|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 410 Records
-
1998 (12) TMI 487 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Public deposits ... ... ... ... ..... we find that there is absolutely no explanation for the delay found in the application filed. Therefore, in such circumstances, the order of the lower court dismissing the application cannot be questioned, as it is a proper exercise of discretion by the lower court. The petitioner just because a Government department, cannot claim any special privilege or a kid glove treatment at the hands of this court. When the applicant has no explanation to offer, the offence alleged being a technical one, the ends of justice require that this application be dismissed and accordingly this revision shall stand dismissed. In the result, this revision is dismissed confirming the order of the lower court. Since the application was filed to condone the delay against the first accused alone and as there is no bar of limitation to proceed against the other accused, the lower court is at liberty to proceed with the complaint if any preferred as against accused Nos. 2 to 6 in accordance with law.
-
1998 (12) TMI 486 - HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Oppression and mismanagement ... ... ... ... ..... ment of justice in the facts of a particular case. As I have already noted in a case where the minority shareholder complains of acts of oppression by the majority, and that is what generally happens in most of the cases, the ends of justice may require that the minority shareholder should be directed to leave the company on payment of proper compensation to him. To ask a majority shareholder who is normally entitled to run the affairs of the company to go out of the company, will not, generally speaking, meet the ends of justice, as it will indeed be unfair and unjust to deprive the majority shareholder of his valuable right for all time to come. 45. Having regard to the observations as above. We do find the user of discretion by the learned single Judge to be in accordance with the known concept of justice and cannot, by any stretch, said to be perverse warrant-ing interference by the Appellate Court and as such both the appeals fail and are dismissed. No order as to costs.
-
1998 (12) TMI 479 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the assignee has a legal right to claim performance of any part from the allottor?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. Here the agreement was entered into between the Corporation and the allottee, as a sequel to the request made by the allottee to give him an industrial plot for the purpose of setting up an industry. Corporation reciprocated to the request on being satisfied that the allottee was able to carry out the obligations so as to accomplish the purpose of allotment thus f the allottee evacuates from the scene after inducting someone else into the plot without consent of the Corporation, it is not legally permissible for the inductee to compel the Corporation to recog- nise him as the allottee.
Thus in agreement with the conclusion of the High Court that the petitioner has no locus standi to question the validity of the order of resumption.
-
1998 (12) TMI 477 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Winding up – Fraudulent preference, Avoidance of transfer, etc., after commencement of ... ... ... ... ..... such claim within a further period of six weeks. If as a result of such verification any sum is found payable by the bank to the company in liquidation, the bank shall pay the said amount with contractual rate of interest on the last of its FDRs within a period of one month thereafter. On the other hand if anything is found payable by the company in liquidation to the bank on such balancing of account, the name of the bank shall be entered in the list of unsecured creditors to be dealt with in the matter of distribution of dividends in accordance with law. The determination of such account by the official liquidator shall be subject to right of the aggrieved parties to have recourse to such remedies, as are available to them under law. With the aforesaid directions, these appeals and the company applications out of which the appeals have arisen are disposed of accordingly. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs in each of the appeals.
-
1998 (12) TMI 453 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Winding up - Suits stayed on winding up orders, Meetings - Explanatory statement to be annexed to notice
-
1998 (12) TMI 452 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Power to issue directions, ... ... ... ... ..... vil Application No. 5483 of 1996 is relegated for hearing before the Committee appointed by the SEBI and it is directed that the said Committee shall examine the case of the respondent original petitioner (D.M. Investments) on the basis of the representation, if any, and/or otherwise on the basis of the final report already given as a result of investigation, with due regard to the observations made by the learned single Judge in Para 56 at page 44-45 and para 275 at page 204-208 (relevant observations at page 206) of the judgment and order dated 19- 2-1997 passed by the learned single Judge. The committee shall submit its report to the Chairman within a period of one month from today and the Chairman shall thereupon pass the final orders in accordance with law within a period of two weeks thereafter. The Letters Patent Appeal No. 237 of 1997 (In special Civil Application No. 5483 of 1996) is partly allowed in the terms, as aforesaid. No order as to costs. SCL q MARCH 5, 1999
-
1998 (12) TMI 451 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Oppression and mismanagement, Courts - Jurisdiction of ... ... ... ... ..... ve apprehend that the annual general meeting cannot be conducted in a fair and proper manner, they are given the liberty to obtain suitable direction from the CLB for appointment of same official to convene and conduct the annual general meeting. The petition is allowed to this extent. The relief No. 3 cannot be granted because the matter is pending adjudication in Civil Court. As regards the relief No. 2, when the board of directors is constituted in the annual general meeting to be conducted, it would be open to them to take appropriate steps for recovery of properties by initiating appropriate proceedings. The other reliefs claimed are not granted. In the result, C.P. No. 45 of 1993 is allowed partly. 94. In the result, C.M.A. Nos. 1207 to 1210 and 1149 of 1998 are allowed in part as indicated above. CM.A. Nos. 1071 to 1073 of 1998 are dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs in all the appeals. Consequently, C.M.P. Nos. 10835 and 10836 of 1998 are dismissed.
-
1998 (12) TMI 450 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Windig up - Suits stayed on winding up order, Meetings & proceedings ... ... ... ... ..... ed and the official liquidator will be at liberty to act in accordance with the order, dated 17-1-1997, passed by Pandit, J. He is expected to move at the earliest in accordance with law so as to safeguard the properties of the company and along therewith he will take steps to make inventory and to provide appropriate security. This application is accordingly dismissed. 41. Mr. Mehta applies for stay of this order. The directors of the applicant (other than one Jayesh R. Shah) have not filed the undertaking to protect the property though directed by Balia, J., on 6-8-1997. It is, therefore, not possible to entertain this request. Mr. Shah for the official liquidator however states that the official liquidator will move to take possession of the property only after a copy of this order is available. He further states that he will wait for 48 hours after receipt of a copy of the order. Hence, no stay as sought for. Liberty to the parties to apply in the event of any difficulty.
-
1998 (12) TMI 447 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Constitutional validity, Enforcement of orders by Forum/Commission, ... ... ... ... ..... to the civil court of competent jurisdiction for execution of the said order. Upon receipt of the such order, the civil court shall have the powers to execute the order treating it symbolically as a decree of the civil court by having resort to the provisions as incorporated under Part II and Order XXI. 16. Under the circumstances, Writ Petition No. 30194 of 1996 being totally misconceived is dismissed and rule discharged. Writ Petition No. 30149 of 1996 is partly allowed to the extent and in the light of observations made in para 15. Till the Act is amended, the order passed under the Act, if not executed upon notice shall be executable by the civil court after the District Forum and the Commissions under the Act record their inability to execute and send the same for execution to the civil court having jurisdiction in terms of clauses (a) and (b) of section 25. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 30194 of 1996 is held liable to pay costs of Rs. 5,000. 17. Order accordingly.
-
1998 (12) TMI 433 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... pra). We do not see any reason to disagree with the above view of the Larger Bench of this Tribunal and hold that deduction while calculating the value of the captively consumed input will be admissible in respect of duty paid as additional/Countervailing duty on the inputs. 13. emsp In so far as deduction of commission to consignment stockists is concerned, we note that the appellants case is fully covered by the decisions of this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Eicher Motors Ltd. and M/s. Escorts Limited (supra). So also can be said about the decision of the Apex Court in the case of M/s. Duphar Interfran Ltd. as also the decision of this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Polyboard India Limited (supra). 14. emsp Having regard to the above decisions, we hold that commission paid to consignment stockists shall be admissible as a deduction from composite price. In this view of the matter, the impugned order is modified to the extent stated above the appeal is disposed of accordingly.
-
1998 (12) TMI 432 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Rectification of mistake ... ... ... ... ..... filed an ROM application and by majority order, the appeal was allowed. After passing of the orders on the ROM application, the rectifying order merged with the earlier un-rectified order and the original order was to be read as rectified. 4. emsp The Tribunal had analysed the matter in all relevant aspects and had observed that there was no mis-declaration or suppression of facts or violation of Rule 196 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Tribunal came to a decision that the appeal filed by M/s. DIL merited acceptance. The Tribunal specifically observed that their decision on the ROM application filed by M/s. DIL did not amount to review or re-appraisal of the evidence. 5. emsp The Tribunal had taken a considered view in the matter and we do not consider that the final order as rectified suffered from any mistake which called for rectification in terms of the ROM application filed by the Revenue. We do not find any merit in this ROM application and the same is rejected.
-
1998 (12) TMI 431 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... the transit insurance is only for movement of the goods from the factory gate till the first destination point. As the Supreme Court in the MRF case, has held that all the depots expenses have to be taken into account. Insurance of goods at the depots would be covered by the said judgment. We find that the Apex Court rsquo s judgment in the case of MRF, does not deal specifically with the deductions on account of insurance of goods lying at the depots. This judgment was not before the adjudicating authority at the time of passing of the order and as such his comments in view of this judgment are not available. We find it to be a fit case for remanding to the adjudicating authority for de novo decision in the light of the Apex Court rsquo s judgment in the case of MRF. Accordingly, we remand the case on this limited point of insurance expenses to the Commissioner of Central Excise for fresh decision in the light of our above observations. Appeal disposed of in the above terms.
-
1998 (12) TMI 430 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Confiscation and penalty - Misdeclaration ... ... ... ... ..... hat the actual value of the imported goods was much more and that the value shown in the invoice was a reduced value for replacement warranty. He submitted that the lower authorities had acted strictly in accordance with law and, therefore, prayed that the impugned order may be upheld. 5. emsp Heard the submissions of both sides. We find that the appellants had prepared the Bill of Entry on the basis of invoices. We note that in the invoices the value given was the reduced value on account of the warranty allowed by the foreign supplier. We are of the view that it was a bona fide mistake and we note that the appellants came out truthfully as and when they were asked to produce the requisite documents. Looking to all the facts and circumstances of the case, we confirm the demand of duties confiscation and imposition of penalty are set aside. The Appellants shall be entitled to consequential relief, if any, in accordance with law. 6. emsp The Appeal is disposed of in the terms.
-
1998 (12) TMI 429 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Valuation - Deductions ... ... ... ... ..... d before us a decision of the Tribunal passed in the case of Incab Industries Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Patna - 1998 (98) E.L.T. 560 wherein it has been held that where the contract provided for the price less Modvat element, the assessable value should also reflect the price agreed to in the contract. Shri Nankani explains to us that this is a case where Part II price list has been filed before the authorities. He, therefore, argues that the position has been settled by the decision of the Tribunal cited supra. 4. emsp The learned departmental representative adopts the reasoning given in the impugned orders. 5. emsp We have considered the rival submissions and find that the issue has been settled by the decision of the Tribunal in Incab Industries Ltd. v. CCE (supra). Hence following the same we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order relating to the disallowance of the deduction of the Modvat credit Rs 60/- claimed by the appellant. Ordered accordingly.
-
1998 (12) TMI 428 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Valuation - Buyers in different regions - Precedent ... ... ... ... ..... e Department has not accepted the judgment of Gora Mal Hari Ram and appeal has been filed. 4. emsp We have heard both sides. After hearing them, we are of the view that the grounds taken by the Department is untenable in law. When the majority judgment holds in one way, the Department cannot seek to recourse to an observation of a minority number. Moreover, the judgment of the Mumbai High Court is binding on the Tribunal, especially on this bench, because this bench is within the jurisdiction of the Mumbai High Court. Further the Tribunal in the said case of Gora Mal Hari Ram - 1994 (69) E.L.T. 269 has followed the judgment of the Mumbai High Court. Hence following the said judgment of the Tribunal Gora Mal Hari Ram Ltd., we dismiss the appeal of the Department. 5. emsp We find that certain cross-objection has been filed. We did not find it to be a cross-objection in the real legal sense, it is a review of the assessees case. So it is also disposed off along with this appeal.
-
1998 (12) TMI 399 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
SSI Exemption ... ... ... ... ..... ector (Appeals) who held that it was not permissible for an assessee to simultaneously opt for goods of one heading and Modvat facility in respect of another heading. Hence this appeal by the appellants. 3. emsp The appellants have asked for a decision on merits. Hence we have heard the learned DR and perused the records. In the case of Faridabad Tools, the Tribunal has held that it was open to an assessee to simultaneously avail of exemption in terms of Notification for goods for one heading and Modvat facility in respect of goods of another heading. The order of the Tribunal has been upheld by the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court. Subsequently, the Tribunal has throughout taken the view as expressed above. Following the ratio of the earlier order, we hold that there is no prohibition in law against simultaneously availing of exemption for goods falling under one heading and modvat facility in respect of goods of another heading, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
-
1998 (12) TMI 390 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... bottlers and not for their final product namely, soft drink concentrate will not be includible in the assessable value of the concentrates manufactured by the appellants. As regards royalty charges for use of brand name by the bottlers on the beverage products manufactured by them from the concentrates purchase from the appellants, being an extra accrual over and above price collected for the sale of concentrate, would be includible in the assessable value of concentrates. 3. emsp The prayer of the appellants in the present Appeal is for setting aside the portion of the impugned order in Appeal relating to the issue of includibility of royalty charges in the assessable value. 4. emsp Shri K. Shiv Kumar, Ld. JDR appeared for the Department and reiterated the findings of the Collector (Appeals). 5. emsp Following the Tribunal decision in the appellant rsquo s own case reported in 1996 (82) E.L.T. 33, we find no merit in the present Appeal and the Appeal is accordingly rejected.
-
1998 (12) TMI 383 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... of their products supplied to the Canteen Stores Department. In the price lists, they claimed deductions from the wholesale price on account of the following viz. (i) instruction manuals, (ii) soft cases, (iii) freight and insurance and (iv) excise duty. The Assistant Collector disallowed the claims made by the appellants. An appeal filed by the appellants have been remanded by the Collector (Appeals) for working out the details. Hence, the present appeal. 3. emsp It was contended by the learned Counsel Shri R. Parthasarathy that these matters are covered by the decision of the Tribunal at New Delhi made in Appeal No. 1850/93-A (Final Order No. 1147/98, dated 20-8-98) 1999 (108) E.L.T. 523 (T) whereunder the Tribunal at Delhi had held in favour of the appellants. In fact, it is found that the decision rendered on the appellants rsquo own case. Hence, following the said judgment, we allow the appeal of the appellants and hold accordingly after setting aside the impugned order.
-
1998 (12) TMI 382 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Waste of Polyurethane foam - Dutiability - Demand - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... refore, arise for reference and the findings of the Vice-President do prevail. Sd/- (J.H. Joglekar) Member (T) FINAL ORDER In view of the majority opinion, the matter is remanded for de novo consideration in accordance with the following observations and the law. 2. The Assistant Commissioner should inter alia, determine the volume of waste which was found to be marketable and the quantity which was not found to be marketable and recalculate the liability accordingly. Further he should keep in view that as per the majority opinion top skin, bottom skin and side skin cut from PU foam blocks merited coverage under Notification 53/88 he should further determine whether the goods, if any, were cleared for destruction and depending upon the finding in this regard deal with the matter appropriately. He should also keep in view that malafides had not been proved and, therefore, there was no cause for penalty. Sd/- (Jyoti Balasundaram) Member (J) Sd/- (S.K. Bhatnagar) Vice President
-
1998 (12) TMI 381 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Rate of customs duty - Vessel meant for off-shore drilling - Customs exemption - Demand - Limitation - Penalty
............
|
