Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1998 1998 (7) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 3 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 81 to 100 of 508 Records

• 1998 (7) TMI 640 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
  

  Directors - Remuneration of

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... airman of the defendant-company, was not passed on prima facie view of the matter but on the merits. Further, the plaintiff himself preferred to rely upon the said orders instead of leading oral evidence on both the issues implying thereby that there is no fresh material to record the finding that his removal as Managing Director-cum-Chairman of the defendant-company was illegal as alleged. Since Major R.S. Murgai had ceased to work in the said capacity because of the appointment of administrator by the order dated 23-5-1975, he cannot be granted salary with effect from 1-6-1975, onwards together with interest as claimed in the suit. Both the issues are answered against the plaintiffs. 9. Issue No. 1. mdash In view of the findings on issue Nos. 1 and 3, no separate finding need be recorded on this issue. 10. Issue No. 4. mdash In view of the findings on the aforesaid issues, the suit is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.

  ---

• 1998 (7) TMI 631 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Medicines - Piperazine Hydrate Liquid

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... nt case, if any one wants to purchase Piperazine Hydrate Liquid, he cannot order it by the name of Agrivet Farmcare or by saying 4 animal heads. Thus, the words Agrivet Farmcare or 4 animal heads or the inscription of the owner of the trade mark does not indicates that they are product marks. They are only house marks as they serve as an emblem of the manufacturer projecting the image of the manufacturer generally. In this view of the matter, I agree with the Order of the Member (Judicial), holding that the product is correctly classifiable under Chapter sub-heading 3003.20 and the Appeal is therefore allowed. 27. emsp The file is now sent to the original Bench for issuing the final majority order. Sd/-(G.R. Sharma)Member (T)Dated 18-6-1998 28. emsp Having regard to the majority view holding that the product is correctly classifiable under Chapter sub-heading 3003.20, the Appeal is allowed. Sd/-(G.R. Sharma)Member (T)Dated 24-7-1998 Sd/-(A.C.C. Unni)Member (J)Dated 24-7-1998

  ---

• 1998 (7) TMI 630 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
  

  Stems emerging during manufacture of GLS lamps and bulbs - Dutiability

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... next date. In view of the facts admitted in the counter-affidavit and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, we are of the view that the charge of suppression in the present case is without any force. In the present case the item ldquo stem rdquo which is used by the petitioner in manufacturing electric bulbs not exceeding 60 watts is not subject to levy of excise duty in terms of the Notification No. 67/83-C.E., dated 1st March, 1983 read with Rule 49(4) of the Excise Rules. The impugned show cause notices issued by the respondents are, therefore, without jurisdiction. rsquo The High Court has held that show cause notices issued were without jurisdiction. Therefore the High Court Judgment supports the contention of the present appellants that the stems are not subject to levy of excise duty. Applying the ratio of the Delhi High Court Judgment to the facts of the present case which are similar, impugned order is set aside and the appeals are allowed.

  ---

• 1998 (7) TMI 621 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
  

  Debt Recovery Tribunal - Jurisdiction of

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... t from this angle, the claim made imputing liability comes within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal constituted under the Act. Thus we hold that the impugned order is just and proper and does not call for interference. Both questions are answered in the affirmative. 10. Since the appellant contended that the claim is neither a debt nor a liability, we have expressed our view as to what constitutes lsquo debt rsquo and what constitutes lsquo liability rsquo and also about the jurisdiction and how it comes within the purview of the Tribunal. But the Tribunal, uninfluenced by the view we have expressed, has to decide or adjudicate on the nature of the claim or liability or the entitlement or otherwise, with reference to the transaction and surrounding circumstances in respect of the claim or the dispute between the parties. 11. For reasons aforestated, the appeal is dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.

  ---

• 1998 (7) TMI 620 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
  

  Winding up - Suits stayed on winding-up order

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... so be deemed to be guilty of the offence, if it is proved that the offence has been committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to, any neglect on the part of anybody. In the light of the above, I do not see any illegality in the impugned order nor do I see any merit in the present six revisions, which are hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself in limine. Before I part with this order, I may also make a mention that the plea which has now been raised before me for setting aside the order dated December 3, 1997, of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Chandigarh, has not been incorporated in the application for discharge moved by the petitioner. If the benefit of legal plea is given to the petitioner to the effect that he can raise this plea before the High Court in revision, still he has not been able to make out a case for his discharge. Nothing stated above shall amount to an expression of my opinion on the merits of the criminal proceeding itself.

  ---

• 1998 (7) TMI 619 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
  

  Name of Company – Rectification of

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ested its shareholding in the second defendant-company in February, 1995, and a notice was given to the second defendant to cease and desist from using the name Baker in its corporate name. Therefore, the plaintiffs cannot be accused of acquiescence and laches. In view of the above survey of facts and law I consider it appropriate to pass an ad interim mandatory injunction against the second defendant. Therefore, it is ordered as follows The second defendant shall stop using the word Baker in its corporate name from the expiry of three months from today, The second defendant shall approach the Registrar of Companies with an application in accordance with law for deletion of the word Baker from its corporate name within two months from today. The Registrar of Companies will proceed to dispose of the application in accordance with law within one month from the date of making of the application. These directions will enure till the disposal of the suit. The I. A. is disposed of.

  ---

• 1998 (7) TMI 618 - HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESHIN
  

  Appointment of arbitrator

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... de even in the present petition that coercion or undue influence or pressure was there. It was only for the first time in the reply-affidavit filed in December, 1997 that such a plea has been raised. As pointed out in P.K. Ramaiah and Co. rsquo s case (supra), this is an after-thought and device to get over settlement of dispute. 7. In view of the decision in P.K. Ramaiah and Co. rsquo s Case (supra) and the explained ambit of L.K. Ahuja and Co. rsquo s case (supra), the decisions of the Andhra Pradesh High Court and the Bombay High Court are of no help because they are based on decision of Supreme Court in L.K. Ahuja and Co. rsquo s case (supra). 8. In the circumstances, I find that there is accord and satisfaction by the admitted lsquo No demand certificate rsquo signed and issued by the petitioner on 28-11-1994. As there is no arbitrable dispute existing, the petition is meritless and has to be dismissed. The petition is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs.

  ---

• 1998 (7) TMI 614 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
  

  Company when deemed unable to pay its debts

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... n the company, as such it cannot be held that the company was unable to pay its debts within the scope of section 433 of the Companies Act. Even in the notice, which was sent to the respondent-company but remained unserved, no proper details were given, no reference was made to any agreement. Copies of the bills which are alleged to have been executed without variation by the respondent-company were not filed along with the petition. Furthermore, no efforts were made during the pendency of the petition to require the respondent-company to produce the said documents in court. In view of the aforestated discussion I am unable to see any merit in the present case, which could permit this court to admit the petition for regular trial. The present petition certainly falls beyond the limit and scope of the well settled principles of law governing the subject-matter of the present case. Consequently, the winding up petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

  ---

• 1998 (7) TMI 604 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Valuation - Goods sold to related persons - Demand - Limitation - Lack of diligence

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... s the show cause notice proposed to adopt the Lloyds price to consumers. There is no case for the department that assessable value should be determined by including the extra amounts collected even in regard to 98 of the sales made to Lloyds over and above the retail price charged by Lloyds to consumers. Such an exercise would be futile since realisation of extra amounts related only a small percentage of sales. Having two courses open, the department chose one course. The question of inclusion of the extra amounts in the assessable value could arise only in respect of the sales made to hospitals and factories by the assessee, that is, less than 2 of sales. Therefore the question of duty being demanded on the Lloyds price to buyers as well as on the extra amounts collected by Lloyds cannot arise. The appeal by the department is without any merit. 14. emsp For the reasons indicated above, we set aside the impugned order, allow Appeal E/2186/89-A and dismiss Appeal E/2346/90-A.

  ---

• 1998 (7) TMI 603 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Clandestine Removal - SSI Exemption - Evidence - Value of clearances - Remand

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... er No. 7/98-A, dated 1-1-1998 1998 (99) E.L.T. 699 (T) of the Tribunal in E/727/91-A in support of the principle that the price of extra articles supplied must be regarded as being included in the price of the main articles supplied as per order. The entire aspect relating to supply of extra tins or boxes must be considered with reference to documentary evidence. Apparently penalty has been quantified bearing in mind the amount of duty demanded from the appellant. Since the quantification of demand depends also on the aspect which we are directing the adjudicating authority to reconsider, quantification of penalty may also be done afresh. 12. emsp For the reasons indicated above, we set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the jurisdictional Adjudicating Authority for passing a fresh order in accordance with law and the findings and direction in this order and after giving the appellant opportunity of personal hearing. 13. emsp The appeal is allowed in this manner.

  ---

• 1998 (7) TMI 585 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Refund - Limitation - Payment of duty under protest

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... would have to pay duty but under protest. I am of the view that the protest is very categorical and this would have to be held as protest under Rule 233B as it was by way of a statement recorded by the Superintendent in the context of approval of classification list. 2.1 emsp However, I find sufficient force in the plea of the learned JDR on the basis of available facts herein. His submission is that the classification lists were finally approved on 25-1-94 at nil rate of duty. Therefore, on that date, protest, if any, ceased to have been in effect. The appellants should have filed the refund claim within six months from that date. They cannot keep the matter pending without any time limit, but I notice that the refund claim has been filed on 21-5-96 i.e. about 2 years and 4 months after the approval of the classification list which is well beyond the period of six months. Consequently, the refund is clearly barred by time. Hence I dismiss the appeal of the appellant herein.

  ---

• 1998 (7) TMI 580 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
  

  Demand - SSI Exemption

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... mption in the proviso. This is reinforced by the fact that the proviso makes mandatory in the Chapter X procedure to be followed. That procedure is in effect to be narrated by the person procured goods for them. If such person, therefore chooses not fit at all for them under Chapter X procedure it could be point less for the manufacturer as parts claimed the benefit of the exemption in the proviso. It will be safe to say that such exemption would be rejected at the hands of the department solely on the reason that chapter to procedure to be followed. Therefore without the goods were cleared they were correctly cleared of the exemption did not in the proviso. The fact that the goods may subsequently used have been that the original does not affect the correctness of the clearances to the equipment. The clearance of the goods were, therefore rightly done without claiming the exemption benefits. The demand, therefore, is not sustainable. Appeal allowed. Impugned order set aside.

  ---

• 1998 (7) TMI 579 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
  

  SSI Exemption

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... the present articles before us, plastic material predominates which is coming at 60 . 3. emsp However, Shri A.M. Tilak, ld. JDR has brought to our notice the judgment of the Tribunal which is in Revenue rsquo s favour reported in 1996 (84) E.L.T. 463 in the case of Gandhi Associates v. CCE. There also question of benefit of Notification No. 138/86, dated 1-3-86 CE was involved but we observe that this judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Eagle Flask was not brought to the notice of Bench which delivered the latter judgment. We also observe that order of Bench in the case of Gandhi Associates has been passed without the presence of the appellant therein. We have gone through both the judgments namely of Gandhi Associates and Eagle Flask. We are inclined to agree with the views expressed in the Eagle Flask which is more detailed and moreover, it relies on Board rsquo s Circular No. 16/88, dated 10-8-88. 4. emsp In view of the foregoings, we dismiss the appeal of the Revenue.

  ---

• 1998 (7) TMI 567 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
  

  Winding up - Circumstances in which a company may be wound up

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... sion of Mr. Soparkar cannot be accepted. The respondents can always point out that the other remedy provided and available in the statute is adequate and efficacious. The powers under section 402 are wide enough and if at all any example is required. Kilpest (P.) Ltd. s case (supra) provides for the same wherein on an appropriate application being made and a case being made out, a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court exercised the power under that section and directed Mr. Mehra to be appointed as a director although he had been ousted earlier and that order was left undisturbed by the Honourable Supreme Court. 36. In the circumstances, the petition is dismissed. Company Application No. 7 of 1997 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed. Inasmuch as the petition is dismissed, which was the submission of the applicants in Company Application No. 58 of 1997, no separate order is passed thereon. The parties will bear their costs. SCL q MARCH 5, 1995

  ---

• 1998 (7) TMI 566 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
  

  Winding up - Advertisement of petition

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... is independent of exercise of power to direct required advertisement in manner otherwise than provided under sub- rule (1). 26. No other contention has been raised. The application therefore fails, and is hereby rejected. There shall be no orders as to costs. The learned counsel for the applicant states that the operation of the order of main petition had been stayed during the pendency of these proceed- ings and as the petitioner could not have filed review petition after filing the appeal, petitioner has thus not preferred an appeal against the order of appeal which has remained stayed uptill now, the interim order operating in this application should be allowed to continue until 5-8-1998 to enable him to pursue his remedy of appeal. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 objects. However, in the facts and circumstances, the prayer is granted. The operation of the interim order passed in this petition shall continue to be operative until 5-8-1998. SCL q APRIL 5, 1999

  ---

• 1998 (7) TMI 565 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA
  

  Circumstances in which a company may be wound up

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... rima facie case for winding up of the petitioner-company. It is also clear that this court after considering the materials available on record at the time of admission of the petition and finding that the respondents herein have made out a prima facie case, ordered publication of the winding up petition along with order of admission of the petition. It is submitted at the Bar that after advertisement of the petition affidavits are filed by 21 creditors 17 of them opposing the winding up and the remaining four supporting the winding up of the petitioner-company. Under the circumstances, I find absolutely no ground to revoke the order of advertisement and the order of admission of the petition and to dismiss the company petition in limine as contended by the petitioner. The petitioner is entitled to urge its contentions in the company petition against the winding up order sought for by the respondents in this company application. Therefore, the company application is dismissed.

  ---

• 1998 (7) TMI 564 - TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
  

  Deficiency in service

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... it had been delivered to the 3rd opposite party and it also appears to be fact that the 3rd opposite party had realised the amount from the 4th opposite party. So far as the complainant is concerned it is the liability of the 1st opposite party to pay the matured amount. If due to some fraud commit- ted by the 2nd opposite party or 3rd opposite party or even the 4th opposite party the 1st opposite party can proceed against those people but it cannot simply say that since they had sent the cheques by registered post they are not liable. Saying so amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the 1st opposite party. Rightly, therefore, the District Forum has held that the 1st opposite party is liable to pay the matured amount claimed by the complainant. The District Forum has rightly awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000 for mental agony. 5. Thus we find no merit in the appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed with a cost of Rs. 500 Appeal dismissed with costs. SCL q DECEMBER 6, 1999

  ---

• 1998 (7) TMI 561 - HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
  

  Winding up - Company when deemed unable to pay its debts

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ts and pleadings could be placed before the court bypassing the prescribed procedure in this regard. It does not appear to us a case of non-consideration of the appellant s j application for stay of proceedings. Because no such application was listed before the court on June 26, 1998, which deserved consideration by the 1 court. The court was not obliged to examine or consider the application which did not form a part of its record. Such like application was liable to receive consideration only if it was placed before the court as per prescribed procedure. Needless to emphasise that it was first required to be registered and if found complete in all respects to be listed in the cause J list. It could not be brought on the court record otherwise and as such the j court was not bound to consider it at all. Resultantly we find no merit in this appeal which is dismissed on preliminary hearing. The appellant can take steps to have his application listed and seek its consideration.

  ---

• 1998 (7) TMI 560 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
  

  Winding up - Circumstances in which a company may be wound up

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... it for recovery of its claim against the respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of getting intimation about the deposit. The petitioner be permitted to withdraw an amount of Rs. 4 lakhs out of the amount of Rs. 5 lakhs deposited by the respondent in this Court as there is no dispute between the parties that the petitioner is entitled for the same. The disposal of the balance amount of Rs. 1 lakh shall be governed by the order that may be passed by the civil court in civil suit to be filed by the petitioner. In case, the amount is so deposited, this petition shall stand disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to apply for withdrawal of the same. In case the amount is not so deposited, this petition shall stand admitted. In case the petitioner fails to file a civil suit within the aforesaid period, then after permitting the petitioner to withdraw the amount of Rs. 4 lakhs the balance amount of Rs. 1 lakh may be refunded to the respondent. SCL q MARCH 20, 1999

  ---

• 1998 (7) TMI 559 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
  

  Powers of Central Government to authorise with permission of High Court to takeover management or control of industrial undertaking

  ---

123456789........ 26