|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 615 Records
-
2003 (3) TMI 621
Issues: Appeal against eligibility for SSI concessions under Notification No. 1/93 for goods bearing foreign brand names.
Analysis:
1. The appeal by the revenue challenged the order granting SSI concessions to the respondent for goods bearing foreign brand names.
2. The revenue contended that the respondent was not eligible for concessional rates under Notification No. 1/93 as they did not own or have exclusive rights to the foreign brand names used on the goods.
3. The revenue relied on the Namtech Systems case where it was held that small scale exemption was not available if goods were affixed with foreign brand names without ownership or exclusive rights. They also cited the ESBI Transmission case to support their argument.
4. The revenue reiterated that since the foreign brand names were not registered in the respondent's name, they were not entitled to claim the exemption under Notification No. 1/93.
5. The respondent argued that the Commissioner (Appeals) had provided detailed findings supporting their eligibility for the SSI exemption. They questioned the ownership of the brand names mentioned in the show cause notice and whether they were registered in the country.
6. The Tribunal considered the submissions, reviewed the findings of the lower authorities, and referred to Board clarifications and circulars regarding the criteria for denying SSI exemption based on the use of another person's brand name. The Tribunal found no connection between the specified goods and any person using the brand names in question. Therefore, the appeal by the revenue was rejected, upholding the order granting SSI concessions to the respondent.
-
2003 (3) TMI 620
Issues:
- Allowance of credit on P.B. Warm Wheel
- Allowance of credit on Flow Switch
- Allowance of credit on Refrigeration Compressor
P.B. Warm Wheel: The Revenue argued that the credit should not be allowed on the P.B. Warm Wheel as it is used in the effluent treatment plant, which is a separate process from manufacturing. The argument was that credit should only be allowed on goods used for manufacturing final products. However, the respondent contended that the P.B. Warm Wheel is essential for pollution control and plant functioning. The Commissioner (Appeals) supported this view, emphasizing its necessity in current circumstances. The Tribunal did not provide a final decision on this issue, as the case was remanded for further consideration.
Flow Switch: The Revenue opposed allowing credit on the Flow Switch, stating that it does not contribute to changing any substance for manufacturing the final product. On the other hand, the respondent argued that the Flow Switch is essential for regulating compressor functions and can be considered a capital good under Rule 57Q. The Commissioner (Appeals) supported this argument, providing reasonable reasoning. However, the Tribunal did not provide a final decision on this issue, as the case was remanded for further consideration.
Refrigeration Compressor: The Revenue contended that credit should not be allowed on the Refrigeration Compressor as it does not have a direct nexus with manufacturing the final product. The respondent cited a notification bringing the Refrigeration Compressor under the definition of capital goods and referred to relevant case law to support their argument for allowing credit. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed credit on the Refrigeration Compressor, and the Tribunal found that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not discuss the amendment in Rule 57Q effectively. The Tribunal remanded the case for reconsideration in light of the Supreme Court decision and the amendment, emphasizing that the nexus is not necessary for allowing credit. The appeal was allowed by way of remand for further detailed consideration.
-
2003 (3) TMI 619
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai allowed the appeal regarding the classification of imported goods as gold plated plastic moulded round bowls. The goods were correctly classified under heading 94.05, and the benefit of exemption under entry 19 of the notification was granted as the goods were removed from the bonded warehouse on 19-11-1992. The differential additional duty demanded was set aside.
-
2003 (3) TMI 618
Issues:
- Appeal against Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding central excise duty on galvanised mild steel (MS) pipes cleared for Domestic Tariff Area (DTA).
- Whether the process of galvanising amounts to manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act.
- Interpretation of notification No. 1/95-C.E. regarding exemption from duty for 100% EOUs engaged in galvanising of MS black pipes.
- Applicability of duty on galvanised pipes cleared for DTA when originally intended for export.
Analysis:
The appellants, 100% EOUs, brought mild steel pipes and zinc without payment of duty for exporting galvanised MS pipes. However, they cleared galvanised pipes for DTA without duty payment, leading to a demand notice for duty and penalty imposition. The contention was whether galvanising amounts to manufacture under the Central Excise Act.
The notification No. 1/95-C.E. exempts excisable goods brought by EOUs for export-related manufacturing from duty payment. Circulars clarified that galvanising by 100% EOUs falls under the definition of 'manufacture'. Despite the appellants' argument that galvanising isn't manufacturing, the Tribunal precedent and Supreme Court decision established that galvanising charges are part of the assessable value for excise duty.
In this case, the appellants received duty-free ungalvanised pipes for export but cleared galvanised pipes for DTA without paying duty. This action was deemed inconsistent with the EOU scheme and notification terms. The Tribunal upheld the duty demand but reduced the penalty considering the circumstances. The judgment highlighted that duty should be paid on the value of galvanised pipes cleared for DTA instead of export, aligning with the scheme's intent.
-
2003 (3) TMI 617
Issues:
Waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of penalty amounting to Rs. 1 lakh due to non-accountal of excisable goods in RG 1 register.
Analysis:
The case involved a dispute regarding the imposition of a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh on the appellants for the non-accountal of 203 bags of sugar in the RG 1 register, discovered during a visit by Central Excise officers. The Department proposed confiscation of the goods and imposition of penalties. The original authority ordered confiscation with a fine of Rs. 1 lakh and a personal penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the decision but reduced the fine and penalty to Rs. 50,000 and Rs. 1 lakh respectively. The appellants argued that mens rea was necessary for penalty imposition under Rule 173Q(1)(d), which was not proven in their case. They also challenged the confiscation order. The Tribunal noted conflicting decisions but emphasized that the High Court decision favored the Revenue. However, it found that the penalty quantum was not properly determined by the lower authorities. The discretion provided under Rule 173Q ranged from Rs. 5,000 to three times the value of the goods, indicating the need for a case-specific assessment. The absence of mens rea and the circumstances of the case were not adequately considered by the authorities. Therefore, the Tribunal granted a waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery for the penalty exceeding Rs. 25,000, requiring a deposit of Rs. 25,000 within six weeks.
In conclusion, the Tribunal granted relief to the appellants by waiving the pre-deposit and stay of recovery for the penalty exceeding Rs. 25,000 due to insufficient consideration of the penalty quantum by the lower authorities. The case highlighted the importance of assessing penalties based on the specific circumstances and presence of mens rea, as required by the relevant legal provisions.
-
2003 (3) TMI 616
The appellants received capital goods in March 1994 and took credit in September 1994. The Commissioner held that credit could only be taken until June 1994. The appellant argued that delay was due to officer's verification process. The appellant installed goods after waiting, and the appeal was allowed with consequential benefit.
-
2003 (3) TMI 615
Issues:
1. Confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty.
2. Shortage of inputs and duty demand.
3. Imposition of penalties under different rules.
Confiscation of Goods and Imposition of Penalty:
The appeal was filed against an order modifying penalty but upholding confiscation of goods, duty, and penalty. Central Excise officers found excess PVC compound and shortage of PVC resin and DOP during a visit to the factory premises. The show cause notice was issued for duty payment on the short stock with penalty. The appellants contended that the excess goods were not finished and were awaiting testing as per ISI standards. The Tribunal held that goods not yet finished could not be legally confiscated. However, goods loaded in the tempo were considered finished and subject to confiscation. The redemption fine and penalty were reduced accordingly.
Shortage of Inputs and Duty Demand:
The authorities confirmed duty on inputs found short, assuming clandestine manufacturing and clearance. The appellants argued that the short inputs were used in goods awaiting testing. No evidence of clandestine activities was found, and no duty evasion was alleged. The Tribunal accepted the appellants' plea, stating that duty demand on inputs used in goods found in excess could not be confirmed without evidence of duty evasion. The duty demand was set aside.
Imposition of Penalties under Different Rules:
The adjudicating authority had imposed a penalty under various rules and sections. The Commissioner modified the penalty under some rules but maintained it under others without specifying the amount. The Tribunal reduced the penalty to Rs. 5,000 considering the lapse in accounting for 3,600 kgs of finished goods. The impugned order was modified accordingly, and the appeal was disposed of with appropriate relief.
In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants regarding the confiscation of goods not yet finished and the duty demand on short inputs. The penalties imposed were reduced based on the specific circumstances of the case.
-
2003 (3) TMI 614
Issues:
Confiscation of gold biscuits and Maruti Car, imposition of personal penalty on Shri Radheshyam Agarwal, ownership claim of Maruti Car by Shri Rajesh Kumar Singhal.
Confiscation of Gold Biscuits:
The case involved the confiscation of ten pieces of gold biscuits recovered from Shri Radheshyam Agarwal and the subsequent imposition of a personal penalty. The gold was found in his possession without proper documentation, leading to its seizure by Customs Officers. Despite Agarwal's retraction of his inculpatory statement, the Tribunal found it to be a belated and concocted retraction, upholding the original findings. The Tribunal reduced the personal penalty from Rs. 60,000 to Rs. 15,000 based on Agarwal's statement about receiving Rs. 2,000 for the job.
Confiscation of Maruti Car:
The Maruti Car, used for transporting the gold biscuits, was confiscated under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal noted that the owner, Shri Rajesh Kumar Singhal, claimed ownership after three months, raising questions about the car's use by Shri Radheshyam Agarwal without Singhal's knowledge. The Tribunal deemed the car liable for confiscation but decided that it should be allowed to be redeemed upon payment of a redemption fine by the owner. The matter was remanded to the original adjudicating authority for the fixation of the redemption fine.
Judgment:
The Tribunal reduced the personal penalty on Shri Radheshyam Agarwal from Rs. 60,000 to Rs. 15,000 and remanded the issue of the Maruti Car's confiscation for the determination of a redemption fine. The appeals were disposed of with these modifications, maintaining the confiscation of the gold biscuits and the Maruti Car but allowing for the redemption of the car upon payment of the fine.
-
2003 (3) TMI 613
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai dismissed the appeal as the appellant did not possess an advance license for duty-free clearances of polyester staple fiber as per Notification 3/93. The appellant's argument that it was named as a supporting manufacturer in the advance license was not accepted, as the notification did not provide exemption for goods supplied to a person other than the ultimate exporter holding the license.
-
2003 (3) TMI 612
Issues:
1. Validity of import license for goods
2. Interpretation of goods as per import license description
3. Enhancement of goods value
4. Imposition of penalty for non-compliance
Issue 1: Validity of import license for goods
The appeal was filed against the order-in-appeal upholding the confiscation of goods under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant's Advance Licence permitted the import of 'ACRYLIC PLASTIC SCRAP CUT PIECES CUTTINGS OFF CUTS WITH IMPURITIES,' but the physical examination revealed the goods were new acrylic plastic sheets cut to various sizes, not covered by the license. The Addl. Commissioner correctly rejected the license, and the goods were to be assessed to normal customs duty.
Issue 2: Interpretation of goods as per import license description
The appellants argued that the goods were off cuts, not sheets, but the examination report confirmed the goods as new acrylic plastic sheets cut to various sizes. The term 'sheet' under Chapter 39 has a wide connotation, covering various shapes and sizes, not limited to specific dimensions. The Addl. Commissioner justified the enhancement of goods' value based on invoices and Bills of Entry, comparing them with identical goods imported from Japan, which was deemed fair and reasonable.
Issue 3: Enhancement of goods value
The appellants contested the arbitrary increase in goods' value from $400 to $500 per metric ton (PMT). However, the Addl. Commissioner based the value adjustment on similar goods' prices imported from Japan, justifying the enhancement with adequate reasoning. The Tribunal found the adopted value fair and proper, with no grounds for interference.
Issue 4: Imposition of penalty for non-compliance
The appellants claimed no penalty should be imposed due to the absence of mens rea. However, the Tribunal cited a Supreme Court decision stating that proving a default in complying with the statute is sufficient, without requiring mens rea. As the appellants misdeclared and undervalued the goods, leading to confiscation under Section 111 of the Customs Act, penal action was deemed appropriate. Ultimately, the Tribunal set aside the confiscation and penalty, allowing the appeal based on the findings that the goods were not liable for confiscation, values were not misdeclared, and the goods were covered by the license.
-
2003 (3) TMI 611
Issues:
1. Duty demandability for activity to comply with legal requirements.
2. Legality of Show Cause Notices issued without Chief Commissioner's permission.
3. Principles of natural justice violation in not granting personal hearing.
Analysis:
1. Duty Demandability for Compliance Activity:
The appellants imported finished medicines requiring labeling to comply with Rule 96 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945. Initially, affixing labels was not considered manufacturing per a 1996 circular. However, a 2001 circular deemed it as manufacture under Chapter Note 5 of Chapter 30. Show Cause Notices demanded duty retrospectively, challenging the legality of demands made before the circular revision. The Tribunal held that demands based on a circular must be prospective, citing various Supreme Court decisions. As the circular authorized non-payment, demands for the period before its revision were deemed unsustainable.
2. Legality of Show Cause Notices:
The appellants contested the legality of Show Cause Notices issued without Chief Commissioner's prior permission for duty demands exceeding Rs. 1 crore. The Tribunal did not delve into this issue due to the primary finding that demands based on the circular were unsustainable. Thus, the legality of the notices issued without proper authorization was not specifically addressed in the judgment.
3. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The appellants raised concerns about the lack of a personal hearing granted by the Commissioner regarding the Show Cause Notice dated 4-5-2001. However, as the Tribunal's primary decision was based on the unsustainability of demands due to circular provisions, the issue of natural justice violation was not extensively discussed or determined in the judgment.
In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal based on the finding that demands made before the circular revision were not sustainable. The judgment emphasized the binding nature of circular interpretations and the need for demands to align with such interpretations. The issues regarding the legality of Show Cause Notices and violation of natural justice principles were not extensively addressed due to the primary decision on the circular's retrospective impact on duty demands.
-
2003 (3) TMI 610
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai ruled in favor of the importer of rubber stoppers, classifying them under sub-heading 4016.93 as per Import Policy 1992-97. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this classification based on a circular from the Director General of Foreign Trade. The department's appeal was dismissed as it did not address the circular, which was deemed binding.
-
2003 (3) TMI 609
Issues:
Constitutional validity and vires of sub-sections (5) and (6) of section 16 and clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Analysis:
Issue 1: Constitutional Validity of Section 16
The petitioners challenged the validity of sub-sections (5) and (6) of section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, arguing that they were arbitrary and discriminatory, violating Article 14 of the Constitution. However, the High Court referred to a Supreme Court decision in Babar Ali v. Union of India, which upheld the validity of section 16. The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition challenging the High Court decision, stating that judicial review was available by challenging the award as per the Act's procedure. The High Court concluded that the challenge to the vires was rightly negatived.
Issue 2: Appealable Orders under Section 37
The petitioners contended that section 37(2)(a) of the Act, which allows appeals against certain orders, was discriminatory and violated Article 14 of the Constitution. The High Court disagreed, stating that the provision did not discriminate between persons similarly situated. It explained that the Act granted a right of appeal in certain cases where the authority reserved the right to decide its jurisdiction, which was not ultra vires. The Court also highlighted that the provision for appeals was based on the different outcomes for aggrieved parties depending on the jurisdictional ruling by the Arbitral Tribunal.
Issue 3: Doctrine of Merger and Binding Effect of Supreme Court Orders
The petitioners argued that the Supreme Court's order in Babar Ali did not constitute law under Article 141 of the Constitution and that the doctrine of merger did not apply. However, the High Court cited precedents to explain that the reasons given by the Supreme Court in dismissing a Special Leave Petition had a binding effect, even if no detailed reasons were recorded. Therefore, the High Court upheld the Supreme Court's decision in Babar Ali and dismissed the contention raised by the petitioners.
In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the petitions challenging the constitutional validity and vires of the specified provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, finding no merit in the arguments presented by the petitioners.
-
2003 (3) TMI 608
Issues:
Petitions seeking sanction of the scheme of amalgamation under section 394 of the Companies Act, 1956.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Background and Incorporation Details:
The case involves three petitions related to the amalgamation of companies under section 394 of the Companies Act, 1956. The transferee company and two transferor companies were incorporated on different dates with specific objectives outlined in their Memorandum of Association.
2. Scheme of Amalgamation:
The scheme proposed that the businesses of the companies were complementary, leading to greater consolidation of business focus. It aimed to enhance operational efficiency, reduce costs, and achieve economies of scale. The scheme also detailed the transfer of properties, assets, liabilities, and the continuity of employment for all employees post-amalgamation.
3. Objections Raised:
The Registrar of Companies raised objections concerning the modification of the scheme related to equity investment cancellation and compliance with specific provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 regarding share capital enhancement. The Official Liquidator reported no prejudicial conduct in the companies' affairs.
4. Compliance with Companies Act Provisions:
The judgment analyzed sections 95 and 97 of the Companies Act, emphasizing the importance of notifying the Registrar of Companies about changes in share capital and issuance of new shares. The Court clarified that the sanction of the scheme by the Court itself serves as notice to the Registrar, eliminating the need for separate notifications.
5. Legal Precedents and Statutory Effect:
Referring to a previous judgment, the Court highlighted that amalgamation is a statutory process with a distinct legal character, not merely a bilateral arrangement. The Court dismissed one objection raised by the Registrar of Companies based on legal principles and precedents.
6. Sanction of the Scheme:
Considering the resolutions passed by the companies' Boards of Directors, shareholder consents, and the absence of adverse effects on creditors or other stakeholders, the Court decided to sanction the scheme with a specific modification addressing one objection raised by the Registrar of Companies.
7. Order and Compliance:
The Court ordered the company petitions to be approved, with a requirement to file a certified copy of the order for registration within 30 days. The order needed to be drafted in a specified format with modifications as per the scheme.
This detailed analysis covers the key aspects of the judgment, including the scheme of amalgamation, compliance with legal provisions, objections raised, statutory implications, and the final decision to sanction the scheme with necessary modifications.
-
2003 (3) TMI 607
Issues involved:
The judgment involves the sanction of a scheme of amalgamation under section 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, for three companies - a transferee company and two transferor companies.
Details of the Judgment:
1. Transferee Company Details:
The transferee company was incorporated in 1985 with its main object being the purchase and sale of various vehicles. It has a registered office in Hyderabad and a specific share capital structure.
2. Transferor Company 1 Details:
The first transferor company, incorporated in 1994, is involved in the business of leasing and hire purchase. It has a registered office in Hyderabad and a defined share capital structure.
3. Transferor Company 2 Details:
The second transferor company, incorporated in 1991, is also engaged in leasing and hire purchase activities. It has a registered office in Hyderabad and a specific share capital structure.
4. Scheme of Amalgamation:
The scheme proposes the amalgamation of the transferor companies with the transferee company to enhance business focus and operational efficiency. It includes the transfer of assets, liabilities, and employees to the transferee company.
5. Registrar's Objections:
The Registrar of Companies raised objections related to equity investment cancellation and compliance with certain provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 regarding share capital enhancement.
6. Legal Compliance:
The judgment discusses the requirements of sections 95 and 97 of the Companies Act, emphasizing the need for notifying the Registrar of changes in share capital and other relevant details.
7. Court's Decision:
Considering the resolutions passed by the companies' boards, shareholder consent, and the absence of objections, the Court sanctions the scheme with a modification related to the equity investment cancellation condition.
8. Final Order:
The Court orders the company petitions to be processed accordingly, with a certified copy of the order to be filed for registration within 30 days, as per the provisions of section 394 of the Companies Act, 1956.
This summary encapsulates the key details and decisions of the judgment regarding the scheme of amalgamation under the Companies Act, 1956.
-
2003 (3) TMI 606
Issues involved:
1. Maintainability of civil revisions challenging orders passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal.
2. Interpretation of provisions of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks & Financial Institutions Act, 1993.
3. Applicability of section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the context of orders passed under the Act.
Issue 1: Maintainability of civil revisions challenging orders passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal
The High Court considered two civil revisions challenging orders passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The petitioners contested the maintainability of the revisions, arguing that an appellate forum existed under section 20 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks & Financial Institutions Act, 1993, making the civil revisions under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure not maintainable. The petitioners relied on precedents to establish that the Tribunals under the Act were subordinate to the High Court. The Court acknowledged this contention in favor of the petitioners. However, it clarified that the power of superintendence over the Tribunals lay with the High Courts under the writ jurisdiction of the Constitution of India and not under section 115 of the Code.
Issue 2: Interpretation of provisions of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks & Financial Institutions Act, 1993
The Court analyzed the provisions of the Act, particularly section 20, which outlined the appeal process to the Appellate Tribunal. It highlighted that any person aggrieved by an order made by the Tribunal under the Act could appeal to the Appellate Tribunal, except for orders made with the consent of the parties. The Court cited various cases to support the view that orders passed by the Tribunal were appealable under section 20 of the Act. It referenced decisions from different High Courts and the Supreme Court, emphasizing that when an order was appealable under the Act, the High Court should not exercise its writ jurisdiction under article 227 of the Constitution of India. Ultimately, the Court concluded that civil revisions under section 115 of the Code were not maintainable in such cases.
Issue 3: Applicability of section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the context of orders passed under the Act
The petitioners argued that section 20 of the Act only applied to orders passed under specific sections and not under sections 22 or 25. The Court examined the statutory provision in section 20 and clarified that all orders passed by the Tribunal in accordance with the Act were appealable, except those made with the consent of the parties. It referenced case law to support this interpretation and highlighted that previous decisions had upheld the appealability of orders under the Act. The Court dismissed both civil revisions, emphasizing that the proper recourse for challenging orders passed by the Tribunal was through the appellate process outlined in the Act, rather than through civil revisions under section 115 of the Code.
This detailed analysis of the judgment provides insights into the interpretation of legal provisions, the hierarchy of judicial forums, and the appropriate avenues for challenging orders under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks & Financial Institutions Act, 1993.
-
2003 (3) TMI 605
Issues Involved:
1. Whether Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 (SFC Act) empowers a State Financial Corporation (SFC) to take possession of the property mortgaged by a surety.
2. Whether a State Financial Corporation should first proceed against the borrower (industrial concern) before enforcing the liability of the surety.
3. Whether a State Financial Corporation can lease or sell the property secured by the surety under Section 29 without the intervention of the Court.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
Re: Issue 1 - Power to Take Possession of Surety's Property Under Section 29:
The petitioners contended that Section 29 of the SFC Act does not empower a State Financial Corporation to take possession of the property mortgaged by a surety. They argued that the section explicitly grants the right to take over the management or possession of the borrower industrial concern, but does not extend this right to the property of the surety. The Court upheld this contention, stating that the language of Section 29 is clear and unambiguous, and does not mention the surety's property. The Court emphasized that any attempt to take possession of a surety's property without express statutory authority would violate Article 300A of the Constitution of India. The Court also noted that if the Legislature had intended to include the surety's property under Section 29, it would have amended the section accordingly. The Court dissented from the views expressed in the decisions of the Orissa High Court and the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which had held that the power to take possession under Section 29 extends to the property mortgaged by a surety.
Re: Issue 2 - Proceeding Against Borrower Before Surety:
The petitioners argued that the State Financial Corporation should first proceed against the borrower and only if it is unable to recover the amount from the borrower, it can proceed against the surety. The Court rejected this contention, citing Section 128 of the Indian Contract Act, which states that the liability of the surety is co-extensive with that of the principal debtor unless otherwise provided by the contract. The Court noted that the surety can be proceeded against without first proceeding against the principal debtor. The Court referred to the Supreme Court decisions in Bank of Bihar Ltd. v. Dr. Damodar Prasad and State Bank of India v. Indexport Registered, which held that the guarantor could be sued without suing the principal debtor, and the liability of the surety is immediate.
Re: Issue 3 - Power to Lease or Sell Surety's Property Under Section 29:
The petitioners contended that the power to transfer by way of lease or sale and realize the property under Section 29 should be interpreted as applying only to the property of the industrial concern and not to the property of the surety. The Court agreed with this contention, stating that the power of sale and lease under Section 29(1) is intended to be exercised only in regard to the assets of the industrial concern. The Court noted that the use of the term "as well as" in Section 29(1) indicates that the right to transfer by way of lease or sale and realize the property is with reference to the property of the industrial concern, the management and/or possession of which has been taken over by the Corporation. The Court held that Section 29(1) does not empower a Financial Corporation to sell or lease the property secured by a surety in its favor. The Court referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in AP State Financial Corpn. v. Gar Re-rolling Mills, which indicated that the power under Section 29 can be used only against the principal debtor and not against sureties.
Conclusion:
The Court concluded that the remedy of the Financial Corporation against the property of the surety lies either under Section 31 of the SFC Act or by having recourse to the civil court, and not under Section 29. The Court quashed the impugned orders passed by the Karnataka State Financial Corporation authorizing its officers to take possession of the properties of the petitioners under Section 29. The Court directed the Karnataka State Financial Corporation not to proceed against the property of the surety under Section 29. Each party was directed to bear their respective costs.
-
2003 (3) TMI 604
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the petitioners have made out a case for interference under section 633(2) of the Companies Act, 1956?
2. Whether the objections raised by the respondent are sustainable under law?
3. To what relief are the petitioners entitled?
Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: Whether the petitioners have made out a case for interference under section 633(2) of the Act?
The petitions were filed under section 633(2) of the Companies Act, 1956, seeking relief from liability following show-cause notices issued by the respondent for alleged violations of section 207 of the Act. The company, originally incorporated as Pentagon Consultancy & Agency (P.) Ltd., declared a 30% equity dividend on 20th July 2001. However, a complaint from a shareholder, Mr. Ashok Kumar Verma, led to the issuance of show-cause notices due to a ten-day delay in sending the dividend warrant. The petitioners argued that they acted reasonably and ensured the company remedied the contravention by paying the dividend with interest for the delay. They sought relief from prosecution, asserting they acted bona fide and reasonably.
Issue 2: Whether the objections raised by the respondent are sustainable under law?
The respondent contended that the petitioners failed to demonstrate they acted honestly and reasonably. Despite reminders, the company delayed responding to the complaint and did not provide specific payment dates. The respondent argued that section 207 aims to protect investors and deter directors from non-compliance. The show-cause notice was based on the observation that the company transferred the unclaimed dividend amount after 49 days, contravening section 207. The respondent also noted selective prosecution, as not all involved directors were prosecuted, raising questions about the bona fides of the prosecution.
Issue 3: To what relief are the petitioners entitled?
The court noted that section 633(2) allows officers to seek relief if they apprehend proceedings for negligence, default, breach of duty, misfeasance, or breach of trust. The court found the petitioners acted reasonably, paying the dividend with interest for the delay. The prosecution was launched selectively, and no material indicated the petitioners knowingly caused the delay. The court referenced several precedents supporting relief under section 633(2) when the alleged offence ceased to be an offence by the time of the show-cause notice or petition filing. The court concluded that the petitioners should be relieved from prosecution, as they remedied the contravention before the prosecution was launched, making the prosecution unnecessary.
Conclusion:
The company petitions were allowed, and the petitioners-directors were relieved from the prosecution launched by the respondent. The court found that the petitioners acted bona fide and reasonably, and the selective prosecution by the respondent lacked bona fides.
-
2003 (3) TMI 603
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the transfer of flats by the company in liquidation (PFSL) to certain purchasers constitutes fraudulent preference under Sections 531 and 531A of the Companies Act.
2. Whether the transactions were made in good faith and for valuable consideration.
3. Whether the Official Liquidator should be permitted to deseal the flats.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Fraudulent Preference under Sections 531 and 531A of the Companies Act:
- Section 531: Any transfer of property made by a company within six months prior to the commencement of its winding up, which would be deemed a fraudulent preference in individual insolvency, is invalid.
- Section 531A: Any transfer of property made within one year before the presentation of a winding-up petition, not in the ordinary course of business or not for valuable consideration, is void against the liquidator.
The court examined the transactions involving flat Nos. 8, 16, and 17, which were transferred by PFSL to certain purchasers on 7-5-1999, within six months before the presentation of the first winding-up petition on 21-10-1999. The transactions were scrutinized for being voluntary transfers, not under legal compulsion, and for showing preference to certain creditors over others, thus falling under fraudulent preference.
2. Good Faith and Valuable Consideration:
- Flat No. 8: Sold at Rs. 13 lakhs against an acquisition cost of Rs. 16.50 lakhs, resulting in a loss of Rs. 3.50 lakhs. The transaction was made before the loan due date and without clear evidence of who paid the transfer fees, indicating a lack of good faith.
- Flat No. 16: Sold at Rs. 12.28 lakhs against an acquisition cost of Rs. 16.50 lakhs, resulting in a loss of Rs. 4.22 lakhs. The company paid Rs. 2.72 lakhs in cash to the purchaser, showing a preference and lack of bona fide action.
- Flat No. 17: Sold at Rs. 14.43 lakhs against an acquisition cost of Rs. 19.37 lakhs, resulting in a loss of Rs. 4.95 lakhs. The transaction was made before the bill rediscounting facility's due date, indicating a lack of good faith and bona fide action.
The court found that the transactions were not made in good faith or for valuable consideration, as the company sold the flats below acquisition costs and preferred certain creditors without legal compulsion.
3. Desealing of Flats:
The Official Liquidator requested the desealing of the flats, arguing that the transactions were genuine and complied with all formalities. However, the court, after detailed analysis, concluded that the transactions were fraudulent preferences and not bona fide. Therefore, the request to deseal the flats was denied.
Conclusion:
The court held that the transactions involving flat Nos. 8, 16, and 17 were fraudulent preferences under Sections 531 and 531A of the Companies Act. The transactions were not made in good faith or for valuable consideration, and the flats in question vested in the Official Liquidator. The request to deseal the flats was denied, and the Official Liquidator was directed to seal the properties. The judgment emphasized the importance of preventing fraudulent preferences to ensure equitable treatment of all creditors during the winding-up process.
-
2003 (3) TMI 602
Issues:
1. Maintainability of suit under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (SICA).
2. Ownership and possession of leased equipment.
3. Application of section 22 of SICA to properties not owned by the defendant-company.
Issue 1: Maintainability of suit under SICA:
The plaintiff sought a mandatory injunction for possession of two Diesel Generating Sets leased to the defendant. The defendant raised objections based on section 22 of SICA, claiming the suit was not maintainable due to pending proceedings before the BIFR. The defendant argued that alienation of assets without BIFR approval was impermissible. However, the plaintiff contended that the property belonged to them and no order suspending the Hire Purchase Agreement had been issued under SICA.
Issue 2: Ownership and possession of leased equipment:
The lease agreement clearly stated that the ownership of the equipment remained with the plaintiff, and the defendant was the lessee. The defendant defaulted on payments, leading to reminders and demands for repayment. The plaintiff moved for a decree on admissions, as the defendant admitted to the disbursement but cited financial difficulties due to a recession in the automobile industry.
Issue 3: Application of section 22 of SICA to properties not owned by the defendant-company:
Legal precedents were cited to establish that section 22 of SICA applies only to properties owned by the company undergoing proceedings. Cases like GE Capital Transportation Financial Services Ltd. v. Dee Pharma Ltd. and Space Capital Service v. Prakash Industrial Ltd. clarified that the provision does not apply to leased properties. The court held that since the leased equipment belonged to the plaintiff, the bar under section 22 did not apply, allowing the plaintiff to obtain a decree for possession of the Diesel Generating Sets.
In conclusion, the court found the defendant's objections to the maintainability of the suit under SICA to be unsustainable. Given the ownership of the leased equipment by the plaintiff and the legal precedents establishing the inapplicability of section 22 of SICA to leased properties, the plaintiff was granted a decree for possession of the Diesel Generating Sets. The court allowed a 30-day period before execution of the decree to provide the defendant with an opportunity to clear the dues, maintaining a restraint on alienation or possession of the equipment in the interim.
............
|
9911796707
