|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 281 to 300 of 497 Records
-
2005 (6) TMI 293
Issues:
1. Whether permission of the Debt Recovery Tribunal is required for a Bank or Financial Institution to invoke section 13B of the Securitisation Act after the insertion of the proviso to section 19 of the Enforcement of Security Interests and Recovery of Debts Laws Amendment Act, 2004?
Analysis:
The case involved a dispute where the Bank of India filed for recovery before the Debt Recovery Tribunal and simultaneously invoked section 13(2) of the Securitisation Act. The petitioners challenged this action, arguing that permission from the Debt Recovery Tribunal was necessary post the Amendment Act of 2004. The respondents contended that the proviso to section 19 of the RDB Act did not bar invoking the Securitisation Act without Tribunal permission. The court referred to previous judgments and highlighted that multiple remedies for recovery could coexist. The court emphasized that the proviso in question was procedural, not substantive, and did not mandate Tribunal permission before invoking the Securitisation Act.
The court examined the amended section 19(1) of the RDB Act, which outlines the application procedure before the Tribunal for debt recovery. The provisos added by the Amendment Act of 2004 were deemed to inform the Tribunal of the intent to utilize the Securitisation Act, without mandating permission for invoking it. The court clarified that the Tribunal's power was limited to granting or refusing permission for withdrawal of applications, not preventing invocation of the Securitisation Act. The judgment emphasized that the Tribunal could only decide on withdrawal requests, without the authority to stop the Bank or Financial Institution from using the Securitisation Act.
The court further highlighted that the Tribunal's role was to grant or refuse permission for withdrawal of applications, with no power to restrict invoking the Securitisation Act. The judgment concluded that neither before nor after the Amendment Act of 2004 was Tribunal permission necessary for invoking the Securitisation Act. Consequently, the court found no illegality in the notices issued by the Bank under section 13 and rule 9 of the Rules, 2004. The judgment upheld the quashing of another notice by the single Judge, leading to the dismissal of the writ appeal for lacking merits.
-
2005 (6) TMI 292
Issues:
Challenge to the order passed by the Company Law Board under section 634A of the Companies Act regarding the appointment of a retired Judge as Executing Authority for the execution of certain orders.
Analysis:
The appeal challenges the order of the Company Law Board appointing a retired Judge as the Executing Authority to execute specific orders. The Appellants argue that the appointment of an external authority for execution is beyond the scope of section 634A of the Act. They contend that if the Board couldn't execute the orders itself, it should refer the matter to a Civil Court. The Appellants also raise concerns about the broad authority given to the Executing Authority to dispose of company properties and deduct expenses without specifying the properties to be sold. They argue that the impugned order exceeds the purview of section 634A and is legally unsustainable.
The Respondents justify the Board's order, stating that it was to facilitate execution and not a delegation of judicial functions. They argue that the Executing Authority's actions would be subject to the Board's final approval. The Respondents maintain that the order aligns with the Act and no legal issue necessitates the appeal.
The Court examines section 634A, which allows the Board to enforce its orders as decrees in a suit. The Court notes that if the Board deems it unable to execute an order, it must refer the matter to the Civil Court. In this case, the Board expressed the need to use section 634A for execution but appointed an external authority. While the Board can seek assistance, it cannot delegate its decision-making authority. The Court finds fault with the order's lack of specificity on properties for sale, expenses deduction, and procedural details, which should be Board decisions. Consequently, the Court sets aside the order, directing the Board to reconsider the matter with proper guidance for future actions.
In conclusion, the Court allows the appeal, emphasizing the need for adherence to legal procedures and proper delineation of responsibilities in executing Board orders. The case underscores the importance of maintaining the statutory framework while executing Company Law Board decisions.
-
2005 (6) TMI 291
Issues:
1. Company petitions filed under sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 for sanctioning the Scheme of Amalgamation.
2. Transferor and transferee companies seeking amalgamation approval without shareholder meetings.
3. Details of the transferor company's objects, share capital, and annual accounts.
4. Information about the transferee company's incorporation, share capital, and consent for amalgamation.
5. Consent of both companies for the proposed amalgamation and benefits of the merger.
6. Advantages of amalgamation due to synergy, coordination, and cost savings.
7. Specific provisions of the scheme of amalgamation regarding transfer of assets, liabilities, reserves, and dissolution.
8. Objections raised by the Regional Director, Ministry of Company Affairs, regarding the transfer of authorized capital.
9. Reference to judgments supporting the transfer of authorized capital and the legal implications of amalgamation schemes.
10. Court's decision to overrule objections, approve the scheme of amalgamation, and ensure compliance with legal procedures.
Analysis:
1. The company petitions were filed under sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, by the Transferor Company and Transferee Company seeking approval for the Scheme of Amalgamation to be binding on the shareholders and the companies. The court had earlier dispensed with the requirement of shareholder meetings based on the companies' request.
2. The transferor company's objects, share capital details, and annual accounts were presented, showcasing its financial standing and compliance with regulatory requirements. Similarly, the transferee company's share capital, incorporation date, and consent for amalgamation were outlined to demonstrate its readiness for the merger.
3. Both companies provided consent for the proposed amalgamation, ensuring that the assets of the transferee company were sufficient to cover the transferor company's liabilities. The advantages of the merger, including operational synergies, coordination benefits, and cost savings, were highlighted as reasons supporting the scheme.
4. The scheme of amalgamation detailed the transfer of assets, liabilities, reserves, and the dissolution process post-merger. Specific provisions were included to ensure a smooth transition and legal compliance with the Companies Act, 1956.
5. The Regional Director raised objections regarding the transfer of authorized capital from the transferor to the transferee company. The court referred to relevant judgments supporting such transfers and emphasized the statutory nature of amalgamation schemes.
6. Ultimately, the court overruled the objections, approving the scheme of amalgamation. The decision was based on unanimous approval by both companies' boards, absence of creditor objections, compliance with legal procedures, and alignment with public policy. The court also awarded a fee to the Additional Central Government Standing Counsel and incorporated previous orders into the sanction order.
-
2005 (6) TMI 290
Issues Involved:
1. Failure of respondent-company to discharge financial liability.
2. Validity and enforcement of lease agreement and revised lease rentals.
3. Jurisdiction of the High Court of Gujarat.
4. Impact of subsequent notices on the original winding-up petition.
5. Maintainability of the winding-up petition alongside a civil suit.
6. Existence of a plausible defense by the respondent-company.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Failure of respondent-company to discharge financial liability:
The petitioner filed the petition under sections 433, 434, and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956, for winding up the respondent-company due to its failure to discharge financial liabilities. The respondent-company failed to pay the agreed monthly lease rentals from 1-8-1991, despite using the leased equipment. The petitioner issued a statutory notice on 9-7-1992 demanding arrears of Rs. 11,80,708 and the balance for the remaining lease period. The company did not respond or settle the dues, leading to the filing of the petition.
2. Validity and enforcement of lease agreement and revised lease rentals:
The lease agreement dated 22-3-1990 stipulated a non-cancellable lease period of 60 months with monthly rentals of Rs. 89,535, later revised to Rs. 98,700 effective from 1-12-1991. The respondent-company accepted the revised rentals without objection but defaulted on payments from 1-8-1991. The petitioner's right to revise rentals was upheld by clause 10.4 of the Lease Agreement.
3. Jurisdiction of the High Court of Gujarat:
The respondent argued that the lease agreement stipulated jurisdiction of Civil Court in Bombay, excluding the High Court of Gujarat. However, the Court held that section 10 of the Companies Act confers exclusive jurisdiction on the High Court where the company's registered office is situated, which in this case is Gujarat. The agreement to choose a forum for contractual disputes does not affect statutory rights under the Companies Act.
4. Impact of subsequent notices on the original winding-up petition:
The respondent contended that subsequent notices dated 21-1-1993 and 15-5-1993 superseded the original notice dated 9-7-1992, invalidating the winding-up petition. The Court found that the later notices related to dishonored cheques and proceedings under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, not the winding-up proceedings. Thus, the original notice remained valid.
5. Maintainability of the winding-up petition alongside a civil suit:
The respondent claimed that the petitioner's civil suit in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay for the same amount rendered the winding-up petition invalid. The Court clarified that a civil suit for recovery and a winding-up petition are independent remedies. The civil suit aims to enforce contractual obligations, while the winding-up petition seeks to dissolve the company due to its inability to pay debts. Filing a civil suit does not preclude pursuing a winding-up petition.
6. Existence of a plausible defense by the respondent-company:
The respondent argued that the claim was under trial in a civil suit, and the Court should not order winding up. However, the Court noted the admission of Rs. 19 lakhs outstanding and held that disputes over the balance did not affect the presumption of the company's inability to pay its debts under section 434 of the Companies Act.
Conclusion:
After considering all submissions, pleadings, and evidence, the Court concluded that the respondent-company failed to discharge its financial liabilities. The financial substratum of the company had deteriorated, and settlement talks were unproductive. The Court ordered the winding up of the respondent-company and appointed the Official Liquidator to take charge of the company's assets, with specific directions for notifying secured creditors and directors before taking inventory. The petition was thus disposed of with these directions.
-
2005 (6) TMI 289
Issues:
1. Application to quash criminal prosecution under section 628 of the Companies Act invoking powers under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
2. Allegation of fictitious entries in the books of account and balance sheet for the period 1995-96.
3. Contention regarding the prosecution being barred by limitation under section 468(2)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
4. Interpretation of section 469 of the Code regarding the commencement of the period of limitation.
5. Analysis of two decisions from the Madras and Andhra Pradesh High Courts on imputing knowledge of the offence to the Registrar upon filing the balance sheet.
6. Examination of regulations and circulars regarding the obligations of the Registrar upon receiving documents.
7. Determination of whether the offence was known to the person aggrieved for the period of limitation to start running.
8. Consideration of the interpretation of section 469(1)(b) to prevent misuse and ensure justice.
Analysis:
1. The petitioners, as accused directors of a company, sought to quash a criminal prosecution under section 628 of the Companies Act based on fictitious entries in the books of account and balance sheet for the period 1995-96 by invoking the powers under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
2. The petitioners contended that the prosecution was time-barred under section 468(2)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as the complaint filed in 2001 was beyond the three-year limitation period from the date of filing the balance sheet in 1996.
3. The interpretation of section 469 of the Code was crucial in determining the commencement of the limitation period, especially concerning when the offence was known to the person aggrieved for the limitation to start running.
4. The judgment analyzed conflicting views from the Madras and Andhra Pradesh High Courts on imputing knowledge of the offence to the Registrar upon filing the balance sheet, highlighting the importance of factual circumstances in each case.
5. The obligations of the Registrar upon receiving documents, as per regulations and circulars, were examined to ascertain whether the receipt or perusal of the balance sheet constituted knowledge of the offence for the limitation period to commence.
6. To prevent misuse and ensure justice, the interpretation of section 469(1)(b) was crucial, emphasizing the significance of actual or constructive knowledge of the offence for the limitation period to start running and the interests of the accused in raising relevant contentions.
-
2005 (6) TMI 288
Issues Involved:
1. Breaking open the lock and seal of the Official Liquidator.
2. Claim of ownership and possession of machinery under hire purchase agreements.
3. Sale of premises and machinery by the company and the State Bank of India.
4. Contempt of court for interfering with the possession of the Liquidator.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Breaking open the lock and seal of the Official Liquidator:
The Official Liquidator sealed the premises of a company under liquidation on 10-6-1998 to safeguard the machinery. However, it was found that the premises were later sold to Reliable Disposable Glass Containers (P.) Ltd. after breaking the seal. The Court directed the issuance of a show-cause notice to the directors and the purchaser for breaking the lock and seal of the Liquidator.
2. Claim of ownership and possession of machinery under hire purchase agreements:
Applicants claimed ownership of certain machineries under two hire purchase agreements dated 5-11-1993 with Rohan Stampings India (P.) Ltd. Due to defaults in repayment, the applicants sought possession of these machineries. The Court directed the Liquidator to release the machinery to the applicants, but the machinery was found missing from the premises.
3. Sale of premises and machinery by the company and the State Bank of India:
The premises and machinery were sold to Reliable Disposable Glass Containers (P.) Ltd. by the directors of Rohan Stampings India (P.) Ltd., allegedly with the intervention of the State Bank of India. The purchaser claimed to be unaware of the Liquidator's appointment and the seals on the premises. However, it was found that the purchaser was aware of the proceedings in the Debt Recovery Tribunal involving the Liquidator.
4. Contempt of court for interfering with the possession of the Liquidator:
The Court found Rajeev Dixit, a director of Rohan Stampings India (P.) Ltd., guilty of contempt for breaking the seal and disposing of the machinery. The purchaser, Reliable Disposable Glass Containers (P.) Ltd., was also found guilty of contempt for interfering with the Liquidator's possession. The Court imposed simple imprisonment and fines on Rajeev Dixit and fines on the purchaser.
Judgment Summary:
The Court held Rajeev Dixit guilty of contempt of court for breaking the lock and seal of the Official Liquidator and disposing of the machinery. He was sentenced to two months of simple imprisonment and fined Rs. 2,000. His son, Rohan Dixit, was also fined Rs. 5,000 for avoiding service of the show-cause notice. The purchaser, Reliable Disposable Glass Containers (P.) Ltd., was fined Rs. 2,000 and ordered to pay Rs. 3,000 in costs for interfering with the Liquidator's possession. The show-cause notice against Dilip Kumar Das was deferred until the execution of a non-bailable warrant. The Court granted a stay on the order for the purchaser upon depositing the fine within one week.
-
2005 (6) TMI 287
Issues Involved:
1. Inspection of papers, records, and proceedings.
2. Necessity of obtaining leave under Section 446 of the Companies Act.
3. Jurisdiction of High Court under Letters Patent vis-`a-vis Section 446.
4. Applicability of Section 446(4) to original jurisdiction proceedings.
5. Locus standi to raise the issue of leave under Section 446.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Inspection of Papers, Records, and Proceedings:
The plaintiff sought an order against defendant No. 4 (the official liquidator) to provide inspection and certified copies of all papers, records, and proceedings in the suit. The court noted that the plaintiff, being in possession of all records and proceedings as the party in carriage of the suit, did not substantiate the need for certified copies from the liquidator. The court found this request baseless and dismissed the chamber summons.
2. Necessity of Obtaining Leave under Section 446 of the Companies Act:
The court examined whether the plaintiff needed to obtain leave under Section 446 after the company went into liquidation. Section 446(1) states that no suit or legal proceeding shall continue against the company without leave from the court that ordered the winding up. The plaintiff argued that the previous order allowing the liquidator to be impleaded implied that leave was not necessary. However, the court clarified that the previous order did not address the necessity of leave under Section 446. The court emphasized that once a winding-up order is passed, all proceedings are stayed unless leave is obtained to ensure equal distribution of the company's assets among claimants.
3. Jurisdiction of High Court under Letters Patent vis-`a-vis Section 446:
The plaintiff contended that the High Court's jurisdiction under the Letters Patent was not affected by Section 446 of the Companies Act. The court rejected this argument, stating that the Letters Patent jurisdiction is subject to laws enacted subsequently, including the Companies Act. The court held that the provisions of Section 446 apply regardless of the High Court's establishment under the Letters Patent.
4. Applicability of Section 446(4) to Original Jurisdiction Proceedings:
The plaintiff argued that Section 446(4), which exempts appellate proceedings from the stay provisions, should also apply to original jurisdiction proceedings. The court disagreed, explaining that Section 446(4) specifically pertains to appellate proceedings, recognizing the hierarchy of judicial authority. The court noted that original jurisdiction proceedings are not exempt from the stay provisions under Section 446.
5. Locus Standi to Raise the Issue of Leave under Section 446:
The plaintiff asserted that only the official liquidator had the locus standi to raise the issue of leave under Section 446. The court dismissed this claim, stating that the statutory stay under Section 446 applies irrespective of whether the liquidator raises the issue. Courts are mandated to act in accordance with statutory provisions, and the stay must be recognized even if not contested by the liquidator.
Conclusion:
The court dismissed the chamber summons, stating that the plaintiff must obtain leave under Section 446 from the High Court of Gujarat, which passed the winding-up order, to proceed with the suit. The suit remains stayed until such leave is obtained. The court also imposed costs of Rs. 10,000 on the plaintiff for the chamber summons.
-
2005 (6) TMI 286
Issues Involved:
Granting possession of premises under tenancy of a company in liquidation to the petitioner.
Analysis:
The petitioner sought the removal of seal and lock from premises under the tenancy of a company in liquidation and requested peaceful possession. The petitioner provided a certificate of title and agreed not to claim rent arrears. The Official Liquidator stated the cost of company assets at Rs. 4,000. The petitioner agreed to pay this amount. The Official Liquidator confirmed not requiring the premises for company use.
The judge considered the financial state of the company in liquidation, noting its lack of funds and uncertain ability to pay rent. The judge expressed concern for unsecured creditors, highlighting the usual shortfall in meeting secured creditor claims through asset sales. The judge emphasized the unfairness of burdening the company with unnecessary rent expenses and depriving the landlord of property, especially when the company did not need the premises.
Consequently, the judge granted the application, instructing the Official Liquidator to hand over possession of the premises to the petitioner upon fulfillment of the agreed undertakings. The judge clarified that the order did not determine the petitioner's title to the premises conclusively and would not bind any other party claiming title over the premises.
-
2005 (6) TMI 285
Issues Involved:
1. Direction for convening a meeting of Scheme Lenders.
2. Declaration of the Scheme of Arrangement as null and void.
3. Separate meetings for Debenture holders holding more than 2000 debentures.
4. Examination of the Scheme at the stage of seeking direction for convening the meeting.
5. Constitution of class for Scheme Lenders.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Direction for convening a meeting of Scheme Lenders:
Company Application No. 217 of 2005 was filed by Essar Oil Limited seeking the court's direction to convene a meeting of the Scheme Lenders to consider and approve the Scheme of Compromise and Arrangement. The court, after considering the statutory provisions and relevant case laws, issued directions for convening the meeting. The court emphasized that the application for an order for meetings is a preliminary step, and the company takes the risk that the classes fixed by the judge may reveal inadequacies, potentially leading to the scheme not being approved.
2. Declaration of the Scheme of Arrangement as null and void:
Company Application No. 224 of 2005, filed by Peerless General Finance and Investment Company Limited, sought to declare the Scheme of Arrangement as null and void. The court did not find it just and proper to reject the application at the threshold. The court noted that the minority debenture holders would have the opportunity to discuss, deliberate, and raise objections during the meeting and subsequently when the substantive petition is filed for the scheme's confirmation.
3. Separate meetings for Debenture holders holding more than 2000 debentures:
The objectors argued for separate meetings for debenture holders holding more than 2000 debentures, stating that they constitute a different class from the Term Lenders and Working Capital Lenders. The court, however, decided not to entertain this prayer at this stage, citing the principle that the court does not consider at this point what classes of creditors or members should be made parties to the scheme. This issue would be reserved for a later stage when the substantive petition is filed.
4. Examination of the Scheme at the stage of seeking direction for convening the meeting:
The court referred to various judgments, including those of the Supreme Court, to conclude that the scheme should not be examined in detail at the stage of seeking direction for convening the meeting. The court emphasized that the merits of the scheme could be discussed at the meeting, and objections could be raised during the meeting and later when the substantive petition is filed.
5. Constitution of class for Scheme Lenders:
The court addressed the issue of whether the company could place debenture holders in the same class as Term Lenders and Working Capital Lenders under the new scheme. The court referred to the principle from Palmer's Company Law, which states that the court does not consider at this point what classes of creditors or members should be made parties to the scheme. The court decided to issue directions for convening the meeting without pronouncing judgment on the justification of the class constitution at this stage.
Conclusion:
The court issued directions for convening the meeting of Scheme Lenders, including detailed procedural instructions, while reserving the examination of the scheme's merits and the justification of class constitution for a later stage when the substantive petition is filed. Both company applications were disposed of without any order as to cost.
-
2005 (6) TMI 284
Issues:
1. Liability of respondent No. 3 to pay compensation/royalty for the use of a flat in a housing society.
2. Determination of the amount of compensation/royalty to be paid by respondent No. 3 until a specific date.
Analysis:
1. The main issue in this case was whether respondent No. 3 was liable to pay compensation or royalty for using a flat in a housing society. The applicants claimed that the respondent should pay compensation from the date of filing the Company Petition until the flat was vacated. The respondent, who was a Director of the Company in liquidation, occupied the flat on a gratuitous license basis. The court examined the legal status of the respondent and concluded that he continued to be the Director of the Company, and the arrangement for using the premises should prevail until expressly terminated between the parties.
2. The court considered the provisions of the Companies Act and legal precedents to determine that the respondent's status as Director continued even after the Company Petition was filed. The court highlighted that the order passed did not expressly terminate the arrangement between the respondent and the Company. The court emphasized that the mere filing of the application did not determine the arrangement, and the respondent was entitled to occupy the premises under the same terms as before the legal proceedings.
3. The court also referenced a Supreme Court decision to support the view that in summary proceedings, it is not appropriate to determine issues regarding rights claimed between parties, which should be decided by the proper forum. Ultimately, the court found that there was no substantiation for the applicant's claim that the respondent was liable to pay compensation for the use of the premises. Since the respondent had vacated the premises as directed, the court ruled against the applicants, and the Company Application failed in terms of the relief sought.
4. In conclusion, the court dismissed the application regarding the liability of the respondent to pay compensation, emphasizing that there was no evidence to support the claim and that the respondent had vacated the premises as per the court's direction. The judgment highlighted the legal status of the respondent as a Director and the importance of expressly terminating arrangements between parties in such cases.
-
2005 (6) TMI 283
Issues:
- Dispute over ownership of shares and transfer
- Validity of the suit filed by the plaintiff
- Decision of the trial court
Dispute over ownership of shares and transfer:
The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for a permanent injunction and a mandatory injunction regarding the transfer of shares. The plaintiff claimed to have purchased the shares but found them transferred to the second defendant instead of in his and his wife's name. The trial court dismissed the suit, emphasizing the lack of evidence to prove the plaintiff's ownership of the shares. The court considered a letter from the first defendant to the plaintiff's broker, indicating the transfer to the second defendant based on a valid transfer deed. The trial court suggested that the plaintiff should address the issue with his broker, who may have sold the shares to the second defendant, rather than suing the defendants who had no direct involvement in the transaction. The trial court concluded that the plaintiff's case lacked merit, leading to the dismissal of the suit.
Validity of the suit filed by the plaintiff:
The trial court deemed the suit filed by the plaintiff as not maintainable, as it failed to establish the plaintiff's ownership of the shares and the defendants' involvement in the transfer. The court highlighted that the plaintiff should have pursued the matter with his broker, who was entrusted with the share transfer, instead of directly suing the defendants. The court found the suit to be devoid of legal authenticity and justification, leading to its dismissal. The judgment emphasized the importance of proper documentation and legal ownership in such disputes, indicating that the plaintiff's case lacked the necessary legal basis for the suit to proceed.
Decision of the trial court:
The trial court's decision to dismiss the plaintiff's suit was based on the lack of evidence supporting the plaintiff's claim of ownership of the shares and the transfer dispute. The court considered the letter from the first defendant to the plaintiff's broker as crucial evidence in determining the transfer to the second defendant. The trial court concluded that the plaintiff's failure to address the issue with his broker, who may have facilitated the transfer to the second defendant, rendered the suit against the defendants unjustified and not maintainable. Therefore, the trial court found no grounds for interference in its decision to dismiss the suit, leading to the subsequent dismissal of the appeal for lack of merit.
-
2005 (6) TMI 282
Oppression and mismanagement - determination of market valuation - Whether the respondent would continue to exercise rights as Director of the appellant-company until the amount towards the valuation of his shares held by the respondent is paid over to him? - HELD THAT:- The valuation report determining the market value of the share the valuation ex facie cannot be considered as just and proper. However, the contentions which are advanced before me by the parties indicate that there are different modes of challenge to the said valuation report of the Chartered Accountant and, thus, I propose to go into the details of the nature of challenge to valuation report.
It is needless to state that the valuer will determine the valuation of the said assets as independent agency and on his own parameters and approach and would not seek any assistance either of the petitioner and/or of the respondent-company. I am of the further opinion that the valuation report prepared by the said valuer must be as of the date fixed as 31-3-2005 and the valuation must be taken into consideration as on the date of 31-3-2005. I am of the aforesaid opinion because the petitioner is a 40 per cent shareholder in the company. His shares have remained stagnant in the said company. Furthermore if the assets of the company have appreciated then the value of his shares must necessarily and correspondingly appreciate and therefore it is necessary that the valuation of the said assets must take place as on 31-3-2005 which is the end of the closest financial year. The said Chartered Accountant appointed by the Company Law Board as valuer shall hear both the parties and thereafter arrive at his own valuation.
The respondent-company will provide all documents and papers, vouchers and any other material which is in their custody and possession as and when called upon by the said valuer. In an event if the valuer finds any difficulty in obtaining any of the material documents necessary then in that event the valuer will approach the Company Law Board for further necessary directions. Fees of the valuer will be shared by both the parties in their proportion of 40 per cent and 60 per cent, i.e., the original petitioner will pay 40 per cent and the respondent- company will pay 60 per cent of the fees charged by the valuer. The said valuation report once filed before the Company Law Board, the Company Law Board will hear the matter expeditiously and dispose of all objections thereto expeditiously as possible but in any event within six months from the date of filing of the valuation report.
Remuneration of the director - It is not possible to ascertain whether the second respondent has drawn remuneration or not but second respondent has been enjoying all the facilities. I am therefore of the opinion that the ratio of two-third to the remuneration drawn by the second respondent fixed by the Company Law Board cannot be altered at this stage but the petitioner will be entitled to the said remuneration and or perquisites throughout the period till and until the shares are evaluated and payments are offered in respect of the shares. Thus, I direct the original respondent-company to make payment of the arrears, remunerations and of the perquisites up to the date of 31-3-2005 within a period of two months from today to the original petitioner in the ratio of two-third of the total remuneration and perquisites drawn by the second respondent. The said payments will be made by the respondent-company with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum to the petitioner herein since he has been deprived of the same all throughout. The remuneration as directed by the Company Law Board has also not been paid. In view thereof I pass the following order.
Both the company appeals are disposed off as per the following directions :
(i) Insofar as the first question of law is concerned, I hold that the valuation report is not just and fair and is suffering from bias and non-independence of the valuer. I accordingly set aside the said valuation report in its entirety. I direct that the shares held by the petitioner will be re-evaluated by the Chartered Accountant appointed by the Company Law Board as on 31-3-2005. I further direct that the Company Law Board to appoint such Chartered Accountant for valuation of share price within a period of thirty days of the receipt of the present order. I further direct that the Company Law Board shall fix a time schedule within which the Chartered Accountant should complete the exercise of valuation of the said shares. The said Chartered Accountant shall file the valuation report in sealed cover with the Company Law Board in Company Petition No. 12 of 1998.
(ii) Fees of the Chartered Accountant shall be shared by both parties, 40 per cent by the petitioner, 60 per cent by the respondent.
(iii) Before finalising the report the said Chartered Accountant will give opportunity to both the parties to give their facts and figures pertaining to the valuation of his report and shall make the final valuation keeping in mind the submissions made by the parties.
(iv) The said report shall be filed before the Company Law Board by the said Chartered Accountant within a period of two weeks from the date he has completed the said valuation. On the said report being filed, the Company Law Board will give notice to both the parties and furnish a copy of the valuation report to both the parties and thereafter invite objections from either of the parties within a stipulated period of time. If the objections are received then the Company Law Board will consider the same by itself without remanding back to the valuer and pass appropriate order on such valuation report prepared by the valuer.
(v) The Company Law Board will pass final orders as expeditiously as possible but in any event within a period of six months from the date of the valuation report filed by the said Chartered Accountant before the Company Law Board.
(vi) Insofar as the second question of law is concerned, I hold that the original petitioner is entitled to payment of remuneration and perquisites till the date his shares are evaluated as per the second option and the necessary amount paid by the company as per the valuation report. Arrears of the rumination as of 31-3-2005 shall be paid within 2 months along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of impugned order till the date of payment.
(vii) Furthermore on such payment offered by the respondent company to the petitioner the original petitioner will cease to claim any remuneration and will be entitled to the said price of his shares. The original petitioner on payment being made will effect transfer of all his shares and also will resign from the directorship of the company and will cease to have any claim in respect of the remuneration and perquisites as a director of the company.
(viii) With the aforesaid directions both the appeals are disposed of with no order as to costs.
-
2005 (6) TMI 281
Issues:
Claim of debt by petitioner against respondent for chemical products supplied.
Analysis:
The petitioner, a German company, claimed that the respondent, a company in India, owed a debt for chemical products supplied. The petitioner alleged that despite invoices and acknowledgments, the respondent failed to make payment, leading to a petition for winding up due to commercial insolvency. The key question was whether the petitioner established a determined, ascertained, definite, and undisputed debt to warrant winding up.
The court scrutinized the evidence presented by the petitioner, focusing on the alleged invoices (Exhibits A1 and A2) and the lack of acknowledgment by the respondent. The court noted the absence of crucial documents like purchase orders and supporting materials for the transactions. The court emphasized that the mere statements in the statutory notice and the production of invoices without proper acknowledgment did not constitute prima facie evidence of a commercial transaction. The lack of substantial legal evidence of a determined debt led the court to question the validity of the claim.
Furthermore, the court highlighted the absence of evidence regarding the respondent's incorporation under the Companies Act within Karnataka and the lack of a balance sheet to prove commercial insolvency. Without concrete proof of the respondent's inability to meet its debts, the court could not conclude that the company was unable to pay its dues. The court emphasized the importance of establishing a prima facie case to invoke the discretion of the court for winding up.
In citing legal precedents, the court referenced a case emphasizing the need for a petitioner to prove a debt payable and for the respondent to disprove it with a good faith defense. The court also referred to the commercial sense of being unable to pay dues and the requirement for a determined or definite sum of money to be payable immediately or in the future. The court cautioned against using the winding-up machinery solely for debt realization purposes.
Ultimately, the court found the petitioner's case to be built on a non-existent foundation, lacking relevant material to support the claims made. The court rejected the petition, emphasizing the impropriety of seeking a decision without proper evidence and information. The judgment concluded that the petition was not maintainable, leading to its rejection.
-
2005 (6) TMI 280
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the High Court has the jurisdiction to sanction a scheme under sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, despite a pending reference under section 15 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (SICA).
2. The applicability of section 22 and section 26 of SICA to the proceedings under sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act.
3. The effect of section 32 of SICA on the provisions of sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act:
The petitions were filed by National Organic Chemical Industries Ltd. (NOCIL) for restructuring its business by demerging its petrochemical, polymer, and plastic products divisions into separate entities. The scheme had the consent of the necessary majority of creditors and shareholders. The Regional Director filed objections citing a pending reference under section 15 of SICA. The primary issue was whether the High Court could exercise jurisdiction under sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act given the pending reference under SICA.
2. Applicability of Section 22 and Section 26 of SICA:
The court examined whether section 22 of SICA, which suspends legal proceedings in certain cases, applies to the proceedings under sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act. It was argued that section 22 does not apply because the present case is not a suit for recovery or enforcement of security but a scheme for restructuring. The court agreed, noting that section 22's suspension provisions are limited to winding up, execution, or attachment proceedings and do not extend to the current restructuring scheme. Similarly, section 26 of SICA, which restricts the jurisdiction of civil courts in matters appealable under SICA, was found inapplicable as it pertains only to orders passed under SICA.
3. Effect of Section 32 of SICA:
Section 32 of SICA provides that its provisions will have an overriding effect in case of inconsistency with other laws. The court analyzed whether there was any inconsistency between sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act and sections 15 to 19 of SICA. It was argued that both sets of provisions aim to make companies financially viable and are not inconsistent. The court agreed, stating that the objectives of both statutes are complementary, not contradictory. The provisions of SICA apply to companies with negative net worth, while sections 391 to 394 can apply to companies in various financial conditions seeking restructuring for better efficiency. Therefore, there is no inconsistency, and section 32 of SICA does not override the provisions of sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act.
Conclusion:
The court concluded that it has the jurisdiction to sanction the scheme under sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, despite the pending reference under SICA. The provisions of section 22 and section 26 of SICA do not apply to the current proceedings, and there is no inconsistency between the provisions of SICA and the Companies Act that would invoke the overriding effect of section 32 of SICA. The petitions were granted, and the scheme was sanctioned, with the petitioners ordered to pay costs to the Regional Director.
-
2005 (6) TMI 279
Issues Involved:
1. Priority of claims between the Karnataka State Industrial Investment & Development Corporation Limited (KSIIDC) and the Customs Department.
2. Applicability of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 (the Act) over the Customs Act, 1962.
Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: Priority of Claims
The primary contention revolves around whether KSIIDC, as a secured creditor, has precedence over the Customs Department in recovering dues from the sale of assets taken over under Section 29 of the Act.
Petitioner's Argument:
- KSIIDC, being a secured creditor, claims priority over the Customs Department for the recovery of dues from defaulting borrowers.
- The Petitioner argued that the dues owed to them are public dues or crown debts, as KSIIDC is a wholly-owned undertaking of the State of Karnataka.
- Citing the judgment in *Bank of Bihar v. State of Bihar* (AIR 1971 SC 1210), the Petitioner emphasized that the pawnee has a special property and lien over the goods, which cannot be overridden by other creditors, including the Government.
- The Petitioner also referenced sections 172 and 173 of the Contract Act, and various judgments to support their claim that secured creditors have precedence over government dues.
Respondent's Argument:
- The Customs Department argued that the imported goods, which were exempt from customs duty on the condition of fulfilling export obligations, become liable for customs duty upon failure to meet these obligations.
- The Department cited the amendment to Section 142 of the Customs Act, which allows the recovery of dues from assets owned by the predecessor, even if transferred to a successor.
- The Department further referenced the Supreme Court's decision in *Macson Marbles (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India* (2003 (158) ELT 424), which held that the sale under Section 29 of the Act is deemed to be a sale by the owner, thus making the successor liable for customs dues.
Court's Analysis:
- The Court acknowledged that under general law, secured creditors have precedence over unsecured creditors, including government dues, as established in the *Bank of Bihar* case.
- However, the Court noted that the specific capital goods imported under customs duty exemption, subject to export obligations, become liable for customs duty upon failure to meet these obligations.
- Applying the principle laid down in *Macson Marbles*, the Court concluded that KSIIDC, as the successor, is liable for customs dues on the imported goods.
Conclusion on Issue 1:
The Court held that the Customs Department could claim priority for recovery of dues only in respect of the imported goods that were exempted from customs duty, and not in respect of other goods over which KSIIDC claims as a secured creditor.
Issue 2: Applicability of the Act Over the Customs Act
The second issue concerns whether the provisions of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951, prevail over the Customs Act, 1962, in terms of Section 46-B of the Act.
Petitioner's Argument:
- The Petitioner argued that the Act is a special enactment and should prevail over the Customs Act, 1962, as per Section 46-B of the Act.
Respondent's Argument:
- The Customs Department contended that both the Act and the Customs Act are special enactments, and unless there is a conflict in their enforcement, the question of one prevailing over the other does not arise.
Court's Analysis:
- The Court observed that both the Act and the Customs Act are special enactments with their specific objectives and schemes.
- In the absence of a conflict in their enforcement, the Court found no basis to consider one Act prevailing over the other.
Conclusion on Issue 2:
The Court concluded that the proposition that the Act prevails over the Customs Act is not acceptable, as both are special enactments, and the question of precedence does not arise without a conflict.
Final Judgment:
The petitions were partly allowed, with the Court holding that the Customs Department has priority in recovering customs dues only in respect of the specific imported goods, while KSIIDC retains precedence as a secured creditor for other assets. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.
-
2005 (6) TMI 278
Capital Gains - sale of flat/tenement - transfer of FSI - non-genuine character - Prospective purchasers - full value of consideration - seeking cross-examination - Natural Justice - evidence tendered was false and fabricated - HELD THAT:- It is seen that in the present case, the assessee entered into an agreement with the builder/developer on 20th June, 1996 with the builder/developer-M/s Kolte Patil Enterprises to develop the land bearing Survey No. 16/1 admeasuring 8 hectares 25 acres situated at Mauze Wadgaonsheri and to construct buildings/apartments. The assessee signed a general power of attorney in favour of the builder/developer and gave possession of the property to the builder/developer. In his letter dt. 22nd Feb., 2001 addressed to the AO it was stated by the assessee that, "I have given permissive possession to the developer, M/s Kolte Patil Enterprises so as to enable them to develop the land and complete their part of agreement of constructing the fiats".
It is an admitted fact that the assessee entered into an agreement with the builder/developer-M/s Kolte Patil Enterprises for development of the impugned land and construction of flats thereon. Also, the assessee signed a general power of attorney in favour of the builder/developer on 20th June, 1996 and gave possession of the property to the builder/developer. Further, the assessee acted on the impugned agreement by accepting from the builder/developer payments by cheques on different dates in the financial year 1997-98 aggregating to Rs. 48,00,000 as admitted in his letter dt. 22nd Feb., 2001 addressed to the AO.
Thus, we are satisfied that all the conditions of sub-cl. (v) of s. 2(47) are satisfied in this case and, therefore, it has to be inferred that a 'transfer' did take place within the meaning of s. 2(47)(v) of the Act. This conclusion of ours gets support from the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia. The argument of Shri Sathe that the deeds in respect of the sale of flats were not registered/executed is not a relevant consideration so far as provisions of sub-cl. (v) of s. 2(47) are concerned.
The completion of 'transfer' of an immovable property as per the general law is not a requirement for the applicability of the provisions of the sub-cl. (v) of s. 2(47) of the Act as was held by the Bombay High Court in the case of Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia [2003 (2) TMI 62 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT]. Further, the assessee's plea that subsequently he filed suits which were pending, against the builder/developer with the prayer that the agreements with the builder/developer be declared as cancelled, is merely about suits which Were pending and which represent a subsequent event and, therefore, it does not affect the above inference of ours.
However, it is seen that the computation of the capital gains made by the assessee is based on the information furnished by the builder/developer before him. Shri Sathe, the ld AR, contended that the request made by the assessee before the AO and also before the CIT(A) for permission to cross-examine the partners of M/s Kolte Patil Enterprises in relation to the contents of their letters and other information and documents submitted by them before the AO during assessment proceeding was not allowed. He placed reliance on the decision of P.S. Abdul Majeed vs. Agrl. ITO & Ors.[1994 (1) TMI 54 - KERALA HIGH COURT] and contended that in the circumstances of the case, refusal to allow cross-examination amounted to violation of the principles of natural justice.
It is seen that the facts of the case for AY's 1997-98, 1998-99 and 1999-2000 are identical that the assessment orders for AY's 1997-98, 1998-99 and 1999-2000 were passed by the AO on identical lines and that the assessee has raised identical grounds in these appeals.
Thus, we consider it appropriate to remit this matter back to the file of the AO for the limited purpose of a de novo examination of the quantum of the capital gains to be assessed in AY's 1997-98, 1998-99 and 1999-2000. The AO is directed to make all the information/documents filed before him by the builder/developer M/s Kolte Patil Enterprises available to the assessee and to give the opportunity of cross-examination to the assessee as per law. The AO should pass fresh orders for AY's 1997-98, 1998-99 and 1999-2000 after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for asst. yrs. 1997-98, 1998-99 and 1999-2000 are partly allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2005 (6) TMI 275
Issues Involved:
1. Computation of capital gain under Section 54.
2. Compliance with the Capital Gains Account Scheme, 1988.
3. Classification of the transaction as purchase or construction of a new residential property.
4. Entitlement to exemption under Section 54.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Computation of Capital Gain under Section 54:
The primary controversy revolves around the computation of capital gain under Section 54 on the sale of the assessee's residential property in Pune. The assessee declared a sale consideration of Rs. 3,75,000 and deducted Rs. 40,100 as costs, resulting in a capital gain of Rs. 3,34,000, which was claimed as exempt due to the construction of a new house in Nashik. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) pointed out that for exemption under Section 54, the assessee must either purchase a new residential house within one year before or two years after the sale or construct a new house within three years. The ITO found that the conditions for utilizing the money in the Capital Gains Account Scheme were not met and disallowed the exemption under Section 54, allowing pro-rata exemption under Section 53 instead.
2. Compliance with the Capital Gains Account Scheme, 1988:
The ITO noted that the bank account used by the assessee was a savings account and not an account under the Capital Gains Account Scheme, 1988. Further, the assessee transferred funds from this account to another savings account and used some of the money for a term deposit and a loan to a friend, which did not comply with the specified purposes under Section 54(1). The assessee explained that the builder delayed construction, leading to the decision to delay payments and place the money in a term deposit. However, no explanation was provided for the loan to the friend.
3. Classification of the Transaction as Purchase or Construction of a New Residential Property:
The key issue was whether the assessee purchased a new residential property or constructed it. The CIT(A) held that the assessee had not constructed the new property but purchased it from the builder, Kalpataru Construction, beyond the specified period of two years from the sale of the old house. The assessee argued that the construction was completed within three years, and substantial payments were made within two years, thus claiming the exemption under Section 54. The Tribunal examined the agreement and found that it was a binding contract for the purchase of a row-house, not construction on behalf of the assessee.
4. Entitlement to Exemption under Section 54:
The Tribunal considered various submissions and case laws, including CIT vs. Mrs. Hilla J.B. Wadia, CIT vs. J.R. Subramanya Bhat, CIT vs. T.N. Arvinda Reddy, and CIT vs. Smt. Bharati C. Kothari. It was noted that the test of domain and control over the property, rather than legal formalities, should be applied. The Tribunal concluded that substantial payments made within two years indicated that the assessee had domain and control over the new property within the stipulated period. Thus, the assessee was entitled to exemption under Section 54.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, holding that the assessee was entitled to exemption under Section 54, as substantial payments were made within the stipulated period, and the domain and control over the new property had passed to the assessee within two years from the sale of the old property.
-
2005 (6) TMI 274
Applicability of section 55A - Capital Gains - transfer of land - valuation to the DVO - fair market value - HELD THAT:- The reference relied upon by the DR was section 142A which was incorporated with retrospective effect from 15-11-1972. This section inserted for the purpose of making an assessment or reassessment where an estimate of the value of any investment referred to in section 69 or section 69B or the value of any bullion, jewellery or other valuable article referred to in section 69A or 69B is required to be made. So the section is altogether in respect of ascertaining the unexplained investment, unexplained money or the amount in unexplained investment or any expenditure, etc. For that purpose only section 142A is inserted and the Assessing Officer has been given power to refer the matter for the purpose of valuation to the valuation officer.
On the other hand, the context for reference to the valuation officer in the present appeal was determination of long-term capital gain, hence, the aforesaid section of Income-tax Act has also been wrongly cited by the learned DR. There is one more argument of learned DR that the reference to the DVO can be made by the Assessing Officer in any other case as prescribed u/s 55A(b) having regard to the nature of the asset and other relevant circumstances if it is necessary so to do. On careful perusal of the Third Member decision, we have noticed that this objection of learned DR was also in that appeal and which was duly answered by the Co-ordinate Bench by holding that neither the Assessing Officer nor the CIT(A) can assume power to give such a direction where the value of the property disclosed by the assessee based upon the approved valuer's report.
In our humble opinion, it was rightly held by the ITAT because the wordings of clause (b) are such that "in any other case" if the Assessing Officer is of the opinion that having regard to the nature of the asset it is necessary so to do. So, the cases other than the case whether there is no valuer's report given by the assessee, the Assessing Officer is empowered to make reference under clause (b) of section 55A and not otherwise. With these remarks, we hereby conclude that the issue is directly covered by the decision of Ms. Rubab M. Kazerani's case [2004 (7) TMI 649 - ITAT MUMBAI]. Therefore, we hereby allow the main ground i.e., Ground No. 1 in favour of the assessee quashing the reference made by the Assessing Officer to the DVO. The findings of the authorities below are hereby reversed.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2005 (6) TMI 273
Minimum Alternate Tax - deduction u/s 80HHC - HELD THAT:- We are of the view that Hon'ble Hyderabad 'B' Bench in the case of Starchik Specialties Ltd v. Dy. CIT[2003 (7) TMI 283 - ITAT HYDERABAD-B] placed somewhat liberal interpretations on aforesaid clause (viii) of the section. Nonetheless, the Hon'ble members clearly held that deduction under clause (viii) has to be computed with respect to the book profit. In spite of the difference in language of section 115J and section 115JA in the matter, pointed out earlier by us, we are of the view that judicial propriety demands that we follow the decision in the case of Starchik Specialities Ltd. In view thereof, it is held that deduction u/s 115JA, Clause (viii) of the Explanation, is to be computed on the basis of book profits.
Therefore, appeals are partly allowed.
Interest under sections 234B and 234 - We have considered the facts of the case and rival submissions. We have also considered the decision of Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of Chemplast Sanmar Ltd. [2004 (3) TMI 62 - ITAT CHENNAI] and Synthetic Industrial Chemicals Ltd [2004 (1) TMI 310 - ITAT COCHIN]. On combined reading of various sections, namely, 115JA, 115JAA, 208, 209, 234B & 234C, the Hon'ble Tribunal came to the conclusion that MAT credit is akin to advance tax because it goes to reduce the liability of the assessee of the year and, accordingly, it reduces the liability of assessee by an equivalent amount from payment of advance tax. It has been mentioned by the Tribunal that MAT credit is not mentioned specifically in Explanation 1 to section 234B. Therefore, it can be said that the issue whether MAT credit is advance tax paid or not is a debatable issue and any independent conclusion can be arrived at only after detailed arguments on the harmonious construction of aforesaid sections. Even after that, it cannot be said that MAT credit is tax deducted at source, tax collected at source or advance tax paid.
Therefore, we are of the opinion that the question of law on this issue requires considerable debate. If the issue requires debate and discussion, it cannot become a subject-matter of rectification u/s 154 because under this section only patent and obvious mistake of law can be rectified. In view of this discussion, we are of the considered view that the ld. CIT(A) was right in dismissing the appeals of assessee on the issue of computation of interest under sections 234B and 234C.
The result of this discussion that the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
-
2005 (6) TMI 267
Issues Involved:
1. Accrual of retention money as income.
2. Change in method of accounting.
3. Matching principle of income and expenditure.
4. Residuary ground.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Accrual of Retention Money as Income:
The primary issue was whether the retention money amounting to Rs. 74,42,520 accrued as income to the assessee in the relevant previous year. The assessee argued that under the mercantile method of accounting, the right to receive this amount did not exist in the relevant year as the amount was contingent upon the satisfactory completion of the contract and passing of performance tests. The CIT(A) supported this view, referring to accounting standards and judicial precedents which state that income accrues only when the right to receive it is established. The Tribunal upheld this perspective, noting that the retention money would only accrue as income upon the final acceptance of the plant by the contractee.
2. Change in Method of Accounting:
The Revenue contended that the assessee had changed its method of accounting by not including the retention money as income, which was previously recognized. However, the assessee maintained that it continued to follow the mercantile method and only corrected a past mistake. The Tribunal agreed, stating that the method of accounting had not changed; rather, the correct legal principles were applied in the current year.
3. Matching Principle of Income and Expenditure:
The Revenue argued that not recognizing the retention money would mismatch the income and expenditure, leading to a distorted profit picture. The Tribunal clarified that under mercantile accounting, the principle of matching income with corresponding expenditure is not legally binding. The expenditure incurred is deductible when it is incurred, irrespective of when the corresponding income is recognized.
4. Residuary Ground:
The fourth ground was residuary in nature and did not require a specific decision.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals for the assessment years 1991-92, 1992-93, and 1993-94. It held that the retention money did not accrue as income in the relevant years as the right to receive it was contingent upon the completion of contractual obligations and satisfactory performance tests. The method of accounting remained consistent, and the principle of matching income with expenditure did not necessitate the inclusion of retention money as income before it was rightfully due.
............
|
9911796707
