|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 559 Records
-
2004 (10) TMI 621 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... d the article by any fraudulent inducement or by wilful misrepresentation. We are told that the Respondents, though committed default in paying some instalments, have paid substantial amount towards the consideration. (Emphasis supplied by us) 10. We have examined the complaint and it is clear from its substance that present is a simple case of civil disputes between the parties. Requisite averments so as to make out a case of cheating are absolutely absent. The principles laid down in Alpic Finance Ltd. case 2001 (3) SCC 513 2001 SCC (Cri.) 565) were rightly applied by learned Additional Sessions Judge and it cannot be said that the ratio of the said decision was wrongly applied. On due consideration, the learned Additional Sessions Judge had rightly set aside the order of the Magistrate issuing process to the Appellant. 11. For the aforesaid reasons, we set aside the impugned judgment and restore that of the Additional Sessions Judge. 12. The appeal is allowed accordingly.
-
2004 (10) TMI 620 - COMPANY LAW BOARD, CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... he petitioner, I do not understand as to any other act, which would be oppressive to the interests of the petitioner and the Company. The other grievances being personal in nature may not likely fall within the scope of Sections 397 and 398. It is for the CLB to form opinion as to whether the alleged acts of oppression would justify the making of a winding up order on just and equitable grounds. In these circumstances, unless the respondents file a detailed reply and the petitioner establishes her grievances set out in the company petition, this Bench will not be in a position to adjudicate the question whether the petition satisfies the requirements of Sections 397 and 398. This has to be decided ultimately on the merits, while considering the company petition. Accordingly, the respondents are hereby directed to file counter-statement to the company petition by 30.11.2004 and rejoinder to be filed by 15.12.2004. The company petition will be heard on 20.12.2004 at 10.30 a.m.
-
2004 (10) TMI 619 - COMPANY LAW BOARD NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... falls as the decision taken, in the 14th AGM has been declared null and void. However, the parties are not in a position to work with each other and in order to put an end to the conflict, I am of the view that either party should be given an option to go out of the company on return of their investment in shares of the Respondent Company. In case, either party is willing to part with their shares, then the Petitioner/respondent should purchase the shares on valuation to be made by an independent valuer. The valuation will be based on the balance sheet as on 31.3.98. In case either party desires to go out of the company, then on an application made by them, a suitable valuer will be appointed by this Board in consultation with both the parties. On equitable grounds, the status quo with regard to properties of movable and immovable be maintained until the implementation of this order. 23. With the above directions, the petition is disposed of. There are no orders as to cost.
-
2004 (10) TMI 618 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he applicant be paid a sum of ₹ 17 lacs which is lying as term deposit receipt with the applicant Bank. The Official Liquidator is directed to make payment as aforesaid on the date of maturity of the term deposit receipt. 7 The Official Liquidator has stated in paragraph No.3 of his report that vide orders dated 24/1/1997 in Company Application No. 103 of 1995 with Company Application No.102 of 1995 this Court has issued orders to stay the sale of land and building till further orders and the applicant of the said application, viz. Gita Timber Mart has been permitted to file suit against Company in liquidation. In the circumstances, the applicant Bank as well as the Official Liquidator shall inquire about the latest position of the said suit so that further direction as regards continuing the stay against sale of land and building or lifting the said stay may be made. 8 In view of the aforesaid circumstances this application stands disposed off to the aforesaid extent.
-
2004 (10) TMI 617 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... jurisdiction of article 226. The BCCI which is the smile repository of everything cricket in India has attained this ''giant'' stature through its organisation, skill, the craze for the game in India and last but not the least by the tacit approval of the Government. Its objects are the functions and duties it has arrogated to itself. Many of these are in the nature of public duties and functions. Others may be in the field of private law such as private contracts, internal rules not affecting the public at large etc.,. Therefore, BCCI cannot be said to be beyond the sweep of article 226 in all eventualities for all times to come. That is the certificate that BCCI wants from this court. We are afraid, we cannot grant that. Consequently, this petition cannot be thrown out on the maintainability issue. This does not necessarily mean that the petitioners would be entitled to the orders, directions or writs that they seek. That will have to be examined on merits.
-
2004 (10) TMI 616 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... hip agreement and that reads as under 8. ...Any claim, disputes or differences between the parties hereto arising out of or in relation to or under or in any manner connected with the agreement shall be referred to and decided by arbitration as provided in the rules, bye-laws and regulations of OTCEI.... Such arbitration shall be governed by the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1940 or any modification or re-enactment thereof. The arbitration shall be held in Bombay only. 11. This is a subtle and fine distinction and has to be kept in mind. Once we appreciate this distinction it becomes apparent that the approach adopted by the CLB in the impugned order is perfectly valid and justified Naveen Kedia v. Chennai Power Generation Ltd. (1998) 4 Comp LJ 128 (1999) 95 Comp Cas 640 (CLB) . In view of the above, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. 12. This appeal is without any substance and is, therefore, dismissed. The applications also stand disposed of. No costs.
-
2004 (10) TMI 615 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ect provided in the Code about which the Act of 1996 is silent, needless to say, when the Court exercises its substantive power under the Act of 1996 shall be applicable but the guiding factor for exercise of power by the Court under Section 9(ii)(b) has to be whether such order deserves to be passed for justice to the cause. The learned Single Judge has relied upon the provisions of Order 38 Rule 5 Code of Civil Procedure to exercise his discretion for the purposes of exercising power under Section 9(ii)(b) as to whether that was a fit case for grant of an Order of attachment or not. Therefore, it can't be said that the impugned order suffers from infirmity merely because the learned Single Judge has stated in one sentence that the provisions of Order 38 of the Code of Civil Procedure must be kept in view while disposing of such application. 3. We do not find any infirmity with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. There is no merit in this appeal. 4. Dismissed.
-
2004 (10) TMI 614 - COMPANY LAW BOARD , CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... hey are willing to offer. The group which quotes the higher price should purchase the shares of the other group(s) at that price and the consideration for the same shall be paid within two months. The group(s) purchasing the other group(s) shall also ensure that the other group is relieved of all their financial obligations, the deposit liability assumed and expenses incurred by them on behalf of the Company in terms of the preceding para, viz. 5(iv) within the same two months period. If for any reason, the group quoting the higher price fails to purchase the shares of the other group(s) within two months, the other group(s) will have the right to purchase the shares of the defaulting group(s) within the next two months at the price quoted by the other group(s). With these directions, the company petition is disposed of, reserving the right to pass consequential order on 15.12.2004, when all the groups will present their offers quoting their price per share in closed covers.
-
2004 (10) TMI 613 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nce the view taken by the trial court and the High Court that the suit filed by the appellant was barred by limitation. o p /o p 18. The trial court, as already indicated, has found the plaintiff not entitled to any claim other than the recovery of ₹ 39,36,810/-. The claim for interest was also found not liable to be sustained. We are not inclined to take a view different from the one taken by the trial court more so, when we find that no plea other than that of limitation was pursued and pressed in the High Court. o p /o p 19. The appeal is allowed. The judgments and decrees of the trial court and the High Court are set aside. Instead the suit filed by the plaintiff is directed to be decreed against the defendant respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for recovery of ₹ 39,36,810/- with costs proportionate to that amount throughout. The plaintiff shall also be entitled to interest calculated at the rate of 6 percent per annum from the date of the suit till realization. o p /o p
-
2004 (10) TMI 612 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... d not to insist upon the strict literal compliance of the condition in appropriate cases." 17. The afore-extracted observations in Poddar Steel, (supra), were approved by the Supreme Court in Tata Cellular's case (supra). Thus, the view taken by us is fortified by the said decisions as also the aforenoted two decisions relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner. 18. We are therefore, of the opinion that the decision of the MTNL in not opening the envelope containing the bid of the petitioner is irrational and arbitrary and, Therefore, deserves to be quashed. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed; the impugned action of the MTNL is set aside and the rule is made absolute. Subject to petitioner's fulfilling other tender conditions, MTNL shall open the envelope submitted by the petitioner and consider the bid as expeditiously as practicable and in any case not later than two weeks from the date of this order. There will, however, be no order as to costs.
-
2004 (10) TMI 611 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... available on record like other sale transactions that may be produced, the comparative nature of the location, suitability, marketability etc. to fix the market value of the land acquired. Since such a comparative examination of the evidence has not been made by the High Court in the above appeal, even though there was material available on record, we think it proper that the impugned judgment in the above appeal be set aside and the matter be remanded to the High Court for consideration in accordance with law laid down and the directions given in this case. Accordingly, this appeal succeeds to the extent stated herein above. The facts of the other cases being different, we think it appropriate that it is not necessary for a 5-Judge Bench to decide the issues involved in these cases, because the question of law has been decided in C.A. 6986/1999. Therefore, these appeals should be placed before an appropriate Bench of this Court for final disposal. It is ordered accordingly.
-
2004 (10) TMI 610 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ter is still pending before the State Government having regard to the letter dated 18.5.2001 again does not appear to have been raised before the High Court, nor such a contention can be accepted as the State by its letter dated 18.5.2001 had already directed the Commissioner to disclose the documents before the Standing Committee which had asserted its right in terms of its resolution dated 26.4.2001. We fail to understand as to how the matter can be said to be pending before the State Government. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the considered view that the impugned judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained, which is set aside accordingly. The First Respondent is hereby directed to place before the Standing Committee of the Second Respondent all materials sought for from the Appellant in terms of its resolution dated 26.4.2001. The appeal is allowed with the aforementioned directions. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
-
2004 (10) TMI 609 - COMPANY LAW BOARD, CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... e allotment of 10,000 shares in favour of the respondents 2 & 3 Karl Marz and his wife is set aside. In view of the irreconcilable differences and loss of mutual trust between the petitioners and the respondents, the Company cannot run smoothly with the co-existence of both the parties. The only way to ensure the smooth functioning of the Company is that the warring parties must part ways by the exit of one group from the management of the Company. Towards this end, the second respondent who expressed his willingness to go out of the Company, will sell his shares to the petitioner or his nominee at par value. Accordingly, within 30 days from the date of receipt of the original share certificates with the blank transfer forms from the second respondent, the petitioner or his nominee will pay consideration for the shares at par value. With the above directions the company petition stands disposed of and the interim order made by this Bench is vacated. No order as to costs.
-
2004 (10) TMI 608 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... ing of facts cannot be interfered by this Court. The appeal is dismissed accordingly.
-
2004 (10) TMI 607 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... are represents supplementary commission. The forth is that such a commission is paid by the assessee to the travel agents one of these assumptions is a fact borne out by the agreement between the parties or the actual dealings between them. Hence, the section is not attracted. 18. We, therefore, conclude 35 follows (a) he amount realized by the travel agent in excess of the net fare cannot be considered as commission. b) The assessee cannot be said to be a person responsible for paying the "commission" to the travel agent. (c) There was no crediting of the difference between the net fare and the published fare to the account of the travel agent in the assessee book. d) There was no payment either of such excess by the assessee to the travel agent in cash of cheque or any other mode. We therefore, set aside the order passed by the AO treating the assessee as in default under Section 201 (1) and levying interest of ₹ 21,13,224 u/s. 201(1A) and allow the appeal.
-
2004 (10) TMI 606 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rections. Sri Sharma was given a clean chit in view of the finding recorded about the date on which receipt of payment has to be taken. Here again the allegations were not considered in the proper perspective. The findings regarding deemed removal are really inconsequential in the present dispute as the very foundation for removal was based on established fraud. Therefore, it is not necessary in the present dispute to go into the question regarding effect of deemed removal. The manipulative roles of respondents 2 to 7 have been clearly established. They were clearly active participants in the well-planned deception and fraudulent acts leading to evasion of duty. They had played major roles in the whole game of fraud and deception. There was clearly willful disregard and deliberate defiance of statutory provisions. Levy of penalty is clearly warranted. Impugned order of CEGAT is set aside and order of Commissioner is restored. The appeals are allowed with no order as to costs.
-
2004 (10) TMI 605 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... The District Court does not get a right to entertain a further Appeal as it does not have "any law for the time being in force" which permits such an Appeal. In any event we find no provisions which permit a larger Bench of the District Court to sit in Appeal against an order passed by a smaller Bench of that Court. Yet in the High Court even, under Section 104 read with Order 43 Rule 1 C.P.C., a larger Bench can sit in Appeal against an order of a Single Judge. Section 104 itself contemplates different rights of Appeals. Appeals saved by Section 104(1) can be filed. Those not saved will be barred by Section 104(2). We see nothing anomalous in such a situation. Consequently the plea of discrimination urged before us must be rejected. Under these circumstances, the Order of the High Court cannot be sustained. It is hereby set aside. The appeals are accordingly allowed with no order as to costs. The matters are remitted back to the High Court for decision on merits.
-
2004 (10) TMI 604 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... st areas with a view to taking care of environmental necessities of the time. If the provisions of Section 4-B read with Section 4-C of the Act serve such a purpose and if the High Court was clear in that regard, there was no reason to make such a observation. Nothing prevents the State Government to enact law in this regard but in the absence of such a law and till law is enacted in that regard, the High Court was not right in imposing restrictions as is done in this case in regard to felling of trees. The question set out above in the beginning of this judgment is answered in the negative. In the result, the impugned judgment so far it relates to imposition of restrictions and conditions on the appellant for felling the trees cannot be sustained and they are set aside. To make the position clear, we state that no such permission is required for felling trees in the non- forest private plantation/orchard/bagan. The appeal is allowed accordingly in the above terms. No costs.
-
2004 (10) TMI 603 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... aking the recovery, has to strictly follow the order made by the Settlement Commission and, accordingly, he has to charge interest and not de hors the order made by the Settlement Commission. It is not open for the AO to charge interest under s. 220(2) of the IT Act, 1961, which is not indicated in the Settlement Commission's order. Accordingly, it is directed that the AO shall reconsider the same strictly in the light of the order made by the Settlement Commission. 4. In view of this, the orders made by the Tribunal, the first appellate authority, and the AO are quashed and set aside. The appeals are disposed of.
-
2004 (10) TMI 602 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... affirming the Order? 3. When the matter came up for hearing, learned counsel for the respondent raised a contention that though the factory was under lock out so long as the Buildings, Plant and Machinery and other fixed assets relating to that factory formed an integral part of the Block of Assets owned by the assessee company, depreciation is allowable on such assets. The test of actual user is to be applied only in the year of purchase i.e. when the new asset is first put to use. Subsequently, on its merger into the Block of Assets, depreciation is allowable irrespective of the fact whether individual items in the Block has been put to use or not. 4. Since this matter was not considered by the Tribunal, according to us, the entire matter has to be heard by the Tribunal. Hence we set aside the order passed by the Tribunal and remand the matter to the Tribunal for fresh decision in accordance with law and the directions contained in the judgment. IT is disposed of as above.
........
|
