|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 520 Records
-
2002 (11) TMI 672 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Transfer of pending cases ... ... ... ... ..... is is what happened when the Central Administrative Tribunal was established. All cases pending in the High Courts stood transferred. Now that exclusive jurisdiction is vested in the Banking Tribunal, it is only in that Forum that Bank cases can be tried and, therefore, a provision like Section 31 was enacted. Emphasis supplied 9. Thus, by virtue of section 31 of the Act, the suit and all proceedings emanating therefrom stood transferred to the DRT constituted under the Act. Therefore, the application for setting aside ex parte decree dated 20-2-1998 or any other previous order passed during the trial could be moved only before the DRT instituted under the Act and not in this Court. For the foregoing reasons, application is rejected. Any observation made herein shall not affect the merits of the application, when moved before the Court of competent jurisdiction. I.A. No. 5972/2002 For the reasons stated in I.A. No. 5971/2002, this application is dismissed as not maintainable.
-
2002 (11) TMI 671 - HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Winding up - Circumstances in which a company may be wound up ... ... ... ... ..... into a winding up for one or two defaults. In other words, the efforts must be to save the company from being wound up, if the case to that effect is made out on facts. It is for this purpose and keeping in view this objective, the Legislature has enacted sub-section (2) of section 443 which empowers the Company Court to exercise powers while hearing a petition for winding up. Sub-section (2) does empower the Company Court to refuse to make an order of winding up, if it is of an opinion that some other remedy is available to the petitioners and that they are acting unreasonably in seeking to have the company wound up instead of pursuing that other remedy. 6. It is thus neither a case for winding up, nor a case where the company has become defunct commercially or/and financially. 7. In view of aforesaid discussion, I find no case to proceed ahead any more or taking into account the admitted facts, payment made, the petition has no merit. It fails and is dismissed. 8. No cost.
-
2002 (11) TMI 670 - HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Winding up - Power of Court to stay or restrain proceeding against company ... ... ... ... ..... application was filed on 9-9-2002 that too after the date for leading plaintiff rsquo s evidence having been already fixed. It is a different matter that evidence was not present on that date. Looking to the interpretation given to section 442(b) by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision, present application as already noted appears to be an attempt to thwart and stop the process of the present suit. Why no plea was raised in the written statement, learned counsel was unable to satisfy the court. However, he placed reliance on a decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Eastern Automobile Syndicate Ltd. v. Babu Rajendrakumarsingh AIR 1959 MP 95. Without being detained by this decision, as well as keeping in view the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court, I see no reason to allow this application. 8. No other point is urged. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no merit in this application which is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2002 (11) TMI 669 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Winding up - Circumstances in which a company may be wound up ... ... ... ... ..... rance of probability, not only is the defence incredulous but has been belatedly raised. 12. In these circumstances, the winding up petition is admitted. The respondent-company is directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 30,00,000 (Rs. thirty lakhs only), being the principal sum of Rs. 26,68,000 together with a small component of interest, with the Registrar General of this Court within thirty days from today. If this deposit is made the amount so deposited shall stand to the credit of the civil suit. This approach had been commended by the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court in Nishal Enterprises rsquo case (supra). 13. If the deposit is not made within this specified time, citation be published in the The Hindustan Times English Edition and Vir Arjun Hindi Edition as well as Delhi Gazette, returnable on 12-2-2003. The question of the propriety of appointing a Provisional Liquidator will be considered on the next date of hearing. 14. Renotify the matter for further proceedings on 12-2-2003.
-
2002 (11) TMI 668 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in account ... ... ... ... ..... t happened to be her friend would in no way saddle the petitioner with the liability of the offence under section 138 of the Act. 7. If the concept propounded by the learned counsel for the respondent is accepted then every member of the family of a person who is engaged in a particular business can be roped in being Association of individuals . 8. It appears that the learned ASJ did not appreciate the contention and the arguments of the petitioner in the right perspective and lost track of the ingredients of the offence under section 138 while dismissing the application of the petitioner for recall of the summoning order vis-a-vis her. 9. The foregoing reasons persuade me to allow the petition and set aside the impugned order. The order summoning the petitioner is hereby recalled. However any observation made in this order shall not be used by the co-accused nor will it tantamount to expression of opinion on the merits of the complaint. This confines to the petitioner alone.
-
2002 (11) TMI 667 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Cognizance of offence ... ... ... ... ..... ned any such permission, no document is required from the respondents to submit his explanation to the impugned opportunity notice. Sections 8 and 9 of the Act contemplate that the person, who proposed to deal with the Foreign Exchange or to make out the payments to get permission either special or general from the Reserve Bank of India. No document is required for the petitioner to inform the respondents that he had obtained such permission from the Reserve Bank of India, which is purely a question of fact within the knowledge of such person himself. From the above facts, it is clear that the petitioner is only attempting to protract the proceedings to which this court cannot be a party. 9. Hence, finding no merits, the above writ petition is dismissed with a direction to the concerned Magistrate to proceed with the matter expeditiously as the petitioner had already delayed the criminal action for a considerable time. Consequently, the connected W.P.M.P. is closed. No costs.
-
2002 (11) TMI 666 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Company – Incorporation of ... ... ... ... ..... ncerned as Deputy Commissioner, Sales Tax, to assist the Commissioner of Sales Tax in execution of the functions under the Act and another notification dated January 22, 1999, issued in exercise of powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 27 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, as in force in the National Capital Territory of Delhi, conferring upon the officer concerned the powers of Collector under the said Act for the recovery of sales tax dues recoverable as arrears of land-revenue. Since we have endorsed the view taken by the Collector that the entire exercise of getting the business of waste management shifted from Byford to the petitioner was undertaken to evade realisation of tax dues of Byford, we do not find any illegality in the respondents taking recourse to the provisions of section 139 of the Land Reforms Act. In the result, the petition fails and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. All interim orders/directions stand vacated.
-
2002 (11) TMI 665 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Obligation of parties to contract ... ... ... ... ..... transfer the 26 per cent share and till then, an order of interim injunction has to be necessarily granted to preserve the status quo relating to the shareholding in the 1st defendant company. Hence, the points are answered accordingly. 25. For the reasons stated above, interim injunction is granted restraining defendants 1 to 5 from transferring, alienating and registering the shares in the name of the 5th defendant or any other person relating to 26 per cent of the shareholding in the company and interim injunction is granted restraining defendants 1 to 5 and their men from alienating or encumbering or transferring A schedule property. In respect of B schedule property, interim order is not granted. It is always open to the plaintiff and defendants 6 and 7 to send their representatives to the 1st defendant company once in a month to take inventory of the movables and defendants 1 to 4 should render necessary co-operation in this regard. Applications are ordered accordingly.
-
2002 (11) TMI 664 - HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency of funds in accounts ... ... ... ... ..... gs in the trial Court, came up with these petitions and obtained orders of stay from this Court without disclosing his filing Crl. R.C. Nos. 1120 of 2001 etc., and those revisions being dismissed by a common order dated 3-1-2002, and by misleading the Court by filing a portion of the deposition of PW1 recorded on 5-4-2002 only, in some of the petitions, to create an impression that PW1 was examined only in part by the date of filing of these petitions, though in fact the petitioner was examined under section 313 Cr. P.C. after the evidence on behalf of 1st respondent-complainant was closed, and also suppressing the fact that on a petition filed by him to reopen the case only he was given an opportunity to adduce evidence on his behalf with some conditions, after his failure to adduce earlier, these petitions deserve to be dismissed with costs. Therefore I dismiss these petitions with costs fixing the advocate rsquo s fee at Rs. 500 (Rupees five hundred only) in each petition.
-
2002 (11) TMI 663 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in accounts ... ... ... ... ..... notice under section 138 of the Act. Otherwise the purpose of presenting the cheque time and again during the period of validity would have no meaning. The period of limitation to file the complaint starts running from the last notice which is given strictly in terms of section 138 wherein the limit of 15 days for making the payment from the receipt of notice is specifically mentioned or referred to. 10. Thus it is only when a notice under section 138 is served and the aggrieved party fails to initiate the proceedings within time that it forfeits the right to proceed subsequently and thereafter presentation of the cheques is not permissible nor is the dishonouring of the cheque of any relevance. 11. Thus on prima facie view of the matter and the facts of the case coupled with the notice dated 17-11-2001 served upon the company on whose behalf the cheques were issued. I perceive no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The petition has no merit and is hereby dismissed.
-
2002 (11) TMI 662 - HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, INDORE BENCH
Winding up - Circumstances in which a company may be wound up ... ... ... ... ..... ima facie case is made out on facts else, it affects the very existence of company in commercial market. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that a case for winding up on the facts pleaded is made out. I do not agree to what is urged. I have gone through the facts carefully, relied on by the learned counsel and find no merit in it. Once, I come to a conclusion that on the facts pleaded by the petitioner in the petition for seeking winding up of company, the respondent-company has come out with a bona fide and plausible defence, the issue must end here so far as entertaining of winding up petition is concerned. It will be too disastrous for any running company to suffer an order of winding up for non-payment of Rs. 6,11,715.65 and that too when it has certain reasons not to pay and secondly the alleged debt is not a debt admitted by the respondent. In view of aforesaid discussion, I do not find this petition to have any merit. It fails and is accordingly dismissed.
-
2002 (11) TMI 661 - HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Application to file in Court arbitration agreement ... ... ... ... ..... nder Article 9.2.1 incorporated in the agreement dated 15-2-1988 stood discharged/deleted. The court below committed a jurisdictional error in reaching the conclusion that by subsequent agreement dated 21-5-1991, the arbitration clause did not extinguish as discharge means to annul to extinguish to remove to take out to abolish and as the parties by subsequent agreement had taken away the arbitration clause from the original agreement dated 15-2-1988, the court had no competence to make a reference. It was not permissible for the court below to hold that the issue as to whether the arbitration clause still subsisted was to be decided by the Arbitrator. Instant case stands squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court in K.N. Damodaran rsquo s case (supra) and deserves to be allowed. 29. Thus, in view of the above, the revision petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 7-5-1994 is hereby set aside. There shall be no order as to the costs.
-
2002 (11) TMI 660 - HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency of funds ... ... ... ... ..... presented in lieu of proof of execution of the said G.P.A. (e)The Magistrate shall thoroughly examine the statement of G.P.A. holder as well as the Original complainant and documents produced before him and exercise his discretion vested under sections 200 to 203 of Cr.P.C. (f)The above guidelines are not exhaustive. There may be some cases which are not covered by the above guidelines. In such cases, the Magistrate shall exercise his judicial discretion and proceed to deal with the cases arising under section 200 Cr.P.C. 16. Coming to the facts of the present case, the second petitioner was not responsible for issuance of the cheque and was not Director of the company at the time of dishonour of the cheques in question. Apart from this, sworn statements were not recorded as per section 200 of Cr.P.C. 17. In view of my above discussion, the proceedings in C.C. 1012 of 2000 are liable to be quashed and accordingly the same are quashed. 18. The petition is ordered accordingly.
-
2002 (11) TMI 659 - HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Winding-up - Circumstances in which a company may be wound up ... ... ... ... ..... d the matter is remanded for revival of the company as is being contended by the company before the AAIFR then in such eventuality, also the BIFR will have to go into the various claims of creditors to determine the financial liability on the company. In that case also the claim of the petitioner will have to be probed into. 6. In view of these circumstances and the legal position emerging, there is no life in the petition as this court can otherwise not proceed to decide this winding up petition on the merits by virtue of the issue being sub-judice in the BIFR proceedings. In other words, this court cannot decide by proceeding ahead as to whether a case for winding up of company is made out or not on the facts pleaded in the petition in view of embargo created by the SICA to have parallel proceedings. 7. In view of aforesaid discussion and the legal position emerging out of the admitted facts, I find no merit to entertain the petition. It fails and is dismissed. 8. No costs.
-
2002 (11) TMI 658 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Illegal associations, Charitable companies, Winding up - Circumstances in which a company may be wound up
-
2002 (11) TMI 657 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Share certificate - Issue of ... ... ... ... ..... plaintiffs, failed to do so and were proceeded ex parte vide Order dated 12-9-2001. The matter was heard and the judgment was reserved on 2-8-2002. Since the defendants were proceeded ex parte, all the contentions raised and the documents exhibited by the plaintiff remained unrebutted and thus stood duly proved it has been duly established that plaintiffs made payment of Rs. 6,00,000 to the defendants. The statement of account has been duly proved as Ex. PW-1/B. It stands unrebutted that defendants neither delivered the shares nor refunded the amount to the plaintiff. The legal notice (Ex. PW-1/D) was neither replied to nor complied with. 15. In view of the above, I pass a decree of Rs. 9,24,000 along with pendente lite and future interest 24 per cent per annum from the date of filing till the date of realisation in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. The plaintiffs will also be entitled to costs of the present proceedings. 16. The suit is decreed accordingly.
-
2002 (11) TMI 656 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Winding up - Circumstances in which a company may be wound up ... ... ... ... ..... ad already released a sum of over Rs. 41 lakhs which, in its view, was the only amount payable to the petitioner. I am unable to find even a samblance of an admitted debt in this case. Incentives/bonus for the year 2000 have been calculated by the respon- dent-company and have been paid. For determining the amount payable, if any, for the year 2001, such accounting is again necessary. This can be properly and appropriately conducted not in the summary procedure such as the present one, but in a regular civil suit. One of the reasons for preference of winding-up petitions is the summary nature of its proceedings, and the fixed Court fee payable. But where complicated questions of fact have still to be ironed out, the Company Judge should direct the Petitioner to the Civil Court. 12. In the facts and circumstances of the case I am constrained to dismiss the petition at the threshold. The petition is accordingly dismissed. The parties shall, however, bear their respective costs.
-
2002 (11) TMI 655 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Unregistered Companies ... ... ... ... ..... ection to take back the assets and liabilities of respondent No.1 from respondent No. 2 and function as co-operative bank. Further, prayer is not to grant a single advance for over Rs. 2.5 crores by respondent No.2 as the maximum limit in total that can be granted under the Multi-State Act, and lastly the petitioner has prayed for injunction restraining respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 6 from taking any action in pursuance of issuance of public issue or equity shares with or without premium or issuing banking company bonus shares to the shareholders under the Companies Act and in furtherance of listing of shares of new company in the share market. Rule has not been issued in this writ petition also. The petitioner has prayed for diverse reliefs in the present writ petition and all of them have either become infructuous or have been rendered ineffective in view of the reasoning recorded in Writ Petition No. 1443 of 1995. In view thereof, this writ petition is also dismissed in limine.
-
2002 (11) TMI 654 - SPECIAL COURT (TRIAL OF OFFENCES RELATING TO TRANS
... ...
... ... ..... shares in favour of ABFL - petitioners and consequently the petitioners are entitled to transfer and sell the same. (B) Respondent Nos. 3 to 8, 9A, 10 and 11 as also the Custodian are hereby directed to take further steps pursuant to the above declaration including validation and updating the transfer forms, if so required. (C) That, on realisation, appropriate credit would be given to the account of M/s. V.B. Desai mdash respondent No. 2 as on May 13, 1992, which credit would also include the value of the accretions on the shares listed in exhibit X to the petition. (D) That, on such transfer and sale (including encashment of accretions) all claims and counter-claims of ABFL and M/s. V.B. Desai shall stand mutually settled and satisfied. Liberty is given to the petitioners to move by a separate application for consequential steps to be taken including those against the Registrar of Companies, if so advised. 36. Accordingly, petition stands decreed with no order as to costs.
-
2002 (11) TMI 653 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Cenvat/Modvat ... ... ... ... ..... ssioner (Appeal) has denied the credit of input duty paid on the remelted goods taken for re-processing on the ground that the appellants have not able to produce the order subsequently rejecting their drawback claim in respect of the initial export. Apart from the fact that the appellants have produced a copy of the deficiency memo clearly indicating the claim is time barred, this issue was also not raised in the Show Cause Notice. Moreover, drawback, if any, on the initial export would relate to the duty paid on such exported goods or inputs used in such goods. In view of the fact that the appellants have again paid duty on the goods at the time of re-importation and they are claiming credit of the said duty which is actually paid, the credit of the same has to be allowed irrespective of whether drawback was allowed on the initial export or not. Therefore, I set aside the impugned order in appeal and restore the order in original with consequential relief to the appellants.
............
|
