|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 482 Records
-
2000 (12) TMI 871
Compromise and arrangement - Held that:- The appropriate time for the company judge to consider the scheme is subsequent to approval thereof by the shareholders and creditors of the appellant-company. Therefore, the order of the learned company judge and the order under appeal must be set aside and liberty given to the appellant-company to move the High Court for directions for calling meetings of its shareholders and creditors for the purposes of considering and approving the scheme. Once that has been done, a further application will be required to be made before the learned company judge.
-
2000 (12) TMI 870
Demand - Drawback - Clearances of samples - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... spect of the matter requires to be re-adjudicated, after granting an opportunity of hearing to the appellants. 15. emsp The Commissioner has also imposed penalty on all the three appellants and also confiscated the goods. In this regard, we are of the considered opinion that so far as main case of levy of Excise duty is not imposable, as we have held that no duty to be charged on goods manufactured for export, - therefore, the penalty on all the three appellants is not sustainable and hence we set aside the same. 16. emsp However, as regards the admitted clearance of samples without payment of duty, some penalty is required to be imposed, hence the same shall be re-adjudicated. 17. emsp As regards the confiscation of inputs and levy of fine, we are of the considered opinion that the same is not confiscate, as the appellants have succeeded on merits and hence the order of confiscation and imposition of fine is set aside. 18. emsp The appeals are disposed of in the above terms.
-
2000 (12) TMI 869
Debt Recovery Tribunal ... ... ... ... ..... ch are pending before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, in Appeal No. 191/2000 shall also be in force till the disposal of the decision in regard to the jurisdiction issue. The Debt Recovery Tribunal is directed to proceed now only with regard to the jurisdiction issue and proceed further to decide the case on merits subject to the final out-come of the order that may be passed. In view of the above direction, there is no need or necessity to refer to the decisions cited by Shri Paras Kuhad contending that every order will not include the interim order etc. Though, some judgments were also cited by the learned counsel for the parties in regard to the maintainability of the writ petition and availability of the alternative remedy, we are not expressing any opinion in regard to the view taken in those judgments for the present case in view of our direction issued to the Tribunal to decide the question of jurisdiction. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
-
2000 (12) TMI 868
Winding up – Application for, Affidavit verifying petitions ... ... ... ... ..... rding costs of Rs. 5,000. Though a direction was issued that the company petition shall be placed for admission, the appellant-company has ventured to file the appeal by raising a tall claim on the infirmities pointed out by the appellant-company rendering the entire proceedings a glaring example of total nonconformity with the prescribed procedural safeguards which the Legislature had deemed to be imperative, have miserably failed to prove the infirmities. In our view, this is eminently a fit case for awarding exemplary costs. We therefore, dismiss the appeal by awarding costs of Rs. 5,000, which shall be paid within two weeks to the respondent-company. However, the awarding of costs will not detract us from expressing our appreciation of the invaluable help and assistance we received from Shri Paras Kuhad and Shri Ajeet Kumar Sharma, counsel appearing for the respective parties in approaching their respective contentions and rendering our task at once easy and exhilarating.
-
2000 (12) TMI 867
Winding up - Circumstances in which a company may be wound up ... ... ... ... ..... artially (retained). So far as the claim of the appellant under ACO No. 95 of 2000 in respect of the admission of the claim under the Company Petition No. 384 of 1993 is concerned, we cannot see any infirmity in the order dated 27-6-2000 passed by the learned single Judge. Therefore, the appeal of the appellant/petitioning-creditor under ACO No. 95 of 2000 stands dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. 15. In the premises we make it clear that the disputes between the parties should be relegated to a suit pursuant to the order of the trial Court Judge dated 27-6-2000 but without any condition whatsoever as imposed under the order. This resolved the issue. 16. Since the order of injunction as granted by the learned trial Judge from filing suit for a period of four weeks from date of the order on 27-6-2000 has already expired, the same is extended for a period of six weeks from the date of communication of this order. Chatterjee, J. - I agree. Order accordingly.
-
2000 (12) TMI 866
Amalgamation ... ... ... ... ..... as applied in S.M. Holding Finance P. Ltd. v. Mysore Machinery Manufacturers Ltd. 1993 78 Comp. Cas. 432 has held that ordinarily the convening of a meeting is a must and the discretion to dispense with such meeting should be exercised only in exceptional circumstances. The decisions relied upon by learned counsel for the applicant were rendered with reference to the facts of those cases and I have also found that there is no uniform rule in this matter as this court in a number of cases has called for meetings of shareholders where there are less number of shareholders and it cannot be stated as a general and invariable rule that where the numbers of shareholders are less and where all of them have given their consent, this court must exercise its discretion directing not to convene the meeting of the shareholders. Accordingly, this application filed to dispense with the holding of the meeting of the shareholders as well as the creditors of the applicant-company is rejected.
-
2000 (12) TMI 865
Compromise and arrangement ... ... ... ... ..... p matters under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, but as recorded in the order dated December 2, 1999, the question is what order should be passed regarding costs. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it appears to the court that the interests of justice would be served if Mr. K. W. Desai is directed to pay the applicants in each of these four applications a sum of Rs. 10,000 (rupees ten thousand only) and the official liquidator shall also pay a sum of Rs. 5,000 (rupees five thousand only) to the applicants in each of these applications. The amounts shall be paid within one month from today failing which they shall be liable to be proceeded against in1 accordance with law. As far as the costs to be paid by the official liquidate are concerned, the same shall first be paid by the official liquidator to the applicants and then shall be reimbursed by the concerned officer/employee who may be found to be remiss in the discharge of his duties at the relevant time.
-
2000 (12) TMI 864
Winding up - Circumstances in which a company may be wound up ... ... ... ... ..... ds revival. One of the units as per affidavit dated 6-4-1999, is already earning profits. The details in respect of the financial status of various units of the respondent-company in the aforesaid affidavit have not been controverted. In the aforesaid view of the matter, the winding up of the company at the present moment would certainly be a loss to one and all. Its winding up today may indeed pay off its liability towards the debenture holders. The said liability is trivial when compared to the beneficiaries of the company as per the details delineated above. On a cumulative assessment of facts narrated above, it is not possible for me to exercise my discretion in favour of the petitioners for admitting the instant petition for winding up specially in view of the legal position governing the subject-matter in dispute referred to above. 26. For the reasons indicated above, prayer at the behest of the petitioners to admit the instant petition is declined. Dismissed. No costs.
-
2000 (12) TMI 851
Amalgamation ... ... ... ... ..... concern to the Central Government since ultimately the result of the meeting will have to be placed before the Court for final orders to be passed thereon and obviously the Court before passing any final order on the proposals, if any, is required to consider suggestions, if any, of the Central Government. With due respect, we do not agree with the view expressed in Hind Auto Industries Ltd. rsquo s case (supra) and Jindal India Ltd. rsquo s case (supra) and would approve the view expressed in Bangeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. rsquo s case (supra) and W.A. Beardsell and Co. (P.) Ltd. rsquo s case (supra). 18. Consequently, we are of the view that notice, which is required to be served on the Central Government would be of an application under sub-section (2) of section 391 or of section 394 and not at initial stage of an application under sub-section (1) of section 391 for calling of meetings of the creditors and members of the company. 19. The reference is answered accordingly.
-
2000 (12) TMI 850
Winding up of sick industrial company ... ... ... ... ..... reached where servicing of the debts has become impossible. Assuming the plant and machinery would be restored to the sick company, that alone will not be enough to rehabilitate it. The condition of the old plant and machinery can be imagined. Today it would be almost junk. Nothing is available or forthcoming which may infuse life into this dying unit. 10. After considering the facts of the case and the decisions of the specialised authorities under SICA, i.e., BIFR and the AAIFR, we find no reason to interfere with their decisions. The facts noted above clearly show that the company has become totally unviable. All the creditors of the company are after it and servicing of the debts itself has become impossible for the sick company at this stage what to talk of going into production. There is nothing on record which calls for interference with the decisions of the SICA authorities in this petition under article 226 of the Constitution. The petition is accordingly dismissed.
-
2000 (12) TMI 849
Amalgamation ... ... ... ... ..... respectfully submit that the investment referred to in Schedule 1.06 of the balance sheet dated 31-3-2000 of the transferee-company under the head lsquo Investments rsquo indicates Rs. 22,79,77,000 in 2,27,97,700 equity shares of the value of Rs. 10 each invested by the transferee-company in the transferor-company in equity shares. I submit that the said investment is not in debentures as is sought to be contended by him, but is in equity shares of the transferor-company and the transferee-company has no objection to the same being cancelled. 16. The Official Liquidator filed a report dated 16-10-2000 stating that the affairs of the companies were conducted in such a manner that they were not in any way prejudicial to public interest. In the background of the above-mentioned facts and in view of the fact that no objections have been received by the Court pursuant to the publication after the admission of the company petitions, the company petitions are allowed as prayed for.
-
2000 (12) TMI 848
Winding up - Circumstances in which a company may be wound up ... ... ... ... ..... a suit though no relief is claimed against him, provided his presence is necessary for the complete and final decision on the question involved in the suit and such person can be called a proper party. Applying the principle, the presence of the applicant is not necessary for the complete and final decision to be arrived at on the questions involved in the company petition. In so far as the question of diversion of the funds by the company is concerned, the presence of the applicant is still not necessary as the information he wishes to furnish can be furnished without being impleaded as a party in the company petition. It must be remembered that this Court is monitoring the entire winding up proceedings and in this situation. I hold that the applicant is neither a necessary nor a proper party in the company petition. Consequently, the application to implead the applicant as a party in the company petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, it is dismissed. No costs.
-
2000 (12) TMI 843
Winding up - Circumstances in which a company may be wound up ... ... ... ... ..... e manner contemplated under rule 28 of the Rules is mandatory. It is not the case where there is no registered office of the applicant-company. As already seen, the registered office of the applicant-company is situate at Sriperumbudur and the applicant-company was ordered to be wound up without giving notice to its registered office of the applicant-company. Hence the order of winding up passed on the basis of the substituted service on the company at the incorrect address given is liable to be set aside. Though the respondent-company might have incurred certain expenditure by way of advertisement and deposit of money with the official liquidator, since the winding up order was passed on the basis of service at the incorrect address given by the respondent-company, it cannot be compensated. 16. The result is that the earlier order winding up the applicant-company dated 29-9-2000, is set aside and the application is allowed. The company petition is restored to file. No costs.
-
2000 (12) TMI 840
What are the legal consequences flowing from the consent order of the Special Court dated 5-7-1995 and the affidavit filed by Mr. Milan Dalal on 28-7-1995 as the Chairman of the appellant-company?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. On a careful consideration of the events which occurred before the Special Court which made the said Court to believe the existence of certain facts on the representations made before it, the orders passed and the affidavits found and noticed to have been filed from time to time before the Special Court, the Special Court could not be either faulted for its conclu-sions or that the specific findings arrived at that the consent order dated 5-7-1995 taken together with the affidavit of undertaking dated 28-7-1995 covered within its fold the property of the appellant-company in question for being proceeded against in execution of the decree passed for recovering the amount due as declared in the consent order dated 5-7-1995, could not be said to be vitiated in any manner warranting our interference. Consequently, it would be permissible for the custodian to proceed against the property comprised in Units 3 and 4 belonging to the appellant-company also by means of an appropriate execution application as and when he choose to do so.
So far as the challenge based on the want of registration under section 17(1)(b) is concerned the same is neither genuine nor has any merit whatsoever or capable of being countenanced at our hands.
-
2000 (12) TMI 839
As regards 13 per cent bonds whether the register should be rectified to enter the name of "Canara Bank-Trustee Canbank Mutual Fund" in place of Canara Bank?
Whether NTPC should be directed to pay to Canara Bank the redemption amount in respect of these bonds?
As regards the 14 per cent bonds whether NTPC should be directed to rectify the register by entering the name of "Canara Bank - Trustee Canbank Mutual Fund" in place of Bank of Karad and whether it should be directed to pay the redemption amount to Canara Bank?
Held that:- Appeal allowed. The High Court was not right in referring the alleged disputes to the High-Powered Committee. It was under an obligation to give a finding with regard to the directions given by the Board to pay the redemption amount to the appellants. The trustees of the trust constituted by the Canara Bank as settlor for the benefit of numerous unitholders cannot be termed and styled as Government company or public sector undertaking. The dispute raised by the respondents with the appellants was imaginary and even prima facie not real. We are further of the opinion that the Board in its order had dealt with all aspects of the matter and rightly concluded that ONGC’s case (1994 (1) TMI 88 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) judgment was not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
-
2000 (12) TMI 838
Offences by Companies - Penalty for wrongful withholding of property ... ... ... ... ..... o pass an order under section 630(2) to direct an employee or past employee to vacate the flat or to restore the company rsquo s property to the company even before the Magistrate trying the case under section 630(1) formally disposes of the criminal case against such employee. 12. In view of the discussion made above and relying upon the judgments referred to above, I am of the view that this is a fit and proper case for invoking the inherent power of this Court under section 482 to direct the accused opposite party to vacate the bungalow concerned in favour of the petitioner-company under section 630. The accused opposite party is hereby given one month rsquo s time to vacate the bungalow. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, 24 Parganas (South), Alipore, is also directed to proceed with the trial of the criminal case and to dispose of the same with utmost expedition. The present application is accordingly allowed. The impugned order dated 20-12-1999, is hereby set aside.
-
2000 (12) TMI 836
Appeal to Bar Council of India - Punishment of advocate for misconduct - Held that:- Appeal party allowed. The finding that the appellant is guilty of professional misconduct is upheld; but the sentence awarded by the Rajasthan State Bar Council suspending the appellant from practice for a period of five years is upheld and restored. Accordingly, the order of the Bar Council of India, only to the extent of enhancing the punishment, is set aside. No order as to the costs.
The Bar Council of India, by its order under appeal, directed notices to be issued to Shri Rajesh Jain and Shri Anil Sharma, Advocates, respectively, for initiating proceedings for professional misconduct and for enhancement of punishment.
-
2000 (12) TMI 819
Who is to act as arbitrator for adjudication of the disputes raised by the parties in the case?
Whether it is the former Additional Chief Engineer appointed by the Court or the former Executive Engineer as suggested by Tilam Sangh?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. The order of the High Court confirming the appointment of arbitrator by the lower court warrants no interference in exercise of the jurisdiction under article 136 of the Constitution
-
2000 (12) TMI 818
Preventive detention ... ... ... ... ..... ing some portions of the proposal submitted by the Sponsoring Authority. We have perused the original records. It is true that some portions of the Sponsoring Authority rsquo s recommendations have been incorporated in the final order of detention. But mere fact that some portions of the recommendations were taken from the proposal and incorporated in the final decision does not show non-application of mind. It cannot be laid down as rule of universal application that merely because some portion of the recommendations were incorporated in the Detaining Authority rsquo s order that will amount to non-application of mind. On the other hand, it may show that the detaining authority applied its mind to the recommendations and felt that a portion thereof needs to be incorporated in the final order of detention. This plea of the petitioner also fails. 27. As all the pleas advanced have been found to be untenable, inevitable result is dismissal of the writ petition, which we direct.
-
2000 (12) TMI 817
Winding up - Circumstances in which a company may be wound-up ... ... ... ... ..... aimed or awarded under section 62(1)(a) and/or section 3 as these proceedings are not proceedings for recovery of money. Therefore, this Court cannot hold in these proceedings that respondent is due to petitioner, any interest, nor quantify the same. There is also a bona fide dispute in regard to liability to pay interest, rate of interest and the date from which the interest is payable. While it may be open to the petitioner to establish a claim for interest in a civil suit, under section 61(2)(a) and/or section 3, I am satisfied that the petitioner has not made out any admitted or undisputed liability to pay interest, in these proceedings. 11. Having regard to the fact that the respondent has paid the entire principal amount during the pendency of this petition and thereby established its financial and commercial solvency and in view of the bona fide dispute regarding interest, there is no inability to pay any debt and consequently this petition for winding up is dismissed.
........
|
