|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 383 Records
-
1996 (1) TMI 386
Issues:
1. Challenge to order of reassessment under section 12(8) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act for the assessment year 1989-90.
2. Determination of manufacturing process involved in producing "cotton" from "waste cotton".
3. Consistency of provisions of the Industrial Policy Resolution with the Orissa Sales Tax Act.
Analysis:
1. Challenge to Reassessment Order:
The petitioner, a small-scale industrial unit engaged in processing waste cotton, challenged the order of reassessment under section 12(8) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act for the assessment year 1989-90. The earlier judgment set aside the reassessment order and notices, deeming them illegal. However, appeals by the Commissioner of Sales Tax and Sales Tax Officer led to a remand by the Supreme Court for fresh consideration based on observations made in their judgment. The Supreme Court emphasized that incentives were meant for units engaged in manufacturing or production of goods, not mere processing. The High Court was directed to consider relevant provisions of the Sales Tax Act before forming a final opinion.
2. Manufacturing Process Inquiry:
The key questions to be determined were whether a manufacturing process was involved in producing "cotton" from "waste cotton" and whether the Industrial Policy Resolution provisions aligned with the Orissa Sales Tax Act. The definition of "manufacture" under the Orissa Sales Tax Act was crucial, emphasizing the emergence of new and different goods after processing. Various Supreme Court decisions highlighted that for a process to be considered manufacturing, the resulting goods must be distinct from the raw materials used. The petitioner demonstrated the transformation of waste cotton into usable cotton through a detailed manufacturing process, supported by expert opinion. This transformation indicated a manufacturing process, making the industrial unit eligible for claimed exemptions.
3. Consistency of Provisions:
The Senior Standing Counsel confirmed the consistency between the Industrial Policy Resolution and the Orissa Sales Tax Act, eliminating the need for further analysis on this aspect. The core issue revolved around whether waste cotton and cotton were the same products and if a manufacturing activity was involved in their conversion. The judgment cited precedents where processing raw materials into distinct commercial commodities constituted a manufacturing process. The petitioner's innovative recycling of waste cotton into usable cotton for sale demonstrated a clear manufacturing process, entitling the unit to claimed exemptions.
Conclusion:
The High Court allowed the writ applications, quashing the reassessment orders and notices. The detailed analysis focused on the manufacturing process involved in converting waste cotton to cotton, aligning with legal definitions and precedents. The judgment emphasized the importance of differentiating between raw materials and finished goods to determine the existence of a manufacturing process, ultimately supporting the petitioner's entitlement to exemptions.
-
1996 (1) TMI 385
Issues:
- Interpretation of Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 regarding suspension of legal proceedings.
- Validity of the Commercial Tax Officer's actions in recovering arrears of sales tax without consent of the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction.
- Impact of a conditional stay granted by the High Court on the recovery of sales tax arrears.
Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal of Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal delves into the application of Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, which deals with the suspension of legal proceedings against sick industrial companies. The petitioner, a sick industry, had a rehabilitation scheme framed by BIFR. The Commercial Tax Officer initiated recovery proceedings for arrears of sales tax without obtaining consent from the Board as required by Section 22. The Tribunal noted that the petitioner was indeed in arrears but emphasized the necessity of Board consent for recovery actions against sick industrial companies. The Tribunal set aside the notices issued by the Commercial Tax Officer without the Board's consent, allowing for fresh recovery actions with proper authorization.
The judgment also addressed the impact of a conditional stay granted by the High Court on the recovery of sales tax arrears. The High Court had granted a stay on the condition that the petitioner pays 25% of the tax demand within a specified period. However, the petitioner failed to comply with this condition, resulting in the automatic vacation of the stay. Despite this, the Tribunal clarified that the vacation of the stay did not alter the fact that the sales tax arrears were due and payable. The Tribunal reiterated the importance of complying with legal provisions, highlighting the need for Board consent before initiating recovery proceedings against sick industrial companies.
In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the principles of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, emphasizing the requirement of Board consent for recovery actions against sick industries. The judgment provided clarity on the legal consequences of a conditional stay and underscored the significance of following due process in matters concerning the recovery of arrears. The Commercial Tax Officer was directed to take fresh action in compliance with the law, ensuring that the petitioner's rights as a sick industrial company are duly protected.
-
1996 (1) TMI 384
Issues:
1. Interpretation of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 regarding the classification of hose pipes and PVC pipes as accessories of pump sets for taxation purposes.
Detailed Analysis:
The judgment delivered by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh pertains to a reference made by the Tribunal under section 44(1) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958. The question referred for the Court's opinion was whether the hose pipes and PVC pipes sold by the assessee were to be considered as accessories of pump sets for taxation purposes. The assessing authority had levied turnover tax on the sale of hose pipes and PVC pipes at 2.5 per cent under entry 22 of Part II of Schedule IV of the Act. The assessee, aggrieved by the assessment order, had filed appeals which led to the reference before the High Court.
The Tribunal had observed that hose pipes could be treated as accessories of pump sets, but a definitive decision was not provided. However, regarding PVC pipes, the Tribunal held that they could be used for various purposes and their turnover was significantly higher than the cost of pump sets, hence not classifying them as accessories of pump sets. The Court noted the ambiguity in the Tribunal's decision-making process and the lack of a clear pronouncement on the classification of hose pipes as accessories.
The Court emphasized the requirement under section 44(1) that the question of law must arise from the Tribunal's order. Since the Tribunal did not conclusively decide on the status of hose pipes as accessories, the Court found the question referred to be inadequate for determination. Consequently, the Court invoked section 44(4) to direct the Tribunal to make necessary additions or alterations to the question for a more precise reference.
The Court directed the Tribunal to reconsider and decide on the classification of hose pipes, and if needed, refer a revised question for the Court's opinion within six months. The reference application was disposed of without costs, and counsel fees were fixed. The Court ordered the transmission of the judgment to the Tribunal as per legal procedures.
In conclusion, the High Court's judgment highlighted the importance of a clear and conclusive determination by the Tribunal on the classification of goods for taxation purposes. The Court's decision to return the reference for clarification underscores the need for precise legal questions to be addressed for effective adjudication.
-
1996 (1) TMI 383
Issues:
Interpretation of section 8(2-A) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 regarding exemption for footwear costing less than Rs. 30 per pair under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957.
Comprehensive Analysis:
The case involved an appeal regarding the interpretation of section 8(2-A) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 in relation to the exemption granted under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 for footwear costing less than Rs. 30 per pair. The appellant, a dealer in footwear, argued that the exemption under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act for footwear costing less than Rs. 30 per pair is general and not subject to specific conditions. On the other hand, the State contended that the exemption was only with reference to the condition that the cost of footwear was less than Rs. 30, making it not a general exemption. The assessing authority relied on a circular stating that Central sales tax is payable on inter-State sales of footwear costing less than Rs. 30 per pair, even if exempted under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act. The single Judge dismissed the writ petition, holding that the exemption was not general and did not entitle the appellant to benefit under section 8(2-A) of the Central Sales Tax Act.
The central issue before the High Court was to determine whether the exemption for footwear costing less than Rs. 30 per pair under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act was a general exemption or subject to specific conditions. The Court referred to the decision in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Pine Chemicals Ltd., where the Supreme Court clarified that a general exemption under the Central Sales Tax Act applies to goods that are totally exempted from tax without specific conditions or circumstances. The Court emphasized that if the exemption is with reference to the goods themselves, it is considered general in nature. In this case, the Legislature classified footwear into two categories based on cost, making the exemption with reference to the description of goods and not specific conditions. The Court disagreed with the single Judge's interpretation and allowed the appeal, setting aside the order and quashing the assessment related to footwear costing less than Rs. 30 per pair under the Central Sales Tax Act.
The Court also noted the department's inconsistent views on the matter, where penalty proceedings were initiated for tax collected on identical goods, later revised due to uncertainty about the legal position. The Court concluded by allowing the appeal, quashing the assessing authority's order regarding footwear costing less than Rs. 30 per pair under the Central Sales Tax Act, and directing the refund of any deposited monies by the appellant. The circular issued by the Commissioner was deemed ineffective and quashed.
-
1996 (1) TMI 382
Whether or not the person charged desired or had an oral enquiry, he shall be heard in person at any stage if he so desires before final orders are passed?
Held that:- Generally speaking, it is not necessary that the charges should be framed by the authority competent to award the proposed penalty or that the enquiry should be conducted by such authority. We do not find anything in the rules which would induce us to read in Rule 3(b)(i) such a requirement. In our opinion, the view taken by the Tribunal that in a case falling under Rule 3(b) the charge memo should be issued by the disciplinary authority empowered to impose the penalties referred to therein and if the charge memo is issued by any lower authority then only that penalty can be imposed which that lower authority is competent to ward, is clearly erroneous. We, therefore, allow this appeal. The order passed by the Tribunal is set aside and the case is remitted back to the Tribunal to consider the other contentions which were raised before it and to dispose of the case in accordance with law.
-
1996 (1) TMI 381
Title of land - Held that:- Appeal allowed. The respondent who lost possession as a result of an order being passed in restitution application and was dispossessed pursuant to the order in the restitution application cannot maintain a suit based on his title since he had no title to the land. The High Court, therefore, was not right in upholding the decree of the trial court. The trial court found that the Tarwad had obtained possession pursuant to the restitution application. It, however, went on to hold that the respondent had established his title and could recover the property. These findings cannot be sustained in view of what we have said above. The decree of the trial court is set aside and the suit of the respondent is dismissed with costs.
-
1996 (1) TMI 380
Whether prior or subsequent to the employment that are either incidental to such employment or form part of its terms and conditions and also include promotion to a selection post?
Held that:- Appeal allowed. It is seen that Rule 22 of the general Rules provides reservation for appointment by direct recruitment. By Constitutional parameters and interpretation of law by this Court, reservation under Articles 141B, 16(1) and 16(4) would include reservation in promotion as well. Thus the stand taken by the Tribunal that Rule 22 would apply only for direct recruitment and not for appointment by promotion, is illegal.
-
1996 (1) TMI 378
Issues Involved: Condonation of delay, sufficient cause, judicial discretion, government litigation, procedural delays.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Condonation of Delay:
The primary issue in this case was whether the delay of 109 days in filing the Letters Patent Appeal should be condoned. The Supreme Court emphasized that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, allows for the extension of the prescribed period of limitation for filing an application or appeal, provided the appellant shows "sufficient cause" for the delay.
2. Sufficient Cause:
The Court reviewed several precedents to elucidate what constitutes "sufficient cause." In *Ramlal & Chhotelal v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd.*, it was held that the appellant does not need to explain the entire period of delay but only the period between the last date of limitation and the actual filing date. The expression "sufficient cause" should receive a liberal construction, as noted in *New India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Shanti Misra*.
3. Judicial Discretion:
The Court highlighted that judicial discretion under Section 5 should not be rigidly applied. In *Inder Singh v. Kanshi Ram*, the true guide for exercising discretion is whether the appellant acted with reasonable diligence. The Court also referred to *Shakuntala Devi Jain v. Kuntal Kumari & Ors.*, where it was held that unless there is a lack of bona fides or gross negligence, the delay should be condoned.
4. Government Litigation:
The Court acknowledged that delays in government litigation are often due to bureaucratic processes. In *G. Ramegowda, Major & Ors. v. Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore*, it was noted that government decisions are encumbered by procedural delays, and a pragmatic approach should be taken. The Court reiterated that the State should not be given a "litigant-non-grata" status and that public interest should be considered.
5. Procedural Delays:
The Court recognized that procedural delays are inherent in governmental functioning. It cited *Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantrag & Anr. v. Mst. Katiji & Ors.*, where it was held that the expression "sufficient cause" is elastic enough to be applied in a meaningful manner to serve the ends of justice. The Court emphasized that substantial justice should be preferred over technical considerations.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the delay of 109 days had been sufficiently explained and that it was a fit case for condonation. The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and remitted the matter to the High Court for disposal on merits, emphasizing a justice-oriented approach. The appeal was allowed with no costs.
-
1996 (1) TMI 377
The appeal was filed against an order-in-appeal regarding the inclusion of a starter in the assessable value of a centrifugal fan. The Industrial fan is complete even without the starter, which falls under a different item in the Central Excise Tariff. The Tribunal accepted the plea of the appellants, setting aside the impugned order. Appellants succeeded in the case.
-
1996 (1) TMI 376
Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment include the utilization of Modvat Procedure for duty payment, objection to payment of duty on starch, rejection of Modvat credit, imposition of penalty, rejection of refund claim, and restoration of wrongly utilized credit.
Utilization of Modvat Procedure and Objection to Duty Payment:
The appellants, manufacturers of starch and glucose, utilized the Modvat Procedure for duty payment by crediting duty earned on inputs. An objection was raised regarding the duty payment on 23 M.T. of starch cleared by debiting their R.G.23A account of glucose.
Rejection of Modvat Credit and Imposition of Penalty:
The Assistant Collector confirmed the duty demand, rejecting the Modvat credit and imposing a penalty. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) upheld this decision, rejecting the appeal and upholding the penalty.
Rejection of Refund Claim and Restoration of Credit:
The appellants filed a refund claim, which was rejected as time-barred. The Collector (Appeals) considered it as a restoration of wrongly utilized credit, not a refund claim. The appeal by the department was against this order-in-appeal.
Tribunal Decision and Ruling:
The respondents argued that their application was a refund claim, citing Tribunal decisions. The Tribunal held that Modvat Credit cannot be subject to a refund claim under Section 11B of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944.
Judgment:
The impugned order correctly noted that the relief sought was for the restoration of wrongly utilized credit. Rule 57F does not provide for a refund of such credit, except for final products. The rejection of the refund claim on the grounds of time bar was deemed erroneous. The restoration of credit should have been allowed once the respondents rectified the error by paying duty from their PLA. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the impugned order.
-
1996 (1) TMI 375
Order of the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction - impugned order upheld the order of the BIFR by which the benefit of the provisions of section 72A of IT Act, 1961, was not extended to the appellant upon the amalgamation of Sharp Edge Limited with it - order under appeal as also the order of the BIFR declining to make a declaration u/s 72A in respect of the amalgamation of Sharp Edge Ltd. with the appellant set aside and the BIFR is directed to make such directed
-
1996 (1) TMI 374
The High Court of Allahabad rejected an application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 1989-90. The application sought to refer questions regarding the addition of Rs. 60,000 to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The Court found no error in the authorities' approach and rejected the application.
-
1996 (1) TMI 373
Issues: Classification of bleached and neutralised oil described as Palm Stearine under Tariff item No. 12 or T.I. 68 of the Central Excise Tariff Act.
The judgment revolves around the classification of a product declared as Palm Stearine in the classification list. The key issue is whether this product should be classified under Tariff item No. 12 or T.I. 68 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. The appellant argued that the product was actually Olein part of Palm Oil, not Palm Stearine, as some quantity of Olein part adhered to the crude stearine imported. The Assistant Collector initially approved the classification under Tariff item 12, but later issued a show cause notice proposing a change to Tariff item 68, claiming the product was a fraction oil obtained through fractionation, not a V.N.E. oil. The appellant contended that they were not adequately informed of this ground and were not given a chance to provide evidence. The judgment highlights the importance of natural justice principles and remands the matter for a fresh decision, emphasizing the need for a fair opportunity to present evidence and be heard.
The appellant's argument focused on the nature of the product, asserting that it was only the olein part of Palm Oil, not stearine. They claimed that the product was mistakenly declared as Palm Stearine when it was actually sold as a cooking medium. The appellant cited a relevant case to support their classification under Tariff item 12. On the other hand, the respondent argued that the classification list identified the product as fully Neutralised and Bleached Palm Stearine, not Palmolein, and referenced a case to differentiate between Palm stearine and Palm oil. The judgment notes that the appellants were asked to show cause against the proposed classification change, which was based on the product being a fraction oil obtained through fractionation, not satisfying the characteristics of V.N.E. oil under Tariff item 12.
The judgment delves into the classification criteria, distinguishing between V.N.E. oils and Essential oils, emphasizing that V.N.E. oils are derived from vegetable origin and extracted mainly through a mechanical procedure, while the stearine in question was obtained through the process of fractionation. The Assistant Collector's order highlighted the lack of physical and functional properties of V.N.E. oil in the disputed product. The judgment also criticizes the lack of findings by the Assistant Collector on whether the product described as Palm stearine was indeed part of Palm oil, as contended by the appellants. It points out procedural errors, such as inadequate notice and misinterpretation of the appellants' response by the Collector (Appeals), leading to a violation of natural justice principles. Consequently, the judgment sets aside the impugned order and remands the matter for a fresh decision, emphasizing the importance of disclosing all evidence and providing a fair hearing to the appellants.
-
1996 (1) TMI 372
Issues Involved:
1. Classification of the goods in question (wire rods/properzi rods or aluminium wire).
2. Applicability of Notification No. 150/86 for statutory supply and Notification No. 101/88 for non-statutory supply.
3. Whether the demand is hit by limitation.
4. Imposition of penalty.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Classification of the Goods:
The appellants argued that the product in question, known as 'wire rods' in the market, should be classified under Chapter Heading 7604.10. They referenced the Supreme Court decision in Indian Aluminium Cables Limited v. Union of India and the "Indian Standard Glossary of Terms" to support their claim that properzi rods are known as wire rods. However, the Tribunal noted that Chapter Note 1(a) of Chapter 76, introduced by the Finance Bill of 1988, clearly defined 'Bars and Rods' as products not in coils, while 'Wire' is defined as products in coils. The Tribunal concluded that since the properzi rods were in coil form, they should be classified as aluminium wire under Chapter Heading 76.05. This reclassification led to an increase in duty, effective from 1-3-88 as per Section 3 of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1931.
2. Applicability of Notifications No. 150/86 and No. 101/88:
The appellants contended that they were entitled to the benefits under Notification No. 150/86 for statutory supply and Notification No. 101/88 for non-statutory supply. They argued that the duty applicable should be 13% under Serial No. 4 of Notification No. 150/86, as their product conformed to ISI-5484-1978 specifications. The Tribunal, however, held that since the product was classified as aluminium wire under Chapter Heading 76.05, the rates applicable to aluminium wire in the respective notifications would apply. Therefore, the appellants were not entitled to the benefits under the claimed notifications for wire rods.
3. Limitation:
The Department alleged suppression of facts, stating that the appellants did not declare that the properzi rods were in coil form. The appellants countered that their gate passes and invoices, which were submitted with RT 12 returns, clearly indicated the goods were in coil form. The Tribunal found that the Department was aware of the coil form from the gate passes and invoices, and thus, there was no suppression or misstatement. Consequently, the demand was deemed to be hit by limitation.
4. Imposition of Penalty:
The Tribunal acknowledged that the appellants were manufacturing wire rods, which, under the new definition effective from 1-3-88, were classified as aluminium wire. The appellants should have submitted a revised classification list reflecting this change. Given the circumstances, the Tribunal held that a penalty was imposable but considered the original penalty of Rs. 35,00,000/- to be harsh. Therefore, the penalty was reduced to Rs. 10,00,000/-.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the impugned order with modifications, confirming the reclassification of the goods as aluminium wire under Chapter Heading 76.05, applying the relevant duty rates, recognizing the demand as hit by limitation, and reducing the penalty to Rs. 10,00,000/-. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.
-
1996 (1) TMI 371
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the imported goods were 'Disposal Goods'.
2. Legality of the confiscation of goods already released under Section 47 of the Customs Act.
3. Violation of principles of natural justice in adjudication.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Whether the imported goods were 'Disposal Goods':
The core issue revolved around whether the imported Polypropylene Packing Film was classified as 'Disposal Goods'. The Department alleged that the appellants misdeclared the goods as Polypropylene Film instead of Bioxially Oriented Polypropylene Film (BOPP), which was of higher value. The Department's investigation suggested that the goods were surplus, stock lots, returned by customers, or production overruns, leading to the conclusion that they were 'Disposal Goods'.
The appellants contended that the goods were new, and merely because they were of different sizes and specifications, they could not be termed as 'Disposal Goods'. They referenced several legal precedents, including the case of Abdul Husein Mohammedally Master v. Union of India, which emphasized that new goods cannot be classified as 'Disposal Goods' solely based on their varied sizes.
The adjudicating authority's reasoning was scrutinized, particularly their reliance on a letter dated 2-3-1990 and the appellants' previous replies. It was found that these documents were not mentioned in the Show Cause Notices, violating the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal noted that the mere fact that the goods were of different sizes and specifications was insufficient to classify them as 'Disposal Goods'. Additional evidence, such as comparable prices or the condition of the goods, was necessary to substantiate this classification.
2. Legality of the confiscation of goods already released under Section 47 of the Customs Act:
The appellants argued that once goods are cleared by Customs under Section 47, they cannot be confiscated unless reviewed under Section 129 of the Act. The Tribunal referenced a similar case where it was held that an order under Section 47 attaches finality to the satisfaction of the officers that the goods are not prohibited. This finality cannot be disturbed except through a legal review process.
The Tribunal concluded that the goods released under Section 47 could not be confiscated by the adjudicating authority without following the proper review procedure. This principle was reinforced by the Tribunal's observation that the Collector of Customs had not exercised the necessary review powers under Section 129D, rendering the confiscation orders legally unsustainable.
3. Violation of principles of natural justice in adjudication:
The Tribunal noted that the adjudicating authority relied on documents not mentioned in the Show Cause Notices, specifically the letter dated 2-3-1990 and the appellants' previous replies. This reliance without prior notice to the appellants violated the principles of natural justice, as the appellants were not given an opportunity to present their defense regarding these documents.
The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court's decision in Muniyalappa v. B.M. Krishnamurthy, emphasizing that when principles of natural justice are violated, the matter should be remanded for fresh disposal. Consequently, the Tribunal remanded the case to the adjudicating authority for de novo adjudication, ensuring that the appellants are given the opportunity to address the documents in question and present their defense comprehensively.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the confiscation orders and remanded the cases for fresh adjudication. The adjudicating authority was instructed to consider the principles of natural justice, provide the appellants an opportunity to address the documents relied upon, and ensure that the de novo adjudication is conducted in accordance with the law. The Tribunal also emphasized that goods cleared under Section 47 could not be confiscated without following the proper review procedure.
-
1996 (1) TMI 370
Validity of sections 37 and 38 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 challenged - Held that:- Both the sections are valid.
It is clarified that so far as the production of goods carrier record or trip sheet or log book is concerned, production of any one of them is obligatory and cannot be dispensed with.
-
1996 (1) TMI 365
The Department appealed against an Order-in-Appeal regarding assessable value of goods captively consumed. Tribunal ruled profit should be added at 10% based on cost of production. Appeal disposed in favor of respondents.
-
1996 (1) TMI 357
Whether the price of the containers or of the packing materials is charged for separately or not, be the same as those applicable to goods contained or packed?
Held that:- The appeals are allowed and the writ petitions filed by the appellants are disposed of with the direction that the liability of the appellants for sales tax under section 5(3-D) on the gunny bags/plastic bags in which the cement manufactured by the appellants is packed for sale would have to be determined after investigation into the facts and determining what were the ingredients of the contract and the intention of the parties. The impugned order of the High Court dated December 7, 1990, would stand modified accordingly.
-
1996 (1) TMI 351
Whether existence of "mens rea" is a necessary ingredient for establishing contravention of section 10 punishable under section 23 of the FERA, 1947?
Whether section 10(1) of the FERA, 1947, is not an independent provision making its contravention, by itself punishable under section 23(1)(a) of the FERA, 1947, or whether its contravention can arise only if there is breach of some directions issued by the ' Reserve Bank of India under section 10(2) of the FERA, 1947?
Held that:- Appeal allowed. Both the questions above the judgment of the High Court, impugned in this appeal, cannot be sustained and we, accordingly, set it aside.
-
1996 (1) TMI 345
Issues:
1. Sanction for the scheme of arrangement for amalgamation sought by transferor and transferee companies.
Analysis:
The judgment involves two petitions filed by a transferor-company and a transferee-company seeking approval for a scheme of arrangement for amalgamation. The transferor-company, engaged in the manufacture of pesticides, is being amalgamated with the transferee-company, involved in the distribution of pesticides. The purpose of the amalgamation is to enhance operational efficiency and benefit both companies, their shareholders, employees, and stakeholders. Meetings of equity shareholders of both companies were held as directed by the court, and the scheme of amalgamation was unanimously approved without any modifications.
Analysis (contd.):
The Central Government raised objections related to the increase in the authorized capital of the transferee-company to accommodate the shares of the transferor-company's members and the potential classification of the transferee-company as a public company post-amalgamation. The court acknowledged the objections but ruled that post-amalgamation issues, such as an increase in the number of members, should be addressed by the transferee-company in compliance with the Companies Act. As no other objections were raised, the court found no reason to disallow the applications.
Analysis (contd.):
Considering the facts and circumstances, the court sanctioned and confirmed the scheme of arrangement for amalgamation, effective from a specified date. The order directed the dissolution of the transferor-company without winding up and mandated the delivery of a certified copy to the Registrar of Companies for necessary actions. The parties involved were granted liberty to seek court directions for implementing the scheme. The judgment concluded by ordering the petitions as per the decision, without any costs involved.
............
|
9911796707
