|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 301 Records
-
2002 (6) TMI 454 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Amalgamation ... ... ... ... ..... he point of view of prudent men of business and the scheme has been approved by the overwhelming majority of the shareholders of both the companies and there is no objection by the creditors of transferor-company for the amalgamation. The proposed scheme of amalgamation is not violative of any provision of law. 25. Accordingly, the scheme of amalgamation as presented for approval is sanctioned. Both the company petitions are ordered as prayed for. The transferor-company shall be dissolved without winding up on the filing of the report by the Official Liquidator. The transferee-company is directed to hand-over the books of account of the transferor-company to the Official Liquidator to submit his report. It is open to the petitioner-companies to approach this Court for any direction, if any difficulty arises in the implementation of the scheme of amalgamation. The Additional Central Government standing counsel is entitled to a fee of Rs. 2,500 in each of the company petitions.
-
2002 (6) TMI 453 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Arbitration - Dispute between a member and a non-member ... ... ... ... ..... y of multiplicity of finding at variance with each other by different two fora cannot be ruled out. In my view, it would be most undesirable to adopt a construction which would bring about the possibility of two fora reaching different conclusion where the cause of action is based on same set of facts. As noted above, the two fora are differently constituted and such a possibility cannot be ruled out. In the circumstances, I am of the view that a claim against the member can be entertained under Bye-law 248 where the said claim is incidental to or connected with a claim against a non-member. I am of the view that the claim made by the BHH in the present case is such a claim. 19. In the result, there is no merit in the petition which is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 20. At this stage, Mr. Samdani, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks stay of this order. The effect and operation of this order shall be stayed for a period of six weeks from today.
-
2002 (6) TMI 451 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Amalgamation ... ... ... ... ..... interested shall be at liberty to apply this Court for any direction that may be necessary with regard to the carrying out of the Scheme. Consequently, the connected C.M.P. Nos. 6940, 6941 and 7700 of 2002 are also allowed and the appellant-companies are hereby granted time for holding their respective annual general meetings and placing the annual accounts of the appellant-companies for the period ended 31-12-2001 before the annual general meeting of the appellant-companies within 60 days from the date of the Order. C.M.P. No. 7700 of 2002 is also allowed granting extension of time to Annamallai Finance Limited for compliance with clause 41 of the listing agreement for publishing the audited annual accounts of the company for the period ended 31-12-2001 within the expiry of 60 days from the date of order. The transferee-company herein is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,500 (Rupees two thousand and five hundred only) each to the Additional Central Government standing counsel.
-
2002 (6) TMI 450 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Foreign awards - Enforcement of ... ... ... ... ..... at the award is enforceable. 5. In view of the observations of the Supreme Court, it is clear that the Supreme Court intended that the holder of a foreign award need not take out two proceedings, one for deciding the enforceability of the award and the other for its execution. Therefore, such an award can be directly put in execution and the executing Court would be entitled to execute it upon considering whether the award complies with the provisions of Part II Chapter I in relation to New York Convention Awards and Chapter II in relation to Geneva Convention Awards as may be applicable. It may be noted that when foreign decrees are put in execution under section 44A of the Code of Civil Procedure also the procedure does not contemplate two separate proceedings, one for deciding the enforceability of the foreign decree and the other for its execution. 6. In the circumstances, the petitioner is directed to put the award in execution in accordance with the rules of this Court.
-
2002 (6) TMI 447 - HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Balance sheet ... ... ... ... ..... p, I find that sanction is required for prosecuting petitioners 2 and 3 before the Criminal Court. It is clearly stated by the Supreme Court in R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866 that in some categories of cases inherent power can and shall be exercised to quash the proceedings where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against institution or continuance, e.g., want of sanction. The said principles have been reiterated once again in State of Karnataka v. M. Devendrappa 2002 (1) Supreme 192. In view of the settled law, this Court has no other go except to quash the proceedings as against petitioners 2 and 3 for want of sanction. Insofar as the first petitioner is concerned, trial shall go on. 9. In the result, the proceedings taken against petitioners 2 and 3 in S.T.C. No. 62 of 1998 on the file of Spl. Judge for Economic Offences, Hyderabad are quashed. Insofar as petitioner No. 1 is concerned the trial shall go on. Accordingly, this petition is ordered.
-
2002 (6) TMI 446 - HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Firm - Definition of ... ... ... ... ..... minors), clearly suggests that under the Income-tax Law, no minor can be a partner in a partnership firm as such. In taking this view we are fortified by the decision of the Supreme Court in Dwarkadas Khetan and Co. rsquo s case (supra) of the Allahabad High Court in Bhawani Prasad Girdhari Lal and Co. rsquo s case (supra) of the Kerala High Court in Chandrika Enterprises rsquo case (supra) of the Karnataka High Court in Hotel Sriraj rsquo s case (supra) with which we are in respectful agreement. Further, it needs to be noticed that the view taken by the Allahabad High Court in Bhawani Prasad Girdhari Lal and Co. rsquo s case (supra) was affirmed by the Supreme Court in S.L.P. No. 11821 of 1991 decided on 12-7-1991 in CIT v. Bhawani Prasad Girdhari Lal and Co. 17. In the result and for the foregoing reasons, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The R.C. is accordingly disposed of with no order as to costs.
-
2002 (6) TMI 444 - HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
... ...
... ... ..... ation is six months. In the present case, the offence under section 205A(8) is punishable with fine only. The complaint has to be filed within six months. The inspection of the company took place on 29-9-1997. The first respondent-complainant has filed the complaint on 15-4-1998. It is beyond the six months period. When once the limitation begins to run it cannot be stopped. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that the complaint is filed beyond the period of limitation. I see considerable force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the proceedings have to be quashed. Hence, by virtue of the inherent powers vested in this Court, I quash the proceedings against the petitioners in S.T.C. No. 61 of 1998 on the file of the Special Judge for Economic Offences, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, as the averment made in the complaint does not constitute an offence under section 205A(8) and it is barred by limitation. The Criminal Petition is allowed accordingly.
-
2002 (6) TMI 442 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Share certificate - Limitation of time for issue of ... ... ... ... ..... tion for condonation of delay before the learned Magistrate. In the absence of any request of condonation of delay explaining the ground for delay the learned Magistrate could not have taken cognizance of the offence and, therefore, the learned Sessions Judge found that in view of the law laid down by this court in R.C. Trivedi v. A.H. Paranjape 1982 CLJ 869 the order of the learned Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence was not legally sustainable. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has brought to my notice another judgment of the Orissa High Court in Subhashchandra Mohapatra v. M.S. Jaggi 1982 CLJ N.O.C. 92 wherein the same view was taken. In view of the admitted position that the complaint filed before the Magistrate was beyond the limitation, the order issuing process was liable to be set aside. The learned Sessions Judge was right in setting aside the order and there is absolutely no substance in this petition and the same is dismissed. Rule is discharged.
-
2002 (6) TMI 441 - HIGH COURT OF MUMBAI
Extent of judicial intervention ... ... ... ... ..... itional leave is granted to the defendants to defend the suit on the defendants depositing in this Court a sum of Rs. 60 lakhs within eight weeks from today with a further condition that on such amount being deposited liberty to the plaintiff to withdraw the amount on furnishing bank guarantee. In Suraj Sanghi Finance Ltd. v. Credential Finance Ltd. Summons for Judgment No. 164 of 2000 in Summary Suit No. 5502 of 1999 dated on 3-6-2002 a view has been taken that while granting leave purely as an act of mercy as a condition for granting leave it is open to the Judge as an additional condition in granting leave, to permit withdrawal of the amount deposited against bank guarantee or security or otherwise as the Court may direct also bearing in mind Original Side Rule 222. On deposit of the above amount suit transferred to list of commercial causes. Defendants to file written statement within 8 weeks from deposit. Discovery, inspection, etc., to be done within 8 weeks thereafter.
-
2002 (6) TMI 439 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Oppression and mismanagement ... ... ... ... ..... s regards the deletion of the names of the respondents 2 and 3, the CLB has not given any independent reasons. Since that part of the order of the CLB directing deletion of the names of the subsidiary companies who were arrayed as respondents in the company petition is liable to be set aside, that part of the order of the CLB directing deletion of the names of the respondents 2 and 3 and the directors of some of the companies is also liable to be set aside. I, therefore, set aside that part of the order of the CLB directing deletion of the names of the respondents 2 to 23 from the array of parties in the company petition and set aside the observations made by the CLB as against the respondents 5 and 8 and also set aside the adverse observations made by the CLB against the appellant in the order under challenge. In other words, the appeal stands allowed. The appellant would be entitled to costs of a sum of Rs. 10,000. Consequently, connected C.M.P. No. 19428 of 2000 is closed.
-
2002 (6) TMI 438 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Oppression and mismanagement ... ... ... ... ..... have already held that the CLB has given certain directions directing the appellant-company to file its affidavit on the allegations in the petition including those in respect of its dealing with the subsidiaries and in view of my judgment in C.M.A. No. 2018 of 2000 of even date, no exception can be taken against that part of the order of the CLB. The appellant has also questioned the direction of the CLB giving the liberty to the respondent herein to file a separate petition before the CLB in terms of section 214(2) read with section 235 of the Act. The CLB has not committed any error in recognising the statutory right given to the respondent herein under the law to file a petition under section 214(2) read with section 235. I do not find any error in that part of the order of the CLB as well. 24. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed. However, in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected C.M.P. No. 19597 of 2000 is closed.
-
2002 (6) TMI 437 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Application to Tribunal ... ... ... ... ..... irtue of provision of sub-section (9) of section 19 of the Act, a counter-claim made under sub-section (8) will have the same effect as cross-suit and the Tribunal is required to pass final order on the counter-claim by following the procedure as required for disposal of the bank rsquo s application filed under sub-section (1) of section 19 of the Act. Since the application for counter-claim is made under section 19 of the Act, the party, who makes that application is required to pay the court fee as prescribed under rule 7 of the Rules. This aspect of the matter has been rightly understood by the Appellate Tribunal while directing the petitioners herein to pay the requisite court fee on the counter-claim made by them in O.A. No. 681 of 1995. In that view of the matter, I do not find any illegality in the orders made by the Appellate Tribunal, which calls for my interference. Accordingly, the writ petition is rejected without reference to the respondents. Ordered accordingly.
-
2002 (6) TMI 424 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Modvat/Cenvat ... ... ... ... ..... wed name of the appellant in Kalol factory credit taken by the factory at Nandesari was denied both by the original and the appellate authority. Hence this appeal. 3. emsp Identical facts were before the Tribunal in their judgment in the case of STS Chemicals v. CCE, Pune - 1999 (111) E.L.T. 870 and in the case of Bhor Industries v. CCE - 2000 (122) E.L.T. 790. In fact the first cited judgment had been placed before the learned Commissioner which was distinguished by him on facts being different. I find that the ratio of both the judgments apply squarely to the facts of the case. There was no infirmity in the appellants taking credit in both the factories in the face of the proportionate quantity having been received in the two units. 4. emsp The appeal is allowed with consequential relief. 5. emsp Shri Willingdon Christian clarifies that out of the disputed sum of Rs. 8,79,429/- he is not pressing the claim for Rs. 1,82,955/- which sum stands already reversed by his clients.
-
2002 (6) TMI 419 - CEGAT, BANGALORE
Modvat/Cenvat ... ... ... ... ..... allowed only equivalent to (i) and (ii) as discussed above and not beyond that. The additional duty imposed in addition is under sub-section (3) of Section 3 of Customs Tariff Act to counterbalance the excise duty leviable on any raw materials components and ingredients used in the production or manufacture of the imported article. There is no provision in Rule 57A and Notification No. 5/94 to allow such credit for such levy other than as specified in Rule 57A and Notification No. 5/94. What is relevant is the duty paid as inputs and the Modvat credit is clearly admissible in respect of 15 duty paid on webbings. The rest is not admissible and hence to be disallowed. rdquo 7. emsp We support the view arrived at in the above findings. The learned Counsel for the appellants has advanced no fresh arguments before us to counter the above findings. We therefore hold that these findings not call for any interference. The appeal therefore fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.
-
2002 (6) TMI 418 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Limitation - Extended period - Suppression of facts ... ... ... ... ..... or specified in the impugned order to satisfy the conditions relating to wilful suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty. The only contention during the hearing of the case is that the appellants did not bring it to the notice of the department that they were not paying duty once Notification No. 158/87-C.E. was rescinded w.e.f. 1-2-94. Resort can be made to proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act only if the ingredients specified in that proviso are present in a case. The compounded rubber manufactured by the appellants were under exemption for a long period of time. Its withdrawal was also for a few weeks only. 4. emsp In these circumstances, the appellants rsquo submission that the non-payment of duty was on account of ignorance of the withdrawal of the Notification, appears to be bona fide. We hold, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the demand as time-barred. The impugned order is set aside with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
2002 (6) TMI 417 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (APPEALS), KOLKATA
Smuggling - Confiscation - Penalty - Confiscation of vehicle ... ... ... ... ..... wo-Member judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Punam Chand Bhotra v. Collector of Customs, reported in 1993 (63) E.L.T. 237 (T) wherein it was held that the statement of the co-accused is not to be relied upon to implicate the appellant as specially when not corroborated by independent evidence. 12. emsp The ratio of the judgment discussed above applies squarely to the facts of the case of Appellant No. 2. It is a settled proposition that the confession of a co-accued alone is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the other co-accused. There must be some independent corroboration of the confession. 13. emsp In view of the foregoing, I am of the view that the lower authority erred in imposing penalty on Appellant No. 2 under Section 112 of the Act, However, the penalty imposed on Appellant Nos. 1 and 4 by the lower authority is justified. Accordingly, I allow the appeal of Appellant No. 2, with consequential relief and reject the appeals of Appellant Nos. 1, 3 and 4 in toto.
-
2002 (6) TMI 416 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Refund of duty ... ... ... ... ..... visions of Section 27(2). He allowed the appeal. Hence this appeal by the department. 2. emsp We do not consider it necessary, in disposing of this appeal, to consider the correctness or otherwise of the circular of the Board which also the Commissioner (Appeals) has relied upon advising its officers that the amounts deposited in terms of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act are pre-deposited and hence not subject to the condition under sub-section (2) of Section 27. It is clear from the facts that the duty of which refund claim was paid consequent to the assessment after its importation and before its clearance. The amount would certainly not an amount paid subsequent to clearance. The requirements contained in sub-section (2) of Section 27 would therefore have to be satisfied before the refunded amount was paid to the claimant. This not having been done, we allow the appeal, set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and restore the order of the Deputy Commissioner.
-
2002 (6) TMI 414 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Modvat/Cenvat - Modvat vis-a-vis exemption ... ... ... ... ..... pointed out, the exemption contained in clause (2) of paragraph 1 of the notification is subject to the specification of the condition contained in paragraph 3 and 4. Paragraph 3 makes the notification inapplicable if the aggregate value on clearances by a manufacturer from one factory or more or from one factory by one or more manufacturer exceeded Rs. 2 crore in the preceding financial year. Paragraph 4 makes the exemption inapplicable to goods which bear a brand name or trade name. It is possible for an assessee to conclude that they would not comply with either or both of the condition and therefore not to claim the exemption. In a situation where one or more conditions are not complied with, that would be improper. Such a conditional notification has to be distinguished from the exemption granted by unconditional notification in regard to which the department claims perhaps may have greater validity. We therefore find no ground for interference. 4. emsp Appeal dismissed.
-
2002 (6) TMI 413 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Modvat/Cenvat - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... in the manufacture of finished product. He says that this contention cannot be accepted because of the failure to enter the goods in the account. The Commissioner (Appeals) appears to say the same thing. 6. emsp So long as the inputs were utilised in the manufacture of finished product, it would not be permissible to deny the credit. There is no provision in the rules for such a course of action. The decision of the Tribunal in Demosha Chemicals Ltd. v. CCE, - 1999 (107) E.L.T. 443 and CCE v. Subros Ltd. - 1998 (100) E.L.T. 546 come to this conclusion. Therefore, there is no basis for denying the credit. However, the appellant would be liable to penalty. The penalty has been imposed on the appellant not only on account of its infraction but also on account of other two infractions as a result of which duty demand has been made. 7. emsp In the result, I allow the appeal to the extent that the denial of the credit of Rs. 1,51,547/- is set aside. 8. emsp Appeal allowed in part.
-
2002 (6) TMI 411 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Modvat/Cenvat - Modvat on capital goods ... ... ... ... ..... e in any substance for the manufacture of the final product. Where capital goods are themselves defined by reference to a tariff heading, it has to be examined whether the goods fall in any of the heading. By doing so, it is found that they are not covered. A reference to the Board Circular No. 276/110/96, dated 2-12-96 in the applicant rsquo s letter is not clear and that circular has not been produced. How this circular could have any applicability to the provisions of the Rule has not been shown. 5. emsp The appeal is accordingly allowed and the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside and the order of the Asstt. Commissioner denying the credit is restored. However, on the facts before me, I do not find a case for imposing penalty on the assessee. It is highly possible that the assessee was not aware of the change in law. No deliberate intent to evade duty has been adjudicated. The order of the Asstt. Commissioner is only restored to the extent of the credit demanded.
............
|
