|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 568 Records
-
1999 (8) TMI 808 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the persons appointed by the Official Liquidator/Court Liquidator under the orders of respective High Court under Rules 308/309 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 are entitled to equal pay and regularisation as the employees appointed by the Central Government in the office of the official liquidator?
Held that:- In view of the peculiar facts of these cases and the positive findings of the High Courts with which we concur, we are unable to agree with the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants that the Company Paid Staff cannot be absorbed/regularised as they were not employed by the Government in accordance with the rules; that they knew their appointments were only temporary and that their pay was not from the consolidated fund.
-
1999 (8) TMI 807 - HIGH COURT OF PATNA
Share certificates - Limitation for issue of ... ... ... ... ..... is manifest that irrespective of any matter relating to company other than any offence against this Act, the court constituted and vested with the power under section 10E shall have the jurisdiction to decide and adjudicate the matter relating to company. However, with respect to any offence against the Act, the court of a Magistrate of the 1st class or, as the case may be, a Presidency Magistrate having jurisdiction shall decide the cases. The submission of B.V. Kumar that the criminal court has no jurisdiction to entertain any complaint for the offence committed against the Act, cannot be accepted. 10. As noticed above, section 10E refers to matters relating to company other than any offence against the Act. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the criminal courts have jurisdiction to entertain complaint for the offence against the Companies Act. 11. For the reasons aforesaid, the impugned order needs no interference by this court. This application is, therefore, dismissed.
-
1999 (8) TMI 806 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
Winding up - Statement of affairs to be made to Official Liquidator ... ... ... ... ..... as a director. In the absence of any other material on the record, it is clearly shown that Shri Suraj Bhan was not the director when the company was wound up. 8. Shri D.R. Gupta, respondent No. 5, in his reply has pointed out that he was removed as special director of the company on 26-4-1993. Therefore, on the date when the company was wound up, he was not the director thereto. A copy of the order passed by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction has been appended which shows that Shri D.R. Gupta was the director of the company on the date when the company was wound up (sic). As against them, therefore, the proceedings cannot continue and are directed to be dropped. 9. As regards others, namely, respondent Nos. 6, 7 and 8, there are no specific documents on the record to come to a conclusion that they ceased to be the directors of the company on the date when the company was wound up. They may, if so advised, submit proper documents supported by an affidavit.
-
1999 (8) TMI 804 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
Unregistered companies ... ... ... ... ..... ociates 1986 59 Comp. Cas. 359. But perusal of the cited judgment clearly reveals that the said court had expressed the view that it was an unregistered partnership concern of more than seven persons. In the present case, it is not so. Therefore, the cited decision will not come to the rescue of the petitioner. 8. In that event, reliance had been placed on the decision of Bangalore Timber Industries v. Madras Sapper Ex-servicemen rsquo s Rehabilitation Association 1988 63 Comp. Cas. 733 (Kar.). In the cited case, the respondent association was a society consisting of more than 20 persons. It was concluded that it would be an unregistered company within the meaning of section 582 of the Companies Act. In the present case, the petitioner failed to show that the respondent has seven or more partners. Therefore, it is not an unregistered company and the petition for winding up by itself is not maintainable. 9. For these reasons, the petition must fail and is dismissed in limine.
-
1999 (8) TMI 803 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Restrictions on dealings in foreign exchange ... ... ... ... ..... fine shall not exceed one-fourth of the term of imprisonment which is the maximum fixed for the offence, if the offence be punishable with imprisonment as well as fine. It is necessary to state that the U.S. dollars 1,90,000 correspond to Indian currency of Rs. 69 lakhs. Only because of this, the fine of Rs. 7 lakhs has been imposed by the Courts below. Considering the grave crime, it cannot be said that the conviction and sentence imposed by the Courts below is excessive but however, for non-payment of fine, the default sentence can be reduced to one of six months. It is admitted that from 20-8-1997 for the last two years, the petitioner is in custody, thereby showing that he has undergone imprisonment of R. I. for 24 months. 8. For the reasons mentioned above, the revision is allowed only in part with reference to the default sentence for non-payment of fine and the same is reduced to R.I. for six months instead of one year and in other respects, the revision is dismissed.
-
1999 (8) TMI 801 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Declaration/Notice of motion - Power of Courts ... ... ... ... ..... personal service is subsisting. Section 41 specifically provides that an injunction cannot be granted to prevent breach of a contract, the perfor-mance of which would not be specifically enforced. The effect of a declaration under section 34 is that, it states what the rights of the parties are, without containing any coercive order. The declaration is not a direction for specific enforcement of the contract. The Court merely declares that the contract having been illegally terminated continues to subsist. The specific performance of the contract by way of a permanent injunction can only be granted, if the provisions of section 14 read with section 41 are not applicable. Otherwise, the remedy of the plaintiff lies in a claim for damages. In view of the above, I find no merit in the notice of motion. The same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. ------------------------- C.U. Singh for the Plaintiff. Vlrag Tulzapurkar, Ms. Chandarana and N.D. Buch for the Defendant.
-
1999 (8) TMI 798 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Winding up - Circumstances in which a company may be wound up ... ... ... ... ..... dent-company requires to be wound up under the orders of this Court. 7. I, therefore, upon a careful consideration of all the relevant aspects of the matter, order and direct that the respondent-company be wound up under the provisions of the Act. The Official Liquidator attached to this Court is appointed as the Official Liquidator of the respondent-company, now in liquidation. The learned Official Liquidator shall have to act according to the statutory obligations under the Act. The registry is directed to send the intimation qua these orders to the Official Liquidator and the Registrar of Companies, Gujarat, at Ahmedabad, forthwith. 8. The learned counsel Mr. Soparkar for the respondent-company has urged that, in case of the orders being pronounced against the respondent-company, the same should be stayed up to 31-8-1999, so as to enable the respondent-company to take the matters in appeals. Acting upon the said request coming from the learned counsel, I order accordingly.
-
1999 (8) TMI 796 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Consumer - Meaning of ... ... ... ... ..... n 27-4-1993. There is no purchase of goods for a consideration nor again could he be called the hirer of the services of the company for a consideration. In order to satisfy the requirement of above definition of consumer, it is clear that there must be a transaction of buying goods for consideration under section 2(1)(d)( i) of the said Act. The definition contemplates the pre-existence of a completed transaction of a sale and purchase. If regard is had to the definition of complaint under the Act, it will be clear that no prospective investor could fall under the Act. 4. The conclusion of the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court makes it clear that the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has no jurisdiction with reference to the claim made by the second respondent in all these writ petitions. Consequently, following the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the above referred case, all the writ petitions are allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected WMPs are closed. Petition allowed.
-
1999 (8) TMI 795 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Winding up -Suits stayed on winding up order ... ... ... ... ..... ubmitted by the Official Liquidator indicates that the ex-directors of respondent No. 1 - company which is under liquidation are not caring to file the statement of affairs of the company. The claim of the petitioner is pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. When such a claim is pending and proceedings by the Liquidator are likely to take a long time, there is no ground to disallow the application. 5. Accordingly, the petitioner is granted leave to continue with the proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal for recovery of the amount. But this is subject to the following conditions (i)The Official Liquidator shall have a right, if deemed proper to contest the proceedings. The petitioner will deposit Rs. 20,000 as expenses for the Official Liquidator, (ii)This is without prejudice to the rights of the respondent to take other legal steps in accordance with law. (iii)No execution shall take place before the Debts Recovery Tribunal without the permission of this Court.
-
1999 (8) TMI 793 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Amalgamation of Companies ... ... ... ... ..... p. Cas. 285 . I have carefully considered this judgment. This judgment also strengthens his submissions. 11. Keeping in view the objects for which the amalgamation is sought, I do not find that any public interest is likely to be affected if the two companies are amalgamated for the purpose of more efficient business, particularly when the companies are part of one group. 12. Accordingly, the scheme of amalgamation is approved. It shall be binding on all concerned. It shall be given effect from the date mentioned in the scheme. A certified copy of this order along with the scheme of amalgamation will be filed with the registrar of companies within two weeks from the date of this order. 13. The transferor-company, namely, Tecumseh Products India Ltd. shall stand dissolved without any process of winding up. The statement of assets be filed within ten days. The formal order shall be drawn by the Registry in accordance with law. 14. Both the petitions are accordingly disposed of.
-
1999 (8) TMI 792 - HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Winding up - Circumstances in which a company may be wound up ... ... ... ... ..... has become commercially insolvent. 14. In result, the application is allowed. It is ordered that the respondent-company be wound up under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act. 15. The official liquidator shall forthwith take charge of all the property and effects of the company. The official liquidator shall cause a sealed copy of this judgment to be served on the companies by pre-paid registered post. The petitioner-company shall advertise the notice in lsquo Deccan Chronicle rsquo and lsquo Andhra Jyothi rsquo newspapers within fourteen days and shall also serve a certified copy of the order on the Registrar of Companies not later than one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the costs of the said petition be taxed and paid out of the assets of the company. The petitioner-company shall also deposit Rs. 10,000 (rupees ten thousand only) within a period of three weeks with the official liquidator to meet the initial expenditure. Costs as incurred.
-
1999 (8) TMI 761 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the two Acts under reference operate in the same field. If so, which one of the two Acts is a special Act?
Is the Sugarcane Act an enactment intended solely for the purpose of regulation of supply, production and distribution of sugarcane and the collection of purchase tax under the said Act is only incidental for the purpose of creating a fund for maintenance and functioning of the Board and the Council under the said Act?
Whether the levy under the Sugarcane Act is only a fee for the services rendered?
Held that:- Appeal allowed. The Sugarcane Act being a special Act pertaining to all aspects of the control of sugarcane as well as levy of purchase tax, the same will have to be construed as a special enactment with reference to sugarcane. Legislative history of the Sugarcane Act bears testimony to the fact that at one point of time the Legislature had intended to collect a levy under sub-section (3) of section 49 as a fee which imposition came to be challenged before the High Court and the challenge succeeded because the State was not able to satisfy the court that the said levy was supported by quid pro quo. It is in this background that the present sub-section (1)(b) of section 49 came to be brought on the statute book, first by way of an Ordinance and then by virtue of an Act, making the collection a tax under entry 54 of List II of the Seventh Schedule. It is too late in the day for the State now to contend once again that the said levy is a fee and not a tax. It may also be noted at this stage that nowhere in the pleadings, material has been placed by the State to satisfy the requirement of levy of fee by showing that there is a reasonable service rendered to the purchasers of sugarcane so as to justify the said levy as a fee.
-
1999 (8) TMI 756 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Show cause notice - Jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... ime. If this date is taken into account, submits the learned Advocate, then the demand of duty for the period 1-3-1986 to 23-2-1987 would be wholly barred by time because in the facts and circumstances of the case, the allegation of suppression cannot be sustained inasmuch as the appellant was having a properly approved classification as early as 30-6-1986 and there was an exchange of correspondence between the department and the various authorities of the Revenue regarding the classification list of the goods. Learned Advocate has taken us through the entire correspondence. We, therefore, agree with him that the allegation of suppression cannot be sustained in the present case and that the appellants having been put to notice for the first time regarding change of classification to Chapter 46 on 14-3-1989, the demand of duty would be wholly barred by time. 4. emsp In short, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
1999 (8) TMI 755 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... otification 175/86-C.E., by virtue of the exemption having been granted to coir cushion and mattresses under Notification No. 115/75-C.E. We also observe on the basis of the adjudicating authority rsquo s reference to the Order-in-Original No. 13/Collr/95, dated 14-2-96 in the case of Coir Cushion that the latex mix in that order and rubber compound herein are identical products. The said order in original relating to Coir Cushion stands decided by the Tribunal vide its judgment in the case of Coir Cushion, mentioned supra. Consequently the identicality of the two products i.e. latex mix manufactured by Coir Cushion and rubber compound by the appellant herein stands established. There will, therefore, be no justification for remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority, as submitted by the learned JDR. Hence following the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Coir Cushion, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellant.
-
1999 (8) TMI 743 - SUPREME COURT
Special leave petition under article 136 of the Constitution of India challenging an order of the learned Chief Justice of the High Court of Bombay in Arbitration Petition
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. In view of this settled legal position, therefore, there is no escape from the conclusion that orders passed by the learned Chief Justice under section 11(6) of the Act being of an administrative nature cannot be subjected to any challenge directly under article 136. Only on this short ground and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the controversy between the parties this special leave petition is disposed of as not maintainable.
-
1999 (8) TMI 742 - SUPREME COURT
Whether on refusal of the injunction the plaintiff would suffer irreparable loss and injury keeping in view the strength of the parties case?
Held that:- Appeal allowed. As a matter of fact there is no evidence of single consumer being misled and not a whisper as to what constitute an unfair trade practice pertaining to ‘Suraksha Chakra’. The Commission also thought it fit not to record any reason or justification for the grant of an interim order of injunction in spite of finding as above and before the matter is investigated and complaint is finally heard. This apart, the factum of non-availability of any explanation of more than 13 years delay has also not been delayed into by the Commission at all.In that view of the matter question of there being any order of injunction at this stage of the proceeding on the face of the finding as passed by the Commission itself does not and cannot arise.
-
1999 (8) TMI 741 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Winding up - Circumstances in which a company may be wound up ... ... ... ... ..... iew of the fact that the petitioners are Chartered Accountants. It is also quite doubtful whether the professional Chartered Accountants can function as brokers and charge brokerage. In my opinion, the professional Chartered Accountants are only entitled to their professional fees for the services rendered. In the instant case, the bill sent by the petitioner-company is of brokerage and not for the professional fees for the services rendered. 9. At this stage, I do not think it is appropriate to examine the veracity of the stand of the respondent that the documents filed by the petitioner had been created and/or fabricated for the purpose of this petition. The liability of the company is far from being admitted. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief in these proceedings. 10. This petition being devoid of any merit is liable to be dismissed. However, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, I direct the parties to bear their own costs. SCL q DECEMBER 13, 1999
-
1999 (8) TMI 739 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Winding up - Circumstances in which a company may be wound up ... ... ... ... ..... ong time ago and the letter of credit had expired and on that account the buyer himself sustained heavy losses. 23. According to the agreed terms, the petitioner before shipment had to get the goods inspected by Mr. Aamir Hatim Nakhoda and no one else but even then the petitioner the goods inspected from Mr. Naresh Baluni which was contrary to the terms of the letter of credit. The petitioner s letter to the respondent dated 2-8-1997 clearly reveals that the petitioner was aware of this condition of the agreement, even then the petitioner acted contrary to the terms of agreement, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in these proceedings. 24. The debt of the petitioner is bona fide disputed by the respondent. In these circumstances, the winding up is not the appropriate remedy. This petition being devoid of any merit is accordingly dismissed and in the facts and circumstances of this case, parties are directed to bear their own costs. SCL q NOVEMBER 20, 1999
-
1999 (8) TMI 735 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Amalgamation of companies ... ... ... ... ..... he equity shareholders, secured and unsecured creditors of both the companies and shall take effect from the effective date as defined in the scheme. A certified copy of this order alongwith the scheme of amalgamation will be filed with the Registrar of Companies within 30 days from the date of this order (as amended). 14. The transferor companies shall stand dissolved from the effective date, without the process of winding up. The statement of assets be filed within ten days. 15. The petitioner is also permitted to file only a consolidated balance sheet of the merged companies, i.e., the consolidated balance sheets of Hindustan Coca-Cola Bottling South West P. Ltd. (transferee company) for the accounting years from the appointed date onwards be filed within thirty days of filing of the certified copy of the sanctioned order as amended with the ROC, Delhi. 16. A formal order shall be drawn up by the registry in accordance with law. 17. The petition is accordingly disposed of.
-
1999 (8) TMI 733 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Winding up – Overriding preferential payments ... ... ... ... ..... right can be exercised with the consent of the pari passu chargeholder or on orders of the court after making him a party to the proceedings to enforce the security. Since the chargeholder is the official liquidator, his power to consent is subject to the sanction of the court. One finds in respectful agreement with the view point of the Bombay High Court because it is consistent with the plain language of section 529A of the Companies Act. Therefore, the relevant contentions of the corporation must fail. For these reasons, the petition filed by the official liquidator is allowed. The respondent-Corporation will pay the amount claimed by the official liquidator to meet the costs of advertisement. It will not appropriate the sale proceeds to the satisfaction of their claim and it is further held that the dues of the workmen shall rank under clause (c) of proviso to sub-section (1) of section 529 of the Act pari passu with other dues, namely, that of the respondent-Corporation.
............
|
