|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 481 to 500 of 692 Records
-
2010 (5) TMI 396 - SUPREME COURT
Whether after amalgamation of the original landlord with the Transferee Company, the Transferee Company is entitled to avail the benefit of the order of eviction granted under section 10(3)(a)( i) and (iii) as passed by the Rent Controller, approved by the Appellate Authority and the High Court?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. The object of the Act is to prevent unreasonable eviction of the tenant in occupation and to control rents. Similarly, when landlord wants the property for its own purpose, it takes into account the fact of the landlord’s occupation of other properties and not its ownership of other properties which does not in occupation. The Act permits eviction on reasonable grounds as provided for in the Act. It may be that there may be cases where it would be reasonable to evict the tenant, but that requirement may not strictly fall in any one of the provisions of section 10 of the Act to entitle the landlord to evict the tenant. Section 29 of the Act therefore, enables the Government to grant exemption of the building in such cases so that the landlord may be entitled to evict the tenant under the ordinary remedy of suit.
The present case being one where the order of eviction is eminently just, fair and equitable as ordered by two authorities and confirmed by the High Court, no valid ground for interference, on the other hand, we are in agreement with the conclusion arrived at by the authorities as well as the High Court.
-
2010 (5) TMI 395 - HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Whether the IDBI had earned interest and if yielded, at what rate?
Held that:- This Court considers it appropriate to hold that that present applicant is entitled for a reasonable compensation viz., to pay interest at the rate of 8.25 per cent per annum on the amount which indisputably was lying in fixed deposits with respondent-IDBI from the date of its deposit till its refund through banker’s cheque dated 12-2-2007.
Misc. application is allowed. Respondent-IDBI is directed to pay interest at the rate of 8.25 per cent per annum on the principal sum of auction purchase price to the tune of ₹ 2,30,65,000 (Rs. two crores, thirty lakhs, sixty five thousand) from the date it was deposited with IDBI till its refund through pay order/cheque dated 12-2-2007. Compliance of this order be made within two months from today failing which the interest (supra) shall be realised at the rate of 12 per cent per annum instead of 8.25 per cent.
-
2010 (5) TMI 394 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Whether the OTS agreement is not enforceable?
Held that:- As the entire amount of ₹ 90 lakhs obtained by the LMDL Company (in liquidation) was settled for a total amount of ₹ 132 lakhs. Since the Managing Director of LMDL Company has already paid more than ₹ 97 lakhs and handed over two drafts of total balance amount of ₹ 47,71,330 to the counsel for PICUP Company in the Court, so, the learned Company Judge was legally right to implement the OTS scheme (Annexure A 3)/agreement (Annexure A 4) in the obtaining circumstances of the case. No other illegality has been pointed out in the impugned order by the learned counsel for the PICUP Company and Official Liquidator. Appeal dismissed.
-
2010 (5) TMI 393 - SUPREME COURT
To what extent the powers and judiciary of High Court (excepting judicial review under Article 226/227) can be transferred to Tribunals?
Is there a demarcating line for the Parliament to vest intrinsic judicial functions traditionally performed by courts in any Tribunal or authority outside the judiciary?
Whether the "wholesale transfer of powers" as contemplated by the Companies (Second Amendment) Act, 2002 would offend the constitutional scheme of separation of powers and independence of judiciary so as to aggrandize one branch over the other?
Held that:- Appeal allowed partly by uphold the decision of the High Court that the creation of National Company Law Tribunal and National Company Law Appellate Tribunal and vesting in them, the powers and jurisdiction exercised by the High Court in regard to company law matters, are not unconstitutional.
We declare that Parts 1B and 1C of the Act as presently structured, are unconstitutional for the reasons stated in the preceding para. However, Parts 1B and 1C of the Act, may be made operational by making suitable amendments, as indicated above, in addition to what the Union Government has already agreed in pursuance of the impugned order of the High Court.
-
2010 (5) TMI 392 - SUPREME COURT
Whether in default of payment of compensation ordered under section 357(3) of the Cr.PC a default sentence can be imposed?
Held that:- SLP partly allowed. The contention of the accused as regards a factual error made by the High Court, wherein the High Court stated that the accused had deposited ₹ 1 lakh towards the compensation amount requires to be accepted. It is to be noted that the accused has already deposited ₹ 2 lakhs towards the compensation amount of ₹ 5 lakhs, before the Judicial Magistrate in pursuance of orders passed by the Sessions Court and the High Court. Therefore, the appeal of the accused, i.e., Criminal Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 334 of 2008 is allowed to the extent that he needs to pay a further amount of ₹ 3 lakhs towards the compensation amount of ₹ 5 lakhs. The remaining part of the sentence passed by the High Court requires to be confirmed.
In the result, the conviction and sentence passed against the accused in Criminal Appeal arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 334 of 2008 are confirmed with the modification.
-
2010 (5) TMI 391 - SUPREME COURT
Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in account.
Whether the ingredients of the offence enumerated in section 138 of the Act have been met and if so, whether the accused was able to rebut the statutory presumption contemplated by section 139 of the Act
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. As per the record of the case, there was a slight discrepancy in the complainant’s version, insofar as it was not clear whether the accused had asked for a hand loan to meet the construction-related expenses or whether the complainant had incurred the said expenditure over a period of time. Either way, the complaint discloses the prima facie existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability since the complainant has maintained that his money was used for the construction-expenses. Since the accused did admit that the signature on the cheque was his, the statutory presumption comes into play and the same has not been rebutted even with regard to the materials submitted by the complainant.
No reason to interfere with the final order of the High Court which recorded a finding of conviction against the appellant.
-
2010 (5) TMI 390 - SUPREME COURT
Whether a case of oppression and mismanagement by the majority shareholders against the minority shareholders had been established or not?
Held that:- SLP dismissed. From the facts as revealed, the only conclusion that can be arrived at is that the respondent No. 5 had committed a breach of contract in regard to supply of materials to the respondent No. 1-company in terms of the EPC contract. Such lapse, in our view, would not constitute the ingredients of a complaint under sections 397, 398, 402 and 403 of the Companies Act, 1956. Such breach could give rise to an action of breach of contract under section 73 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
No act of oppression or mismanagement within the meaning of sections 397, 398, 402 and 403 of the Companies Act, 1956, has been made out by the petitioners against the majority shareholders of the respondent No. 1-company which would justify the making of a winding up order on the ground that it would be just and equitable to do so and to pass appropriate orders to bring to an end the matters complained of.
-
2010 (5) TMI 389 - SUPREME COURT
Lowering of contract load - Held that:- SLP dismissed. In the totality of the existing circumstances, of which KESCO was fully aware, the decision not to accept the Bond was not in accordance with the decision arrived at on 19-4-2006 to reduce the contract load from 8 MVA to 1.25 MVA. In fact, the Respondent-Company had been declared to be a Relief Undertaking by the State Government on an application dated 24-6-2004. Furthermore, soon after the decision was arrived at to lower the contract load, the Respondent-Company was also declared as a Sick Company on 8-5-2007 and the BIFR, while considering the revival of the Respondent-Company by its order dated 22-4-2007, directed KESCO to continue to accept ₹ 5 lakhs per month against the arrears apart from payment of the current electricity bills on actual consumption basis and also not to adopt coercive measures to disconnect the supply of electricity of the Respondent-Company. As indicated hereinabove, the result of the continued insistence of KESCO that a Bank Guarantee should be provided by the Respondent No. 1-Company in respect of its outstanding dues, had the effect of negating the decisions to revive the Company.
-
2010 (5) TMI 388 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Whether the auction purchaser was throughout aware of the presence of the unauthorised occupant in part of the plot in question, the status of the plot i.e., it stood resumed by PUDA and that the auction purchaser at every opportunity had used the process of Court for getting the possession of the plot?
Held that:- The learned Company Judge has allowed himself to be persuaded by completely overlooking the facts on record and the conduct of the auction purchaser amply demonstrated in various applications preferred by him despite taking possession of the vacant part of the property on 14-5-1996 after making on payment of only 25 per cent earnest money. It is obvious that the auction purchaser has enjoyed the property for all these years without paying the outstanding 75 per cent balance amount as per the schedule of payment. It cannot be disputed that as per the terms of the agreement dated 7-5-1996, an amount of rupees two crores was due to be paid by the auction purchaser on 20-7-1999, which had swelled to a sum of ₹ 23,67,94,369 as on 1-11-2008.
In view of the above, we are left with no option but to accept the appeal. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 23-7-1999 is hereby set aside. The application bearing C.M. No. 5 of 2009 filed in the present appeal by the auction purchaser respondent No. 2, praying for withdrawal of CA Nos. 343 and 344 of 1999 thus seeking to revive his initial prayer (in CA No. 341 of 1996) for re-schedulement of payment of due instalments is dismissed with costs of ₹ 50,000 to be paid to the Corporation within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The amount calculated as on 1-11-2008 was ₹ 23,67,94,369. The auction purchaser is directed to pay aforesaid amount to the Corporation within four weeks from today. The Corporation is directed to intimate the auction purchaser within four weeks from today the total balance amount due to be paid by him in terms of the agreement dated 7-5-1996. The auction purchaser is further directed to pay the entire balance amount found due as intimated by the Corporation within next three months failing which the appellant Corporation shall be entitled to resume the plot and take possession in accordance with law. The Corporation is also given liberty to take steps to recover compensation, if found due, on account of use and occupation of portion of the plot by the auction purchaser. The auction purchaser - respondent No. 2 shall be entitled to the remaining portion of the plot in question in pursuance to the decree dated 5-5-1998 subject to the payment of all outstanding dues towards the Corporation.
-
2010 (5) TMI 387 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Whether the jurisdiction of the Company Court stands ousted by the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 and the Company Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the company petition and the orders dated 16-1-2004 and 23-3-2006 are without jurisdiction and nullity?
Held that:- The petition for winding up is not a petition for recovery of money. The petitioner creditor invokes jurisdiction of the Company Court not for his benefit but for all the creditors, shareholders and contributors. On the other hand, DRT Act is a statute providing adjudicatory process and proceedings for the execution of the amount due. Thus, two statutes occupy different field enacted to achieve different objectives. Thus, the secured creditor cannot be said to be prohibited to continue with the winding up process. Therefore, the argument raised by the petitioner that secured creditor cannot invoke more than one remedy, i.e., DRT Act and Companies Act, is without any merit.
The argument that secured creditor cannot be permitted to continue with the winding up proceedings is not tenable in law nor such an argument can be permitted to be raised on behalf of the petitioner. The applications filed by the petitioner are without any merit
-
2010 (5) TMI 386 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Amalgamation scheme - Held that:- proposed scheme of arrangement/amalgamation of respective Transferor-Companies i.e., (i) Aakaar Leasing and Construction Pvt. Ltd. (ii) Giriraj Enterprise Pvt. Ltd. and (iii) Landmark Structures Pvt. Ltd. with the petitioner of Company Petition No. 186 of 2009 i.e., M.T. Shroff Finance Pvt. Ltd. (Transferee-Company) is hereby sanctioned and approved and prayer in terms of paragraph No. 16(a) in respective petitions are hereby granted on conditions that proposed new name of the Transferee-Company shall be allowed subject to availability of the same.
The Transferee-Company to comply with the provisions of sections 21 and 23 of the Companies Act, 1956 in respect of the changing of the necessary forms with the Registrar of Companies. Transferee-Company to change its object clause suitably as per provisions of Companies Act, 1956 and on sanctioning of the scheme. The change be notified to the RBI also. It is ordered that appointed date for sanctioning of the scheme shall be 16-5-2010.
-
2010 (5) TMI 385 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Amalgamation scheme - Held that:- Having heard Mrs. Swati Soparkar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner Company and Shri R.M. Chhaya, learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the Central Government and having gone through the petition, affidavits filed and the documents produced on record and having considered the submissions made in this regard, more particularly, the report submitted by the Regional Director and reply thereto by the petitioner Company by way of additional Affidavit dated 5-3-2010 and being satisfied with the Scheme of Amalgamation, I hold that it would be in the interest of the Companies, its members, creditors and more particularly considering the fact that the Scheme of Amalgamation has been sanctioned by the Bombay High Court in favour of the transferor Company, prayer in terms of para 27(a) of the petition is hereby granted.
-
2010 (5) TMI 384 - HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Reorganization of share capital - seeking sanction of Scheme of Arrangement providing for conversion of 65 lakh preference shares (out of 130 lakh shares, each of ₹ 10) into equity shares
Held that:- In the instant case, while meetings of preference shareholders had taken place, all of them including equity shareholders have consented for approval of scheme of Arrangement proposed - resolution in that regard was also unanimously passed. Preference shareholders if at all adversely affected have not raised any objection to the Scheme of Arrangement impugned; in such circumstances, in the opinion of this Court, the Scheme of Arrangement proposed by petitioner-company is not in any manner prejudicial to the interest of shareholders but it stands consented by them; therefore, there is no reason to withhold the sanction as sought for the Scheme of Arrangement as prayed for in instant petition filed under section 391 of the Act. Company petition stands allowed
-
2010 (5) TMI 383 - SUPREME COURT
Contracts and options in securities - Whether Plaintiffs prove that Rs. 2,59,75,000 money is due from and payable by Defendant No. 1 on account of transactions undertaken on behalf of or with Defendant No. 1 after accounting for all transactions in the running account as alleged in para 7 of the Plaint?
Whether Plaintiffs have correctly appropriated one Lac shares delivered towards the contract note dated 14-2-1992 (i.e., for Reliance Industries Ltd. shares) purchased @ of Rs. 154 as alleged in para 8a(ii) of the Plaint?
Whether the Plaintiffs prove that no shares were received from the broker of Defendant No. 1 towards the Contract dated 23-3-1992 as averred by the Plaintiffs in para No. 8a(iv) of the Plaint?
Whether the Plaintiffs have correctly given credit of Rs. 154 per shares for one lac shares delivered and since one lac shares have not been delivered as alleged in para 8a(v) of the Plaint?
Whether the Contract dated 14th February, 1992 for purchase of 1,00,000 shares at the rate of Rs. 154 per share of M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd. placed by the Plaintiffs on Defendant No. 1 was cancelled/rescinded as alleged by Defendant No. 1 as alleged in paras 8 and 9 of the Written Statement?
Whether Plaintiffs’ contract note dated 27-2-1992 (SAIL) had been issued as per prevalent practice as alleged in para 8b(ii) of the Plaint?
Whether Defendant No. 1 by its letter dated 17-9-1992 has resiled from its contractual obligations as alleged in para 8b(vi) of the Plaint?
What orders and decree?"
-
2010 (5) TMI 382 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Interpretation of section 19(4) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985
consent is refused by one of the secured creditors, then the Board (BIFR) is thrown to section 19(4), however, as already discussed above section 19(4) allows various alternatives to BIFR to adopt ‘one or more’ measures as per section 18(1) and section 18(3)(b) of the Act. The last line of the above para of Ashok Organic Industries Ltd.’s case (2008 (1) TMI 617 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY) only deals with the issue of minority dissenting creditors being not overridden and which can take place while approving a scheme strictly in accordance with sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act, but, this cannot have a bearing on the interpretation of section 19(4) when dealt with in the context of options available to BIFR when a minority secured creditor opposes a draft scheme. As already stated above in such circumstances various options under SICA including those mentioned in section 18 can then be resorted to and Board is not limited to superseding a scheme of revival merely because of the objection of one minority secured creditor. We dismiss the petition challenging the impugned orders of BIFR and AAIFR.
-
2010 (5) TMI 381 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Whether the petitioners are entitled to amount of interest earned on the seized amount which was invested by the respondents in the fixed deposits with the bank?
Held that:- In the present case, the respondents themselves have refunded the amounts seized from the petitioners which they had invested in the fixed deposits. The interest earned on the fixed deposits was nothing but accretion to the original amounts. The petitioners were, therefore, entitled to receive proceeds of the fixed deposits in its entirety on the date when the fixed deposits were encashed. Having said so, the fixed deposits were encashed and seized amounts were refunded to the petitioners on 5-4-2002 and 23-5-2002 but without interest accrued thereon, as such the respondents withheld the amount of accrued interest without any justification. In our considered view, on the amount of accrued interest, not paid to the petitioners, the petitioners would be entitled to interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum for the period for which they were deprived of the said amount of accrued interest on the seized amounts.
W.P. allowed.
-
2010 (5) TMI 380 - SUPREME COURT
Graded scheme of imposing costs on parties who unduly delay compounding of the offence
Held that:- Any costs imposed in accordance with these guidelines should be deposited with the Legal Services Authority operating at the level of the Court before which compounding takes place. For instance, in case of compounding during the pendency of proceedings before a Magistrate’s Court or a Court of Sessions, such costs should be deposited with the District Legal Services Authority. Likewise, costs imposed in connection with composition before the High Court should be deposited with the State Legal Services Authority and those imposed in connection with composition before the Supreme Court should be deposited with the National Legal Services Authority.
-
2010 (5) TMI 379 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the Bank has alleged in the suits that the amounts are due to the Bank from the respondents, that the liability of the respondents has arisen during the course of their business activity, that the said liability is still subsisting and legally recoverable?
Held that:- Partially allow this appeal and while modifying the order of the High Court to the extent that, the appellants would be liable to pay to the respondent Bank a sum of ₹ 9,63,975. (approximate value of the hypothecated stock sold by the appellants) with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum on the above sum during the period from 14-3-1988, the date of filing of the plaint, to the date of actual realization as originally allowed by the Tribunal.
Further direct the Chairman of the Allahabad Bank to examine this case in light of our discussion supra and take appropriate action against erring officers/officials in accordance with law.
-
2010 (5) TMI 378 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Amount outstanding towards Notified Area tax water charges, and drainage charges for the period pe and post-winding up
Held that:- Considering the terms and conditions of the sale, as per the tender document, applicant-auction purchaser is liable to clear outstanding dues of the notified area towards tax, water charges and drainage charges etc., due and payable to the respondent No. 2 for post-winding up period only and any outstanding dues towards tax and water charges and drainage charges, pre-winding up period, the applicant-purchaser cannot be saddled with liability.
-
2010 (5) TMI 377 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Scheme of Amalgamation - Held that:- So far as Regional Director is concerned, he has no objections to sanction the proposed Scheme of Amalgamation of the Transferor-Companies with the Transferee-Company subject to comply with the provisions of sections 20 and 21 of the Companies Act, 1956 with respect to filing of necessary forms with the Registrar of Companies, Gujarat and proposed new names will be subject to availability of the same by the Registrar of Companies, Gujarat. Company Petition Nos. 117, 118 and 119 of 2009 are allowed.
In light of provision in the Scheme, the Transferor-Companies are hereby directed to be dissolved without winding upon the Companies filing certified copy of the order of this Court. The matter stands disposed of accordingly.
............
|
