partly accept the appeal, modify the order of the District Forum and direct the appellant/opposite party to pay the interest on the debentures to the complainant in accordance with the conditions of the issuance of the debentures if that has not been paid, within three months. We trust that the stickers will be sent to the complainant-respondent by the appellant, if they have not been received by her till date. She may inform the company accordingly. In case they fail to comply with the order of the Commission within the period of three months action shall be taken against them under section 27 of the Act. If the complainant has not received the dividend of the shares, she may seek remedy in an appropriate Court. 9. In view of the partial success of the appellant in the appeal we leave the parties to bear their own costs throughout. Appeal partly allowed.
-
1995 (3) TMI 383
Winding up - Company when deemed unable to pay its debts ... ... ... ... ..... roached this court and prayed that the company itself be wound up. The provision as relied on by learned counsel for the petitioner says that the company may be wound up by the court if the company is unable to pay its debts. There is difference between a debt and salary. The salary is the remuneration paid to a person or employee in lieu of services rendered by him/her whereas a debt is not remuneration. A debt is something which is borrowed by a person on settled terms and conditions and a settled rate of interest and can be re-settled between the parties. In view of the above, I find that the petition is incompetent and is accordingly dismissed. Since after service of notice nobody has turned up from the side of the company, no order as to costs. However, it is made clear that this order will not prejudice the right of the petitioner in regard to the recovery of the salary before the appropriate forum as may be available to him and as he may be advised. Petition dismissed.
-
1995 (3) TMI 382
Deficiency in service ... ... ... ... ..... ponent cannot be blamed for not allotting 1,500 right equity shares. It is stated that subsequently the complainants sent amount payable for the said shares together with interest by demand draft to the opponent. Opponent, however, refused to accept the demand draft. Now, the opponent has stated in its letter dated 29-1-1994 addressed to complainant No. 2 that since all the formalities relating to allotment have been completed, request to allot shares could not be considered. The opponent, therefore, returned the demand draft. In our opinion, since demand draft was received by the opponent after all the formalities for allotment of shares were over, the opponent could not be held responsible for not allotting the shares to complainant No. 2. The opponent could not be held guilty of negligence or deficiency in service. In our opinion, therefore, this complaint deserves to be dismissed. 3. In the result, we dismiss the complaint, with no order as to costs. Complaint dismissed.
-
1995 (3) TMI 381
Stock exchanges ... ... ... ... ..... - IV Edition - the grounds for the award of mandamus is discussed to explain in what circumstances a writ of mandamus would lie. It is stated that mandamus lies to secure the performance of a public duty, in the performance of which the applicant has a sufficient legal interest. The duty to be performed must be a public nature and mandamus will not lie to order admission or restoration to an office that is essentially of a private character, as in the present case restoration of a membership of a Stock Exchange that is essentially of a private character, nor, in general, will it lie to secure the due performance of the obligations owed by a company towards its members, unless it be that is a case to secure performance of statutory duty, which is not the position in the present case. Hence, this ground is sufficient to dismiss the Petition and therefore I do not propose to consider the other contentions raised in this Petition. Petition is therefore dismissed. Rule discharged.
-
1995 (3) TMI 380
Court – Jurisdiction of, Company when deemed unable to pay its debts ... ... ... ... ..... fice means the place which has longest been the registered office of the company during the six months immediately preceding the presentation of the petition for winding-up. The court having jurisdiction under the Act is the High Court having jurisdiction in relation to the place at which the registered office of the company concerned is situate, except to the extent to which jurisdiction has been conferred on any District Courts subordinate to the High Court in pursuance of sub-section (2). Except to the extent to which any jurisdiction is expressly conferred on the District Court either by the Act or by the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette, all residuary jurisdiction under the Act is vested only in the High Courts. In the petition itself, it has been accepted that registered office of the company is at Hyderabad. In that view of the matter, this court has no jurisdiction to deal with this application. The application is accordingly not entertained.
-
1995 (3) TMI 351
Amalgamation of companies ... ... ... ... ..... mpanies and also the Official Liquidator. It is not in dispute that the audited balance sheets for the period ending 31-3-1994 of both the companies are on record and that these have been scrutinised both by the Official Liquidator as also by the Central Government. The audited balance sheets for the period ending 31-3-1995 could not be produced before the Central Government in 1994 when the scheme was proposed or even thereafter because the same could be prepared only after the accounting period was over. There does not appear to be any merit in the objection raised on behalf of the Regional Director which has not even been seriously pressed. 5. For the reasons mentioned in the petition that necessitated the scheme of amalgamation and the same having been approved by the shareholders and creditors of both the companies it is hereby sanctioned as approved by them. The petition is accordingly allowed making it clear that the scheme shall operate with effect from April 1, 1995.
-
1995 (3) TMI 350
Deficiency in service ... ... ... ... ..... lling the units and the compensation of Rs. 2,000 is excessive. Having regard to the account that the complainant paid only Rs. 4,000 towards purchase of the units, it is not necessary for us to go into the question whether actually the shares were listed out or not. Having regard to the circum-stances the appellant despatched shares as early as 8-4-1992 and taking into account that there was delay on the part of the opposite parties in sending reply to the complainant informing about the share certificates, also the delay in issuing duplicate certificates, we are satisfied that in the circumstances of the case, the payment of compensation of Rs. 1,000 would meet the ends of justice. We, therefore, reduce the compensation amount from Rs. 2,000 to Rs. 1,000 and confirm the order of the District Forum in other respects. The compensation of Rs. 1,000 shall be paid by the appellant to the respondent within a period of one month from today. The appeal is allowed in part. No costs.
-
1995 (3) TMI 349
Whether to grant or refuse the interim relief prayed for?
Held that:- Appeal allowed. Considerable justification in the plea put forward by the learned advocate who appears for the respondent insofar as it is true that they are left with virtually no time to approach the appeal court but more importantly because the appel- lants in the event of the appeal court taking a view contrary to the one which this court has taken, respondent No. 1 company should in that event not be subjected to the lengthy and expensive exercise of reconvening the meeting. It shall, therefore, be permissible for them to adjourn the meeting for such period of time as they consider reasonable to approach the appeal court if the appeal court grants permission to either to hold the same meeting or to continue with it, the respondents shall be entitled to do so. On the contrary, if the appeal court were to confirm the view of this court, the question of reconvening the meeting will not arise. The second application made by Mr. Holla is accordingly granted and respondent No. 1 is permitted to adjourn the meeting convened for 2-3-1995.
-
1995 (3) TMI 348
Deficiency in service ... ... ... ... ..... are pending and the appellant was appointed as a nominee. It is contended that in view of section 446(1) of the Companies Act, the complaint is not maintainable. 9. But as we are satisfied that the appellant has no reasonable opportunity to appear before the District Forum and contest the matter, we set aside the order of the District Forum and remit the case to it for being disposed of afresh after giving notice to the opposite party, i.e., appellant herein and giving reasonable opportunity to file his counter or written statement and contest the case. 10. It is open to the appellant to take all steps including those raised with regard to maintainability of the complaint in this petition and the partial payment of the amount according to the scheme. 11. We, therefore, set aside the order of the District Forum, and remit the case to the District Forum for being disposed of afresh according to law after giving notice to the opposite party. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1995 (3) TMI 346
Unfair trade practice ... ... ... ... ..... intainable and accordingly, dismissed the complaint. 5. Aggrieved by the said order this appeal is preferred by the complainant. Apart from the circumstances that the opposite party-company was registered under MRTP Act, it was also held by the National Commission in Usha Rectifier Corpn. (P.) Ltd. v. Dr. K. Dattatreya Rao Revision Petition No. 208 of 1993 dated 8-10-1993 that no arrangement of hiring or availing of service for consideration as between the petitioner company and the respondent who is one of the shareholders of the company... that there is no element of hiring of service involved in the issue of convertible debentures to the shareholders of the company. We are also satisfied that when the District Forum passed the order in 1991, section 2(1)( r) is a bar to maintaining the complaint, as the opposite party was registered under the MRTP Act. We, therefore, do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the District Forum. The appeal is dismissed. No costs.
-
1995 (3) TMI 345
Deficiency in service ... ... ... ... ..... ares belonged to one Chandran, K.R. and subsequently on 24-8-1992 an application was filed for transfer of the shares in favour of Ravikanth Badruka. The complainant did not produce any evidence to show that the shares were allotted except the distinctive and folio numbers mentioned in the dividend warrant, which according to the opposite parties, was sent by mistake in the name of the complainant. In reality the dividend amount was due and payable under the folio number mentioned in the dividend warrant to one Chandran, K.R. of Madras. 6. Having regard to the aforesaid documents, we are satisfied that no allotment of the shares were made to the complainant and Rs. 2,000 was sent to her through the refund order and which was encashed by her and the distinctive numbers mentioned above with folio number were allotted to one Chandran, K.R. of Madras. We, therefore, allow the appeal and set aside the order of the District Forum. There shall be no order as to costs in this appeal.
........
|
