|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 404 Records
-
1996 (10) TMI 433
Issues: Appeal against dismissal of appeal as time-barred due to delay in filing.
In this case, the appellant filed an appeal against the order-in-appeal No. 3-ICD/93, dated 13-1-93, passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), which dismissed the appeal as time-barred. The appellant argued that they were unaware of the adjudication order dated 26-6-89 until 8-7-92 when directed by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs to deposit the confirmed amount. The appellant's authorized counsel misplaced the case file, leading to a delay in filing the appeal, which was eventually filed on 30-12-92. The appellant relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Bhag Singh v. Major Daljit Singh, emphasizing the need for a just view in considering delay under the Limitation Act. Additionally, the appellant cited the Tribunal's decision in Chatterjee Engine v. CCE, supporting the condonation of delay when papers were lost in the advocate's office. The appellant contended that the adjudication order was never communicated to them, referring to the Tribunal's ruling in Damodar Bedi v. CC, Bombay, regarding the date of communication in the absence of evidence from the department.
The Commissioner of Customs noted that the adjudication order dated 26-6-89 was dispatched to the appellant via registered post on 10-7-89, paying registration charges of Rs. 6.90. The postal receipt was attached to the despatch register. Despite the appellant's claim of receiving an attested photocopy of the adjudication order on 10-9-1992, they failed to file the appeal within the stipulated time. The Tribunal observed that the Supreme Court's judgment cited by the appellant was distinguishable as it involved agriculturists living in villages, unlike the importers in the present case. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's argument that the appeal papers were lost in the advocate's office since the record showed the adjudication order was dispatched on 10-7-89. The Tribunal found no fault in the Commissioner's decision based on the verified records, ultimately dismissing the appeal.
-
1996 (10) TMI 432
Issues:
1. Imposition of penalty under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Allegations of smuggling heroin across the Indo-Pak border.
3. Statements of co-accused linking the appellant to the recovered heroin.
4. Discharge of the appellant in the criminal case related to the heroin recovery.
Analysis:
The appellant filed an appeal against the penalty imposed by the Commissioner of Customs under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. The case involved the smuggling of heroin across the Indo-Pak border. On the night of 12/13th July, 1990, Customs officers and Border Security Force personnel found 58 kgs of heroin in gunny bags near the border. Subsequently, more heroin was recovered from a defense bunker. Statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act were recorded from individuals involved in the smuggling, implicating the appellant in bringing the heroin from Pakistan. The appellant denied any involvement, stating he only knew one of the individuals. The appellant was in custody under the Public Safety Act before the heroin recovery. The co-accused named the appellant in their statements, linking him to the smuggling operation.
The appellant's legal representative argued that there was no concrete evidence linking the appellant to the recovered heroin, and mere statements of co-accused should not be sufficient for conviction. The appellant was discharged in the criminal case related to the heroin recovery, indicating a lack of evidence against him. However, the Tribunal noted that the principles governing criminal proceedings and departmental adjudication differ. Referring to a Supreme Court case, it was established that statements made before Customs officials can be used as evidence under the Customs Act, even if they are not recorded under the Criminal Procedure Code. In this case, the statements of the co-accused directly implicated the appellant in the smuggling operation, and there was no indication of ill-will or enmity towards the appellant. Therefore, the Tribunal found no fault in the impugned order and dismissed the appeal.
-
1996 (10) TMI 431
The appellants were denied Modvat credit for receiving goods for reprocessing. They claimed they received goods for reducing thickness, not reprocessing. However, they failed to provide evidence of payment or proper documentation, leading to dismissal of the appeal. (Citation: 1996 (10) TMI 431 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI)
-
1996 (10) TMI 430
Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the application for declaration of forfeiture of shares as illegal.
2. Jurisdiction of the High Court under the Companies Act, 1956.
3. Interpretation of Section 2(11) and Section 10 of the Companies Act, 1956.
4. Applicability of common law remedies in the context of company matters.
5. Precedent cases and their relevance to the current case.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Maintainability of the Application for Declaration of Forfeiture of Shares as Illegal:
The appellants sought a declaration that the forfeiture of their shares in respondent No. 1-company was illegal. They argued that since the shares were endorsed as 'fully paid-up', they could not be forfeited even though money was due. The learned company judge held that the application was not maintainable as there was no statutory provision under which an action in respect of forfeiture of shares could be entertained by the court. The provision regarding forfeiture was only in the articles of association of the company, specifically Article 29, which outlines the procedure for forfeiture due to non-payment of call money.
2. Jurisdiction of the High Court under the Companies Act, 1956:
The appellants argued that the High Court has general jurisdiction in all matters relating to companies, as per the definition of 'court' in Section 2(11) and Section 10 of the Companies Act, 1956. However, the learned company judge concluded that Section 10(1) only specifies that in matters where the court has been conferred jurisdiction under the Act, 'court' would mean the High Court unless the matter has been notified to be within the cognizance of the District Court. There is no provision in the Companies Act vesting general authority in the High Court to deal with all matters relating to a company.
3. Interpretation of Section 2(11) and Section 10 of the Companies Act, 1956:
Section 2(11)(a) defines 'the court' with respect to any matter relating to a company as the Court having jurisdiction under the Act, as provided in Section 10. Section 10 specifies the jurisdiction of courts, indicating that the High Court has jurisdiction unless the District Court has been notified to handle the matter. The provisions show that Section 10 is not a blanket provision to assume jurisdiction over all company-related questions. The Act confers specific powers on the Court, the CLB, and the Central Government for different matters.
4. Applicability of Common Law Remedies in the Context of Company Matters:
The High Court or District Court's powers under the Companies Act are limited to rights and obligations arising under the Act. They are not designed to function as common law courts for every grievance related to a company. The jurisdiction of common law courts is not ousted except where specific rights are conferred under the Act. The learned company judge referred to the decision in Wolverhampton New Waterworks Co. v. Hawkesford, which categorizes liabilities and remedies under statutes and common law.
5. Precedent Cases and Their Relevance to the Current Case:
Several precedent cases were discussed to elucidate the jurisdiction and maintainability issues:
- In Mylavarapu Ramakrishna Rao v. Mothey Krishna Rao, it was held that the company court does not have exclusive jurisdiction in all company matters.
- In Avanthi Explosives (P.) Ltd. v. Principal Subordinate Judge, it was clarified that Section 10 specifies the court competent to deal with matters arising under the Act but does not invest the company court with jurisdiction over every matter.
- In K.K. Maheshwari v. Rockhard Building Materials Ltd., it was reiterated that the civil court has jurisdiction unless expressly or implicitly excluded.
- The decision in Nizamabad Corn Products (P.) Ltd. v. Vasudev Dalia was overruled as it incorrectly limited the jurisdiction of civil courts.
- The Supreme Court decision in Public Passenger Service Ltd. v. M.A. Khadar was distinguished as it dealt with Section 155, which no longer exists.
- The decision in Maharaj Kumar Mahendra Singh v. Lake Palace Hotels & Motels (P.) Ltd. was not concurred with, as it incorrectly assumed High Court jurisdiction for enforcing statutory rights without explicit provision in the Companies Act.
Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed with costs, and the order of stay granted on 9-9-1996 was vacated. The judgment affirmed that the High Court does not have general jurisdiction to entertain applications relating to forfeiture of shares made under the articles of association, and such matters should be pursued through common law remedies.
-
1996 (10) TMI 428
Issues:
1. Interpretation of conditions in exemption notification.
2. Impact of subsequent amendment notification.
3. Retrospective effect of subsequent notification.
4. Compliance with conditions for availing exemption.
Interpretation of conditions in exemption notification:
The case involves an appeal against an order related to availing exemption under a specific notification for manufacturing gases. The issue revolves around the conditions stipulated in the notification, particularly concerning the eligibility criteria for Small Scale Industry (SSI) units and the impact of subsequent amendments on entitlement to the exemption. The appellants argued that they were entitled to the exemption under the initial notification and subsequent amendments affected their eligibility.
Impact of subsequent amendment notification:
A subsequent amendment notification excluded manufacturers registered with the Directorate General of Technical Development (DGTD) from availing the exemption. The appellants continued to avail the exemption despite this amendment, leading to a demand for recovery by the department. However, a subsequent notification was issued, restoring the status quo ante subject to fulfilling specific conditions. The appellants contended that they were entitled to the benefit under this new notification, which essentially nullified the impact of the previous amendment.
Retrospective effect of subsequent notification:
The subsequent notification, No. 174/89, was analyzed in terms of its retrospective application. The notification referred to public interest and set conditions based on past financial years, indicating a retrospective effect in allowing the benefit to be availed of. The government's intention was inferred from the language of the notification and its reference to specific financial years, suggesting a retrospective nature in certain aspects.
Compliance with conditions for availing exemption:
The tribunal examined whether the appellants met the conditions specified in the subsequent notification, No. 174/89, for availing the exemption. It was established that the appellants had availed the benefit of the initial notification during the relevant financial year and that the aggregate value of their clearances met the stipulated criteria. As a result, the tribunal concluded that the appellants had fulfilled the conditions outlined in the subsequent notification, rendering them re-entitled to the exemption benefit. The demand for recovery was deemed unnecessary, and the appeal was accepted based on the compliance with the conditions for availing the exemption.
-
1996 (10) TMI 421
Whether the High Court should have held that the amount of excise duty paid by the assessee/purchaser directly to the Central Excise Department on petroleum products owned by the assessee at the stage of removal from the bonded warehouses ought to have been treated as part of the taxable turnover of the purchaser within the meaning of section 5-A of the Act?
Whether the High Court ought to have held that shell hexane and special boiling point spirit were liable to tax at the rate applicable to the detergents and therefore under entry 57B of the First Schedule to the Act?
Held that:- Appeals allowed and petitions dismissed.
-
1996 (10) TMI 416
Issues Involved:
1. Sanction of a scheme of amalgamation under sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956.
2. Compliance with statutory formalities for the scheme.
3. Objections to the exchange ratio and valuation methods.
4. Allegations of unfairness and procedural irregularities.
5. Legal principles governing the court's sanction of the scheme.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Sanction of a Scheme of Amalgamation
The application was made under sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, for sanction of a scheme of amalgamation between Kusum Products Ltd. and Kusum Agrotech Ltd. The entire undertaking of Kusum Agrotech Ltd., including all assets and liabilities, was to be transferred to and vested in Kusum Products Ltd.
2. Compliance with Statutory Formalities
Separate meetings of the equity shareholders of both companies were held on August 4, 1995, following a court order dated June 28, 1995. The meetings were convened to consider and approve the scheme of amalgamation. The scheme was approved by the requisite majority of the shareholders of both companies, with no complaints regarding non-receipt of notice or defects in the explanatory statement. The statutory formalities were duly complied with, and the petition under section 391(2) was properly made for sanction of the scheme.
3. Objections to the Exchange Ratio and Valuation Methods
Tamal Kumar Majumdar, who purchased 100 equity shares after the scheme was propounded, opposed the scheme, arguing that the ratio of exchange was unfair to the equity shareholders of Kusum Agrotech Ltd. He contended that the valuer did not follow the Central Government guidelines regarding valuation of shares and did not consider contingent liabilities. The court noted that the valuation was made by a reputed firm of chartered accountants and that no proper charge of fraud was established.
4. Allegations of Unfairness and Procedural Irregularities
The objections raised by Tamal Kumar Majumdar included:
- Unfair exchange ratio.
- Valuer not considering auditor's remarks and contingent liabilities.
- Non-compliance with Central Government guidelines on share valuation.
- Procedural irregularities in the appointment of the scrutineer and reliance on interested parties.
The court found that the objections did not demonstrate manifest unreasonableness or fraud. The valuation methods adopted were consistent with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Hindustan Lever Employees' Union v. Hindustan Lever Ltd.
5. Legal Principles Governing the Court's Sanction of the Scheme
The court emphasized that if statutory formalities are complied with, and the scheme is fair and reasonable, the court would proceed to sanction the scheme. The onus lies on those opposing the scheme to prove it is unfair, unreasonable, or fraudulent. The court referred to several precedents, including Hindustan General Electric Corporation Ltd., In re, and Sussex Brick Co. Ltd., In re, which support the principle that the court should not interfere with the business decision of the shareholders unless there is manifest unreasonableness or fraud.
Conclusion
The court concluded that the scheme of amalgamation was fair and reasonable, and all statutory formalities were complied with. The objections raised did not demonstrate any manifest unreasonableness or fraud. Therefore, the court sanctioned the scheme of amalgamation and dismissed the objections raised by Tamal Kumar Majumdar. The petitioners were ordered to pay costs assessed at 100 G. Ms. to the Central Government. The request for a stay of the operation of the order was denied.
-
1996 (10) TMI 415
Issues:
1. Liability of an individual as a mere employee in a financial transaction.
2. Scope of revisional powers under section 18 of the Small Causes Courts Act.
3. Consideration of the aspect of limitation in a civil suit.
Analysis:
The judgment concerns a Civil Revision Petition (C. R. P.) where the petitioner challenged a decree passed against them in a suit related to a financial transaction. The petitioner, a former employee of a finance company, was held liable for a deposit amount based on a signed receipt. The petitioner argued that as an employee, they should not be held responsible for the financial dealings of the company. The court analyzed the nature of the petitioner's role in the company and concluded that being an employee, the liability cannot be fastened on them for the financial obligations of the company. The court emphasized that for liability to be established in such cases, it must be demonstrated that the amount was received or entrusted to the individual directly. The court highlighted the distinction between liability for directors, proprietors, or partners as opposed to mere employees in financial transactions.
Regarding the scope of revisional powers under section 18 of the Small Causes Courts Act, the court referred to a previous decision to explain the broader scope of review available to the High Court in such cases. The court clarified that under section 18, a total review of the order is permissible, allowing all relevant points to be raised and examined. The petitioner's advocate utilized this provision to refer to various parts of the record and evidence in the case.
Another issue raised was the aspect of limitation in the civil suit. The petitioner's advocate argued that the suit was time-barred, citing relevant case law. The court acknowledged the importance of considering limitation issues even if not explicitly raised by the parties. The court emphasized the duty of the court to examine all aspects of a case, including limitation, and the responsibility of litigants and advocates to bring such issues to the court's attention. Despite the limitation aspect not being highlighted earlier, the court noted the possibility of extensions due to acknowledgments, emphasizing the need for thorough scrutiny by all parties involved.
Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of the petitioner, setting aside the decree passed against them due to their status as a mere employee in the company. The C. R. P. succeeded on this ground, with no order as to costs being issued.
-
1996 (10) TMI 401
Issues:
Whether the value of tool kits is to be added to the value of two-wheelers and three-wheelers manufactured by the assessee.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Issue of Assessable Value:
The primary issue in this case was whether the value of tool kits should be included in the assessable value of two-wheelers and three-wheelers manufactured by the assessee. The Assistant Collector had initially held that the tool kit is a part of the motor vehicle and should be considered in determining the assessable value. However, the party contended that tool kits are bought-out items and not manufactured by them. The Collector (Appeals) in two cases agreed with the party's argument that the cost of these bought-out items should not be added to the assessable value, while in another case, the Collector disagreed.
2. Consolidation of Cases:
Since the issue in all three cases was similar, they were clubbed together for a common order. This consolidation allowed for a comprehensive analysis of the legal arguments and evidence presented in each case.
3. Arguments and Counterarguments:
Both parties strongly presented their contentions before the Tribunal. The Department argued that the tool kits were cleared along with the vehicles based on the invoices provided by the party. On the other hand, the party's advocate contended that the tool kits were not supplied with the vehicles and referenced previous Tribunal decisions to support their position.
4. Tribunal's Decision:
After careful consideration of the facts, records, and legal arguments presented by both sides, the Tribunal disagreed with the Assistant Collector's view that the tool kit is a part of the vehicle. The Tribunal concurred with the Collector (Appeals) in the cases where it was held that the tool kits were bought-out items not supplied along with the vehicles. The Tribunal accepted the arguments of the assessee based on relevant case law and dismissed the appeals filed by the department while allowing the appeal filed by the party in one case. The cross-objections filed by the respondents in the first two cases were also disposed of accordingly.
In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision clarified that tool kits, being bought-out items and not integral parts of the vehicles manufactured by the assessee, should not be included in the assessable value. The judgment provided a clear interpretation of the law in this context and resolved the issue in favor of the party appealing the decision of the Collector.
-
1996 (10) TMI 394
Liability for sales tax - Held that:- Appeal allowed. There is no endorsement on the bill of lading in favour of STC that would suggest transference to it of title in the tea. There is, therefore, nothing in the contract between the appellants and STC or in the manner of its execution that establishes that there was a transfer of the property in the tea by the appellants to STC before it was transferred to the Iranian buyer. Hence, the purchase of the tea by the appellants at the auctions in fulfilment of the export obligation to the Iranian buyer was the penultimate sale in the course of export and covered by the terms of section 5(3). It was, accordingly, exempt from the payment of sales tax.
-
1996 (10) TMI 387
Validity of statement was made on oath on behalf of the State Government - Held that:- Appeal allowed. As the State Government made a statement on oath before the High Court that was incorrect and the judgment of the High Court accepts and proceeds upon the basis of that statement. The High Court's judgment must, therefore, be set aside and the matter remanded to the High Court to be heard and decided afresh.
-
1996 (10) TMI 383
Whether "special boiling point spirit" and "shell hexane" are liable to be assessed at single point under Schedule I of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, or on multi-point scheme of taxation under section 5(1)(ii) of the said Act, read, in either case, with the provisions of section 5(1) of the Act?
Held that:- Appeal allowed. The ultimate conclusion reached by the High Court that the brand of petrol having a flashing point below 24.4 degrees centigrade falls within item 57B in Schedule I is correct. After reaching that conclusion we find it difficult to appreciate why the High Court allowed the assessees' revision and remanded the cases to the Tribunal. Presumably the High Court overlooked the fact that it was admitted that the substances in question fell within the definition of "petrol" under section 2(xvii). Once the High Court found that they fell within item 57B in the First Schedule the levy on these substances would be in accordance with and at the rate stated in the said Schedule against the said item.
-
1996 (10) TMI 379
Whether under the facts and circumstances of the present case, the transfer of article by the respondent-assessee to its customers under the scheme floated by it constitute a sale against payment of price of that article?
Held that:- Appeal allowed. All the attributes, characteristics and requirements of a sale are present in the transaction. In fact the transaction is so designed and framed by the company by adopting a circuitous method for sale of their goods which amounts to nothing but a sale, and the same is liable to assessment under the Act. This view is further strengthened from the fact that during the relevant assessment year the respondent-company sent articles to its various customers under the scheme of the value of Rs. 1,36,665, which were purchased by the respondent-company for a sum of Rs. 1,03,709.25 and, thus, earned a profit to the tune of Rs. 32,955.75. The business so run by the respondent is with a view to earn profit out of the sale by adopting a circuitous device with a view to evade the payment of tax. Thus the High Court, therefore, was not justified in taking the view that it was not a sale transaction assessable to tax.
-
1996 (10) TMI 372
Issues Involved:
1. Legality, enforceability, and binding nature of the arbitration agreement.
2. Basis of the arbitration agreement's legal and valid status.
3. Limitation period for the petition under section 33.
4. Maintainability of the petition under section 33.
5. Entitlement of the petitioner to the reliefs sought.
6. Relief to which the petitioner is entitled.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
Issue No. 4: Maintainability of the Petition
Dr. Ghosh, counsel for the respondents, argued that under section 33 of the Arbitration Act, a contract cannot be declared invalid or set aside. He highlighted that the petitioner challenged the entire contract, not just the arbitration clause, referencing the Calcutta High Court decision in *State of Bombay v. Adamjee Hajee Dawood & Co.* and the Supreme Court decision in *Orient Transport Co. v. Jaya Bharat Credit & Investment Co. Ltd.*, which held that only the arbitration agreement could be challenged under section 33. The petitioner's counsel, Mr. Shakdhar, countered by stating that a civil suit would not lie to challenge the existence or validity of an arbitration agreement, referencing decisions in *Khardah Ltd. v. Raymon Co. (India) (P.) Ltd.*, *Waverly Jute Mills Co. Ltd. v. Raymon Co. (India) (P.) Ltd.*, *U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd. v. Indure (P.) Ltd.*, and *Renusagar Power Co. v. General Electric Co.*. The court found that the petitioner primarily challenged the entire contract and not independently the arbitration agreement. However, considering the arguments, the court decided to address the issue of the arbitration agreement's applicability.
Issue No. 3: Limitation Period for the Petition
The lease agreements were entered into in 1983, 1984, and 1986, and the petition under sections 32 and 33 was filed in March 1993. The limitation period for filing such an application is three years, as per article 137 of the Limitation Act. The respondent argued that the petition was time-barred, as the petitioner had knowledge of the lease agreements and the arbitration reference by 1990. The petitioner claimed that the present management only gained full control in November 1988 and had no prior knowledge of the agreements. The court held that the petitioner, being a legal entity, had knowledge of the agreements and the arbitration proceedings by 1988 and 1990, respectively. Therefore, the petition filed in 1993 was barred by limitation.
Issues Nos. 1 and 2: Legality and Validity of the Arbitration Agreement
The petitioner argued that the lease agreements and the arbitration clauses were invalid as they were not executed by an authorized person and were signed by the same individual on behalf of both companies. The respondent countered by citing the articles of association and a letter from the chairman authorizing the execution of the agreements. The court found that the articles of association empowered directors to enter into contracts and that the agreements were ratified by the petitioner's actions, such as making rental payments. The court also referenced the doctrine of indoor management and the principle that one person can enter into an agreement with himself and others, as upheld in *LIC v. India Automobiles & Co.*. Thus, the arbitration agreements were deemed valid and binding.
Issues Nos. 5 and 6: Entitlement to Reliefs
Given the findings on the previous issues, the court concluded that the petitioner was not entitled to any relief. The lease agreements and the arbitration clauses were valid and binding, and the petition was dismissed with costs.
Conclusion:
The petition challenging the validity and existence of the arbitration clause was dismissed. The court held that the arbitration agreements were valid, enforceable, and binding, and the petition was barred by limitation. The petitioner's claims were not upheld, and no relief was granted.
-
1996 (10) TMI 370
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of NSE's postponement of Settlement No. 27.
2. Authority and jurisdiction of SEBI and NSE in the matter.
3. Rights of the petitioners (investors) in relation to the postponed settlement.
4. Validity of the investigation and actions taken by NSE and SEBI.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Legality of NSE's Postponement of Settlement No. 27:
The petitioners, investors who sold shares through stock brokers affiliated with NSE, challenged NSE's action of postponing Settlement No. 27 and conducting a special Settlement No. 11, which delayed the payment of monies for shares sold between 3-7-1996 and 9-7-1996. NSE justified the postponement on the grounds of suspected fraud and market manipulation involving the shares of Maruthi Organics Ltd. (MOL). NSE received numerous complaints about a well-planned fraud involving the manipulation of MOL's share prices, leading to its decision to defer the settlement and conduct an investigation. The court found that the reasons given by NSE for postponing the settlement were neither irrelevant nor insufficient, and the action was not taken for any oblique or extraneous considerations. Therefore, the court held that NSE's decision to postpone Settlement No. 27 was within its jurisdiction and justified under Regulation 2.16 of Part B of NSE Capital Market Trading Regulations, 1994.
2. Authority and Jurisdiction of SEBI and NSE in the Matter:
SEBI, established under the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992, has the duty to protect investors' interests and regulate the securities market. SEBI's powers include investigating fraudulent and unfair trade practices under the SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices Relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 1995. SEBI supported NSE's action in postponing the settlement, citing the large number of complaints and the need for a thorough investigation. SEBI directed NSE to suspend trading in MOL shares and conduct an investigation, which NSE complied with. The court noted that SEBI's directions to NSE were within its statutory powers and justified given the circumstances. SEBI's investigation into the matter was ongoing, and it had appointed an investigating officer to submit a report.
3. Rights of the Petitioners (Investors) in Relation to the Postponed Settlement:
The petitioners argued that NSE's postponement of Settlement No. 27 was arbitrary, discriminatory, and beyond its authority. They contended that NSE's action was a colorable exercise of power and that the indefinite postponement was unjust. NSE countered that the petitioners, being non-trading members, were not entitled to question its actions and should seek redressal through the grievance procedure prescribed in the contract note. The court rejected NSE's contention, stating that the petitioners could not be relegated to seeking redressal elsewhere until a final decision was taken on Settlement No. 27. The court held that NSE, being a public body performing a public duty, was amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
4. Validity of the Investigation and Actions Taken by NSE and SEBI:
NSE conducted a preliminary investigation based on the complaints received and submitted a report to SEBI. SEBI, in turn, initiated its own investigation and appointed an investigating officer. The court found that NSE's postponement of the settlement was an interim measure pending the investigation and that NSE was justified in taking such action. However, the court emphasized that the postponement could not be indefinite and directed NSE to take a final decision on Settlement No. 27 within two months. The court also noted that SEBI had not issued any directions restraining NSE from taking a decision based on its investigation report.
Conclusion:
The court upheld NSE's decision to postpone Settlement No. 27, finding it justified and within its jurisdiction. It directed NSE to take a final decision on the settlement within two months, emphasizing that the postponement could not be indefinite. The court also recognized SEBI's authority and ongoing investigation into the matter, stating that SEBI's actions were within its statutory powers and justified. The petitioners' rights to seek redressal were acknowledged, but the court held that they could not do so until a final decision was made on the settlement.
-
1996 (10) TMI 367
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the extraordinary general meeting (EOGM) and the resolutions passed therein.
2. Jurisdiction of the Company Law Board (CLB) post-final order in the main petition.
3. Allegations of oppression and mismanagement.
4. Applicability of Section 284 of the Companies Act regarding the removal of directors.
5. Maintainability of the appeals filed by the directors.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of the EOGM and Resolutions:
The EOGM was held on October 19, 1994, under the observation of an independent observer appointed by the CLB. The chairman of the meeting, an employee of Shaw Wallace Company, declared certain resolutions as infructuous and split one resolution into seven parts concerning the removal of directors appointed after June 1, 1993. The CLB found that the chairman's decision to allow votes by alleged transferees and pledgees was improper. The Board declared the resolutions for the removal of directors as passed, emphasizing that the original owners of the shares had the right to vote.
2. Jurisdiction of the CLB Post-Final Order:
The CLB retained seisin over the matter even after the final order in Company Petition No. 44 of 1993, allowing it to pass subsequent orders. The Board's jurisdiction extended to ensuring the proper conduct of the EOGM and addressing any issues arising from it. The inherent powers under Regulation 44 of the Company Law Board Regulations, 1991, were invoked to meet the ends of justice and prevent abuse of process.
3. Allegations of Oppression and Mismanagement:
The CLB and the High Court found substantial evidence of oppression and mismanagement by the board of directors under the influence of the ninth respondent. The fraudulent increase in share capital and the improper inclusion of names in the register of members were highlighted. The CLB's decision to remove the directors and allow the majority shareholders to exercise their rights was aimed at rectifying these issues and restoring proper management.
4. Applicability of Section 284 of the Companies Act:
The appellants argued that the removal of directors without individual notice violated Section 284 of the Companies Act. However, the court held that the principles of natural justice did not apply in this context as the complaint was against the entire board, not individual directors. The resolution's validity was upheld, and the CLB's authority to remove the directors under Sections 397 and 402 of the Companies Act was affirmed.
5. Maintainability of Appeals by the Directors:
The appellants contended that the appeals were not maintainable as the directors had ceased to hold office. However, the court noted that the interim stay order obtained by the appellants prevented the implementation of the CLB's order, allowing the directors to file appeals. The appeals were found to be maintainable.
Conclusion:
The High Court dismissed all the appeals, confirming the CLB's order. The court directed the appellants to hand over charge to the newly appointed board within two weeks. The judgment emphasized the CLB's broad powers under Sections 397 and 402 of the Companies Act to address issues of oppression and mismanagement and ensure the proper conduct of the company's affairs.
-
1996 (10) TMI 365
The High Court of Bombay allowed Company Petition No. 11-S/96 and Company Petition No. 12-S/96 for amalgamation. The Official Liquidator and Regional Director did not oppose the scheme. The Companies complied with the Companies Act, and each petitioner must pay Rs. 1,000 to the Official Liquidator. The order was transcribed in Form No. 41 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959.
-
1996 (10) TMI 363
Issues Involved:
1. Refusal to register the transfer of shares.
2. Interpretation and effect of Section 153 of the Companies Act, 1956.
3. Interpretation and effect of Section 187C of the Companies Act, 1956.
4. Applicability of SEBI (Mutual Funds) Regulations, 1993.
5. Legal status of trusts in holding shares.
Detailed Analysis:
Refusal to Register the Transfer of Shares:
The appellants were aggrieved by the refusal of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (BPCL) to register the transfer of 400 equity shares from the first appellant to the second appellant. The refusal was upheld by the Company Law Board (CLB), leading to this appeal under Section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956.
Interpretation and Effect of Section 153 of the Companies Act, 1956:
Section 153 mandates that a company cannot take notice of any trust, expressed, implied, or constructive, for the purpose of entering it in the Register of Members. BPCL's Standing Committee refused the registration based on this provision, stating that the shares could not be registered in the name of "Stock Holding Corporation of India Ltd. (A/c Morgan Stanley Growth Fund)" because it would imply taking notice of a trust, which is prohibited by Section 153.
Interpretation and Effect of Section 187C of the Companies Act, 1956:
Section 187C, introduced to avoid benami holdings, requires declarations from persons not holding beneficial interest in any share. The appellants argued that Section 187C dilutes the effect of Section 153, allowing for the registration of shares in the name of trustees with a note of the beneficial owner. However, BPCL contended that Section 153 was not repealed or diluted by Section 187C. The court agreed with BPCL, stating that while Section 187C mandates noting the beneficial owner's details in the Register of Members, it does not override the prohibition in Section 153 against taking notice of trusts for registration purposes.
Applicability of SEBI (Mutual Funds) Regulations, 1993:
The appellants argued that SEBI (Mutual Funds) Regulations prescribe how assets should be held by a mutual fund, implying that the shares should be registered in the name of the second appellant. However, the court noted that SEBI regulations and the Companies Act operate in separate fields. The SEBI Act does not supersede the mandatory provisions of Section 153 of the Companies Act, and there is no inconsistency between the two.
Legal Status of Trusts in Holding Shares:
The court reiterated that a trust, such as Morgan Stanley Growth Fund (MSGF), is not a legal entity capable of holding shares in its own name. Shares must be held in the name of trustees, without adding statements indicating they are trustees. The court upheld BPCL's decision to refuse the registration of shares in the name of "SHCOIL A/c MSGF" because it would imply taking notice of a trust, which is prohibited by Section 153.
Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed with costs, affirming the decision of the CLB and BPCL's Standing Committee. The court held that Section 153's prohibition on taking notice of trusts for registration purposes remains mandatory and was not diluted by the introduction of Section 187C. The SEBI regulations do not override the provisions of the Companies Act, and trusts cannot hold shares in their own name.
-
1996 (10) TMI 347
Oppression and mismanagement - Held that:- Appeal dismissed. Perusing the report filed by the Registrar of Companies which shows that no substance was, ultimately, found therein. We agree with the Division Bench that this was no case for winding up the company and must dismiss the appeal filed by Mehra.
Insofar as Dubey's appeal is concerned Division Bench found that Dubey had appropriated to himself moneys belonging to the company. Mehra's presence on the Board would prevent a recurrence, thus protecting Mehra's interest and that of the company. We, therefore, find no substance in Dubey's appeal.
-
1996 (10) TMI 340
Issues:
1. Recovery of wrongly utilized Modvat credit under Rule 57-I of Central Excise Rules.
2. Validity of certificates issued by Hindustan Zinc Ltd. as duty-paying documents.
3. Application of limitation period under Rule 57-I for credit taken before August 1989.
4. Acceptance of certificates issued by Public Sector Undertakings as duty paying documents.
Analysis:
1. The case involved the appellants, engaged in manufacturing dry cell batteries, torches, etc., who utilized Modvat credit for duty paid on inputs. The dispute arose when a show cause notice was issued for recovery of Rs. 1,33,769.54 wrongly utilized as Modvat credit under Rule 57-I of the Central Excise Rules. The Assistant Collector confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 1,30,368, which was upheld by the Collector (Appeals), leading to the present appeal.
2. The appellants argued that certificates from Hindustan Zinc Ltd. were valid duty-paying documents, supported by past Tribunal orders. They contended that the certificates mentioned both basic and special excise duty, justifying their claim for special excise duty credit. However, the authorities maintained that the deemed credit already availed covered both duties, and additional credit was not permissible.
3. The issue of limitation under Rule 57-I was raised by the appellants, claiming that the notice was time-barred for credits taken before August 1989. The lower authorities rejected this plea, citing provisional assessment as the basis for disregarding the limitation period. The Tribunal disagreed, emphasizing that the starting point of limitation should be the date of taking credit, not the provisional assessment date.
4. The Tribunal analyzed the acceptance of certificates issued by Public Sector Undertakings as duty-paying documents. While certain instructions limited the acceptance to specific entities, no government order withdrew the facility for certificates from Hindustan Zinc Ltd. The Tribunal highlighted the practical challenges faced by users in obtaining gate passes, supporting the appellants' reliance on certificates and invoices. Considering the absence of any withdrawal of the facility for such certificates, the Tribunal set aside the duty demand, allowing the appeal.
............
|
9911796707
