|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 584 Records
-
2005 (4) TMI 612
Issues involved: Interpretation of arbitration clause and appointment of arbitrator under section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Interpretation of Arbitration Clause:
The judgment dealt with a case where disputes arose between parties governed by an agreement with an arbitration clause. The clause specified that disputes shall be referred to the Functional Director of the owner for arbitration. The clause also outlined the procedure for appointment of an arbitrator and continuation of arbitration in case of transfer or vacancy. The appellant demanded appointment of an arbitrator as per the clause, but the respondent failed to act, leading to a legal dispute.
Appointment of Arbitrator under Section 11(6):
The appellant, after serving notice and not receiving a response from the respondent regarding arbitrator appointment, approached the Chief Justice of the High Court under section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The designated Judge of the High Court refused to appoint an arbitrator, stating that the appellant should follow the procedure outlined in the arbitration clause. The appellant then filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, which was also dismissed. The Supreme Court, after considering the arguments, allowed the appeal, citing a previous case law that emphasized the right to appoint an arbitrator not being automatically forfeited after 30 days, but the appointment must be made before the other party moves the court under Section 11.
Decision:
The Supreme Court set aside the orders of the designated Judge and the Division Bench, directing the application under Section 11(6) to be restored before the Chief Justice of the High Court for consideration and appointment of an arbitrator in accordance with the law. No costs were awarded in the matter.
-
2005 (4) TMI 611
Arbitration proceedings - tender for supply of oxygen - Payment of interest - Agreement had been entered into between Hindustan Copper Limited (‘HCL’) and Bhagwati Oxygen Limited (‘BOL’) - Power to award interest at the rate of eighteen per cent per annum for pre-reference period, pendente lite and post reference, i.e. future interest from the date of award till the date of payment - Whether the Arbitrator had misconducted himself in passing the impugned award and by dismissing the counter claim of HCL - HELD THAT:- Since the purity of oxygen gas was below 85 per cent, HCL was justified in refusing payment. It was also submitted that as per agreement, BOL was required to establish a 50,000 Litres Vacuum Insulated Storage Tank (VIST) evaporation and distribution system in the plant and was to maintain constant stock of 50,000 Litres of liquid oxygen but BOL failed to establish it. There was thus breach of condition by BOL. Keeping that fact in view, payment was not made by HCL and it could not have been held that HCL was wrong in not making payment. BOL, in view of breach of condition could not have asked for payment. The Arbitrator, therefore, was wrong in allowing the claim of BOL.
In view of waiver on the part of HCL, it was incumbent on HCL to make payment and since no such payment was made, BOL was right in making grievance regarding non-payment of the amount and accordingly an award was made in favour of BOL. The learned single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court considered the grievance of HCL so far as the claim of BOL allowed by the Arbitrator and upheld it.
In view of the finding recorded by the Arbitrator and non-interference by the High Court, we are of the view that no case has been made out by HCL as regards the claim allowed by the Arbitrator in favour of BOL to the extent of supply of oxygen gas to HCL. Hence, the appeal filed by HCL deserves to be dismissed.
In our opinion, however, the learned counsel for BOL is justified in submitting that really it was in realm of appreciation and re-appreciation of evidence. At the most all those letters go to show that HCL had some complaint against BOL and it had also disclosed its intention to purchase oxygen gas from other sources but as observed by the Arbitrator, it was not proved that HCL had in fact purchased oxygen from other sources under Clause 10.4. If in the light of such evidence, the Arbitrator did not think it fit to allow counter claim, it could not be said to a case of misconduct covered by Section 30 of the Act. The learned single Judge as also the Division Bench were, therefore, not justified in setting aside the award passed by the Arbitrator dismissing the counter-claim and hence the order of the learned single Judge as confirmed by the Division Bench deserves to be set aside by restoring dismissal of counter-claim of HCL by the Arbitrator.
Thus, we hold that it was within the power of Arbitrator to award interest. As to the rate of interest, the contention of HCL is that it ought to have been at the rate of six per cent only. The learned counsel for HCL has strongly relied upon the decision of this Court in Nav Bharat Construction Co. In that case, interest was awarded by the Arbitrator at the rate of fifteen per cent. The said action was challenged by the State Government as well as the Contractor. The contention of the State Government was that the Arbitrator could not have awarded interest at the rate of fifteen per cent and it was exorbitant. The Contractor, on the other hand, urged that interest ought to have awarded at the rate of eighteen per cent. This Court held that it would be appropriate if interest at the rate of six per cent is awarded.
In our view, however, a relevant and germane factor weighed with the Arbitrator in awarding eighteen per cent interest that at that rate HCL had given advance to BOL. Hence, in our opinion, even that part of the award passed by the Arbitrator did not deserve interference and learned single Judge and the Division Bench were not right in reducing the rate of interest.
Thus, the appeals filed by BOL deserve to be allowed and are accordingly allowed by setting aside the order passed by the learned single Judge and confirmed by the Division Bench and by restoring the award passed by the Arbitrator. In view of the order passed in the appeals of BOL, the appeal filed by HCL deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
-
2005 (4) TMI 610
Issues Involved:
1. Taxability of interest income in the hands of the individual assessee.
2. Deduction of liability in the hands of the company.
3. Applicability of Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
4. Applicability of the Supreme Court decision in Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Limited.
5. Accounting treatment under mercantile system.
6. Proportionate taxation of interest income.
Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Taxability of Interest Income in the Hands of the Individual Assessee:
The individual assessee invested in debentures and declared proportionate interest income for the accounting period. The Assessing Officer added the entire interest income based on the tax deduction certificate. The CIT (Appeals) upheld this addition, stating the entire interest income had accrued and was received during the accounting period. The Tribunal, however, ruled that only proportionate interest income was taxable, aligning with the principles of commercial accounting and the nature of Deep Discount Bonds.
2. Deduction of Liability in the Hands of the Company:
The payer company claimed a deduction for the total interest paid on debentures as revenue expenditure under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer allowed only a proportionate deduction, treating the upfront interest payment as an advance for the entire period of six years. The CIT (Appeals) and the Tribunal upheld this proportionate deduction, referencing the Supreme Court decision in Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Limited.
3. Applicability of Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
The payer company argued that it satisfied the conditions under Section 36(1)(iii) for deduction of interest paid on borrowed capital for business purposes. The court agreed, stating the company had paid the interest as per the contract terms and was entitled to the deduction in the year of payment, rejecting the proportionate deduction approach taken by the lower authorities.
4. Applicability of the Supreme Court Decision in Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Limited:
The court distinguished the present case from Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Limited, noting the latter dealt with Section 37(1) of the Act, while the current case involved Section 36(1)(iii). The court held that the principles of Section 37(1) could not be applied to Section 36(1)(iii), thus allowing the payer company's full deduction claim.
5. Accounting Treatment under Mercantile System:
The court clarified that under the mercantile system, both actual cash receipts and liabilities incurred are considered. The individual assessee's argument that only proportionate interest income should be taxed was rejected, as the entire interest amount had been received and accounted for during the relevant period.
6. Proportionate Taxation of Interest Income:
The court held that the entire interest income received by the individual assessee in the year of allotment was taxable in that year, rejecting the Tribunal's decision to tax it proportionately over six years. The court emphasized that the terms of the contract dictated the tax treatment, and the entire interest payment made upfront could not be spread over subsequent years.
Conclusion:
Both Tax Appeal No. 157 of 2000 and Tax Appeal No. 328 of 2000 were allowed. The payer company was entitled to the full deduction of interest paid in the year of payment, and the entire interest income was taxable in the hands of the individual assessee in the year of receipt. The court directed that any proportionate tax paid in subsequent years should be refunded, ensuring no double taxation.
-
2005 (4) TMI 609
Issues:
1. Validity of Insolvency Notice under Section 9 (2) of Presidency Towns Insolvency Act.
2. Enforceability of arbitral award as a decree for insolvency proceedings.
Issue 1 - Validity of Insolvency Notice:
The case involved an appeal against an order directing debtors to pay a sum due to a petitioning creditor. The petitioning creditor sought insolvency proceedings under Section 9 (2) of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act based on an arbitral award that the debtors failed to comply with. The debtors contended that the award was not a decree and thus insolvency proceedings were not maintainable. However, the court held that the award had reached finality and could be enforced under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act as if it were a decree. Therefore, the Insolvency Notice was deemed valid under the relevant provisions.
Issue 2 - Enforceability of Arbitral Award:
The debtors argued that an arbitral award should not be considered a decree for insolvency purposes. They relied on a previous Bombay High Court decision but the court disagreed, citing that once an arbitral award becomes final and binding, it can be enforced as a decree under the Code of Civil Procedure. The court emphasized that the substance of the matter, not just the form, should guide the enforcement of arbitral awards. Consequently, the court upheld the validity of the Insolvency Notice based on the final and binding nature of the arbitral award, directing the debtors to pay the outstanding amount. The appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
In conclusion, the court affirmed the validity of the Insolvency Notice issued under Section 9 (2) of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act based on the enforceability of the arbitral award as a decree. The court held that the debtors' failure to pay despite the finality of the award justified the imposition of payment conditions. The decision highlighted the binding nature of arbitral awards and their equivalence to decrees for enforcement purposes in insolvency proceedings.
-
2005 (4) TMI 608
Registered Society - Applicability of the principle of res judicata - Non-compliance with Order 31 Rule 2 CPC - Whether the jurisdiction of the Civil Court stands ousted in terms of Sections 53 and 53A of the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 ('the Act') falls for consideration - HELD THAT:- The maxim ’ubi jus ibi remedium’ is not an empty formality. The jurisdiction of the Civil Court exemplifies the said doctrine. The jurisdiction of the Civil Court cannot be held to have been ousted unless it is so, expressly or by necessary implication, stated in the statute. In terms of Section 53A of the Act, a dispute as to educational agency is concededly required to be decided by a Civil Court. How the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is required to be invoked is a matter to be examined by the Civil Court. Unlike a private tribunal or a statutory tribunal which would not derive a jurisdiction unless a reference in terms of the provisions of the Act is made to it, the Civil Court enjoys a plenary jurisdiction. Furthermore, if and when a dispute arises before the competent authority as regard entitlement of an educational agency in relation to educational institutions, the same must also be referred to the Civil Court.
Statutory authority in terms of Section 5 of the Act cannot be said to have any jurisdiction to determine such a dispute. A statute, as is well-known, must be read in such a manner so as to give effect to the provisions thereof. It must be read reasonably. A statute must be construed in such a manner so as to make it workable. The wordings "referred by the persons interested" would, thus, mean a person who has a grievance as regard claim of other side relating to educational agency of the educational institutions. It can be done by filing a suit before the Civil Suit.
The term "persons" which is plural has been used having regard to the fact that educational agency need not be a person alone but would also include a society registered under the Societies Registration Act or a body corporate in terms of the Companies Act. In any event, if such a dispute within the contemplation of Section 53A has to be decided by a civil court, it will not attract the bar under Section 53 which applies only to a question which is required to be dealt with or decided by any authority or officer mentioned in the Act.
Thus, we do not find any merit in this appeal, which is dismissed accordingly.
-
2005 (4) TMI 607
Issues:
Jurisdiction of Assessing Officer to change status during assessment under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and appealability of such change in status to the first appellate authority.
Analysis:
The case involved a dispute regarding the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to change the status of the assessee during assessment under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the appealability of such change in status to the first appellate authority. The assessee had filed returns as a "specified trust," but the Income-tax Officer assessed the status as that of A.O.P. and levied tax at the maximum marginal rate. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal held that the Income-tax Officer could not change the status under section 143(1) and charge tax at the maximum rate, leading to the question of appealability of such change.
The Tribunal's view was challenged based on the argument that orders under section 143(1) were not appealable under section 256(1) of the Act. However, the counsel for the assessee contended that the order, though under section 143(1), was akin to section 143(3) and thus appealable under section 246(1)(a). The crux of the matter was whether the Assessing Officer had the authority to change the status during a section 143(1) assessment.
The Court examined the provisions of section 143 of the Act, distinguishing between assessments under section 143(1) and section 143(3). Section 143(1) allowed for limited adjustments without calling for evidence from the assessee, while section 143(3) required notice and inquiry. The Court emphasized that the change of status was not a permissible adjustment under section 143(1) and that the Income-tax Officer could only make specified adjustments as provided by the Act.
The Court concluded that the assessment made by the Income-tax Officer, changing the status during a section 143(1) assessment, exceeded the scope of the section. Such an order was not appealable at the relevant time, as section 143(3) assessments were appealable. The Court cited precedents to support the validity of orders made under a different provision if within the authority of the officer. Additionally, the Court rejected arguments based on Explanation 1(f) of section 143, clarifying that the provision did not apply to section 143(1) assessments.
Ultimately, the Court held that the assessment order was under section 143(3) and thus appealable under section 246(1), ruling in favor of the assessee. The decision clarified the limitations of Assessing Officers under section 143(1) assessments and the appealability of changes in status made during such assessments.
-
2005 (4) TMI 606
Issues:
Challenge to imposition of penalties under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 and appeal for enhancing penalty amount.
Analysis:
The appellants contested penalties imposed under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994, while the Revenue filed appeals to increase the penalty amounts. The Commissioner (Appeals) had imposed penalties on the appellants, with one entity facing a penalty of Rs. 80,000 and another Rs. 4 lakhs. The appellants did not dispute the delayed payment of Service Tax but argued they believed the tax was due only upon receiving payment from customers. They cited Section 80 of the Finance Act, which exempts penalties if a reasonable cause for failure is proven.
The Revenue argued for penalties as per Section 76 of the Act, emphasizing the maximum penalty provision. Despite the appellants admitting the delayed tax payment, they contended their actions were based on a genuine belief about tax collection timing. The Tribunal referred to a Delhi High Court decision stating that delay in tax deposit without mens rea does not warrant penalties. While acknowledging the delayed tax deposit, the Tribunal found no fault in the penalty imposition. However, considering the appellants' bona fide belief and Section 80 provisions, the Tribunal deemed the penalty in the impugned order sufficient for justice. Consequently, the Revenue's appeals to enhance penalties were dismissed based on the case's circumstances and the Commissioner's findings.
In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the penalties imposed by the Commissioner (Appeals) based on the appellants' genuine but mistaken belief regarding tax payment timing. The decision highlighted the relevance of Section 80 of the Finance Act in penalty cases and dismissed the Revenue's appeals for penalty enhancement, emphasizing the factual and legal considerations in the case.
-
2005 (4) TMI 605
Issues:
1) Taxability of waived interest in the hands of the assessee company under Sec.41(1) of the Act.
2) Interpretation of the law in Saraswathi Industrial Syndicate Ltd. case regarding the assessment of waived interest.
3) Application of Section 72-A of the Act in the case of amalgamation of sick companies.
Analysis:
1) The case involves the taxability of the waived interest in the hands of the assessee company under Sec.41(1) of the Act. The issue arose when the Income Tax Officer (ITO) proposed to treat the waived interest portion as the assessee's income, leading to a dispute between the revenue and the assessee regarding the treatment of the waived interest amounting to Rs. 25.02 lakhs. The Tribunal initially allowed the appeal by holding that the assessee is not liable to be assessed under Sec.41(1) of the Act, triggering further legal proceedings.
2) The interpretation of the law in the Saraswathi Industrial Syndicate Ltd. case played a crucial role in determining the taxability of the waived interest. The Tribunal relied on this case, where it was held that the remission of liability of the amalgamating company could not be assessed in the hands of the amalgamated companies. However, it was argued that this case did not apply directly to the present scenario as the assessee company had obtained the benefit of carry forward losses of the sick company through amalgamation, which was not considered in the previous judgment.
3) The application of Section 72-A of the Act in the case of amalgamation of sick companies was another significant aspect. The Revenue emphasized the relevance of this section, which treats the accumulated loss or unabsorbed depreciation of the amalgamating company as a loss. The First Appellate Authority and the Tribunal were criticized for not considering the scope and objective of Section 72-A, leading to an error in treating the waived interest as not income of the assessee.
In conclusion, the High Court answered the question of law referred to them in the negative and against the assessee, highlighting the importance of considering the specific provisions of the Act, the implications of amalgamation, and the interpretation of relevant legal precedents in determining the taxability of the waived interest in the present case.
-
2005 (4) TMI 604
Issues Involved:
1. Justification of Tribunal's decision on disallowance of interest on interest-free loans given to partners with credit balances.
2. Justification of Tribunal's decision on the allowability of the entire interest paid by the assessee on borrowings as a business expense.
3. Legality of Tribunal's decision on deleting the disallowance of interest attributable to borrowed funds diverted for non-business purposes by making interest-free advances to partners.
Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: Disallowance of Interest on Interest-Free Loans to Partners with Credit Balances
The Tribunal held that disallowance of interest on interest-free loans given to partners was not warranted if some partners had credit balances. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) had disallowed interest on the grounds that funds borrowed from banks were diverted to partners for non-business purposes. However, the Tribunal found that the firm had sufficient credit balances in the accounts of other partners, which could cover the withdrawals made by the partner with a debit balance. This indicated that the borrowed funds were not necessarily used for non-business purposes. The Tribunal's decision was based on the principle that if partners have credit balances, their withdrawals should not be considered as diversion of borrowed funds for non-business purposes.
Issue 2: Allowability of Entire Interest Paid on Borrowings
The Tribunal justified that the entire interest of Rs. 1,07,374/- paid by the assessee on borrowings was for business purposes and hence allowable as a deduction. The A.O. had suspected that borrowed funds were used for non-business purposes due to the withdrawals by partners. However, the Tribunal found that the firm had sufficient credit balances to cover these withdrawals. The Tribunal emphasized that withdrawals by partners from their credit balances, even if for personal purposes, do not amount to diversion of borrowed funds for non-business purposes if the firm has enough credit balances. This aligns with the principle that business integrity and harmonious relationships among partners are essential for the firm's operations.
Issue 3: Deletion of Disallowance of Interest Attributable to Borrowed Funds Diverted for Non-Business Purposes
The Tribunal deleted the disallowance of interest attributable to borrowed funds diverted for non-business purposes by making interest-free advances to partners. The A.O. had established a direct nexus between the borrowed funds and the withdrawals made by the partner with a debit balance. However, the Tribunal found that the firm had sufficient credit balances in other partners' accounts, which could cover the withdrawals. The Tribunal concluded that the borrowed funds were not necessarily used for non-business purposes, and the withdrawals were made to maintain harmonious relationships among partners, which is a business purpose. This decision was supported by the precedent set in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Bareilly vs. M/S Radico Khaitan Ltd., Rampur, where it was held that if interest-free loans are covered by non-interest-bearing funds, disallowance of interest on borrowed funds does not arise.
Conclusion:
The High Court affirmed the Tribunal's order, agreeing that the withdrawals by partners with credit balances do not constitute diversion of borrowed funds for non-business purposes. The Tribunal's decision was based on material records and aligned with the precedent that sufficient non-interest-bearing funds negate the need for disallowance of interest on borrowed funds. The questions referred were answered in favor of the assessee and against the revenue.
-
2005 (4) TMI 603
Issues:
Disallowance of interest - Justification of confirmation by ITAT
Analysis:
The case involves a question of law referred by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) regarding the justification of confirming the deletion of a disallowance of interest amounting to Rs. 1,81,000. The respondent-assessee, a company, had advanced funds to its sister concern and the Assessing Officer disallowed the interest paid on overdraft facilities. However, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) allowed the appeal and deleted the addition based on the respondent's sufficient non-interest bearing funds and previous acceptance of similar practices. The Revenue's appeal before the Tribunal was unsuccessful.
The key contention was whether the interest-free advances made by the respondent to its sister concern were justified, considering the availability of non-interest bearing funds with the respondent. The respondent argued that it had its own funds, share capital, reserves, and interest-free advances from other companies, which covered the advances made to the sister concern. The High Court relied on a previous decision and held that if the interest-free loan amount is adequately covered by non-interest bearing funds, the disallowance of interest on borrowed funds is unwarranted. The Court found that the respondent had sufficient funds to cover the interest-free advances, and hence, ruled in favor of the assessee, rejecting the Revenue's claim.
In conclusion, the High Court upheld the deletion of the disallowance of interest by ITAT, emphasizing the adequacy of non-interest bearing funds to cover the interest-free advances made by the respondent. The judgment highlighted the importance of considering the overall financial position of the assessee before disallowing interest on borrowed funds.
-
2005 (4) TMI 602
Issues: Challenge to order of Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) - Availment of credit under MODVAT Scheme - Failure of Tribunal to consider submissions - Duty of Tribunal to give reasoned order - Petition seeking quashing of orders dated 30th October, 2003 and 22nd June, 2004.
Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a partnership firm, had availed credit under the MODVAT Scheme in relation to three invoices during the Financial Year 1994-1995. Respondent No. 1 alleged that the credit was wrongly availed and issued a show-cause notice. The petitioner contended that their reply was not considered before disallowing the credit. The Order-in-Original was confirmed by respondent No. 2 - Commissioner (Appeals), leading the petitioner to appeal before CESTAT. The Court refrained from expressing an opinion on the merits due to the view it was inclined to take.
2. The impugned order dated 30th October, 2003, showed that the appellant-petitioner did not appear, but written submissions were filed. However, the order did not reflect the submissions made by the petitioner. The Tribunal disposed off the appeal without a proper consideration of the submissions, leading to a lack of reasoning in the order.
3. The Court emphasized the duty of the Tribunal to provide a reasoned order as per legal precedents. Referring to a previous case, the Court highlighted the importance of the Tribunal considering all facts and evidence before arriving at a conclusion. In the present case, the Tribunal failed to fulfill this duty, resulting in the quashing of the order dated 30th October, 2003.
4. Despite the petitioner's application for rectification of the order, the Tribunal rejected it, stating it had no authority to review. The petitioner had pointed out that the earlier order was non-speaking, but the Tribunal failed to acknowledge this. Consequently, the order dated 22nd June, 2004, was also quashed and set aside.
5. In the final decision, the petition was allowed, and the appeal was restored to the file of CESTAT. The Court directed CESTAT to consider the contentions raised by both sides, provide a fair hearing, and dispose off the appeal afresh on its merits. The ruling made no order as to costs, concluding the legal proceedings.
-
2005 (4) TMI 601
Issues:
Appeals against deletion of penalty under section 271(1)(c) for assessment years 1997-98 and 1998-99.
Analysis:
The appeals arose from a single order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) regarding the deletion of penalties imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer enhanced the income in both cases due to interest income not declared on accrual basis. The appellant, a Finance Company, had taken loans and granted further loans to companies with doubtful recovery prospects, leading to non-declaration of interest income. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) deleted the penalties, citing reasonable doubt in recovery, adherence to accounting standards, and proper disclosure in audited accounts. The department argued that accounting principles do not override tax statutes, emphasizing the requirement to show interest income on accrual basis. However, the appellant's explanation for not declaring income on accrual basis was supported by the financial situation of borrower companies and in line with accounting standards. The Tribunal held that the penalties were not justified as there was no deliberate concealment of income, and the appellant disclosed the relevant facts. The decision was supported by precedents and upheld the Commissioner's order.
In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeals, upholding the Commissioner's decision to delete the penalties imposed by the Assessing Officer.
-
2005 (4) TMI 600
Applications filed for substitution of the names - deceased and represented by their legal heirs in their place - service of notice - Power of a Court to add a party to a proceeding - Suit property - lease and transfer - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, the applications for substitution were filed by the respective appellants in the second appeals which are still pending on the file of the High Court though it was filed in the year 1993. The appellants have properly, sufficiently and satisfactorily explained the delay in approaching the Court. We see bona fide in their explanation in not coming to the Court at the earliest point of time.
Therefore, the appellants who are transferees pendente lite should be made as parties to the pending second appeals as prayed for by them. In our opinion, the High court has committed serious error in not ordering the applications for substitution filed by the appellants. In our view, the presence of the appellants are absolutely necessary in order to decide the appeals on merits. Since the High Court has committed error by rejecting the appellants’ applications for substitution treating the same as additional parties and thereby rendering the appellants non-suited.
We have no hesitation in setting aside the said orders and permit the appellants to come on record by way of substitution as prayed for. The High Court proceeded on a wrong premise that the appellants had made the application for addition of party whereas the application under consideration was for substitution as the owner had sold the suit property to the appellants and had no interest in the pending litigation.
In our opinion, the presence of the appellants was absolutely necessary since the appellants are the only persons who has got subsisting right, title and interest in the suit. The appellants are at liberty to contest the matter on merits.
Consequently, the appeals shall stand allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
-
2005 (4) TMI 599
Imposition of certain restrictions on the share - Seeking an investigation into the membership of the company in terms of Section 247(1A) - determining the true persons who are financially interested in the success or failure of the company or who have been able to control or materially influence the policy of the company - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the facts sought to be found out relate to over 60% shares in the company and if the membership relating to these shares cannot be ascertained without investigation, then, certainly, investigation can be ordered. It is an admitted fact that before the demise of Mrs Birla, even though her direct share holding in the company was negligible, by virtue of her controlling respondents 1 to 28 which held/hold over 60% shares in the company, she was not only materially interested in the company and was also able to control the company.
It is a settled law, as held by the Supreme Court in Worldwide Agencies (P) Ltd v. Margaret T Desor case [1989 (12) TMI 245 - SUPREME COURT], that on the death of a shareholder, the shares devolve on the legal heirs instantaneously. Therefore, all her interest in the company and the respondents 1-19 stood devolved on the legal heirs immediately on her demise. Who is the lawful legal heir is an issue before the Calcutta High Court and this Board has no jurisdiction to enquire into the same. The petitioners have not shown that there had been any change in the shareholdings in the respondents 1 to 19 by which the control of these respondents had changed or there are changes in the Board of Directors of these respondents or that these respondents have transferred the shares held by them in the company.
Similarly, there is no allegation that there is any change in the management of the respondents 19-28. In other words, the controlling interest in the company is still with the estate of late Priyamvada. As rightly pointed by Shri Sundaram, from the averments of the petitioners in the petition it is seen that their own case is that Shri Lodha is controlling the interests of late Mrs Birla and that is the reason why they have raised the issue of Take Over Code. Likewise, while denying that Shri Lodha is controlling the interests of the estate, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that provisions of the said Code are not applicable to a case of transmission of shares.
It is seen that after the demise of Mrs Birla, there was an AGM on 15.9.2004. Shri Lodha who had been a director of the company from 1991, Shri Pracheta Majumdar and Shri Vikram Swarup appointed as additional directors during 2003-2004 came up for reelection in the AGM. All of them had been appointed as directors during the life time of late Mrs Birla. In the Directors' report for the year 2003-2004 adopted on 28-4-2004, i,e., during the life time of late Mrs Birla, the proposal for the reelection of these directors had been adopted by the Board. In the AGM, all the respondent shareholders except one had voted in favour of election of these retiring directors and they had not used their majority votes to change the composition of the Board. In the AGM, if any of these directors had been defeated or if any new person had been appointed, with the support of exercise of voting by the respondents 1 to 28, there would have been some justification in the contention of the petitioners that an investigation into the membership of the company is necessary.
Thus I find that the estate of late Mrs Birla, controlling majority of the shares in the company is intact and that the said estate has not brought about any change in the composition of the Board of Directors of the company. In other words it is the estate of late Mrs Birla controlling majority shares in the company, which is found to be materially interested in the affairs of the company. Who is entitled to control the estate is an issue before the High Court for a decision and provisions of Section 247(1A)cannot be invoked to determine this issue. Thus, on an over all appreciation of the facts of this case, I find that no case has been made out to order an investigation in terms of Section 247(1A) of the Act and as such I dismiss this petition.
-
2005 (4) TMI 598
Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing Cross-objection.
2. Reduction of penalty imposed on respondents.
3. Validity of Cross-objection against penalty.
4. Interpretation of provisions for filing Cross-objection.
5. Justifiability of show cause notice issued.
6. Effect of subsequent amendments on show cause notice.
Analysis:
1. The respondents sought condonation for a 30-day delay in filing the Cross-objection, attributing it to the process of collecting necessary papers and consulting with Counsel. The Tribunal accepted the reasons provided and condoned the delay.
2. The Revenue appealed against the reduction of penalty on respondents to Rs. 1 lakh. The Revenue argued for a penalty of Rs. 100 per day for late service tax return filing under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 2000. However, the respondents contended that the show cause notice was issued in line with a revalidation of the Act, citing a previous Tribunal decision in their favor.
3. The Revenue claimed that the Cross-objection filed by the respondents was not permissible, citing a precedent where such objections were disallowed if the Department was not aggrieved. However, the Tribunal referred to Section 35B(4) of the Central Excise Act, treating Cross-objections as separate appeals. The Tribunal also relied on a Madras High Court ruling emphasizing the independent disposal of Cross-objections.
4. The Tribunal addressed the Revenue's argument that Cross-objections cannot be filed against unchallenged portions of an order. By referencing legal provisions and judicial decisions, the Tribunal concluded that Cross-objections are to be treated as separate appeals and disposed of independently, rejecting the Revenue's contention.
5. The Tribunal considered a show cause notice issued in 2002 and referenced a previous case to determine the justifiability of the notice. The Tribunal analyzed subsequent amendments under the Finance Act, 2003, affecting the period from 16-7-1997 to 16-10-1998, ultimately setting aside the demand for service tax and penalty.
6. Based on the Tribunal's analysis, the demand for service tax was deemed unsustainable, leading to the allowance of the Cross-objection and setting aside of the demand and penalty. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal became infructuous, resulting in its dismissal.
-
2005 (4) TMI 597
Issues:
1. Application under Section 152 C.P.C. claiming benefits under Land Acquisition Act amendments.
2. Maintainability of the application under Section 152 C.P.C.
3. Interpretation of Section 152 C.P.C. for correcting clerical errors or claiming substantive relief.
Analysis:
The judgment by B.P. Singh, J. addressed the issue of an application filed under Section 152 C.P.C. by the appellant, claiming entitlement to benefits under Sections 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act as amended. The lands of the appellant were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, and a reference was preferred under Section 18, with the Reference Court making its Award before the Amendment Act came into force. The appellant, having received the awarded amount and not appealing further, filed the application in 1995. The Special Sub-Judge and the High Court held the application as not maintainable.
The Court, in its analysis, emphasized that Section 152 C.P.C. allows corrections of clerical errors or arithmetical mistakes in a judgment, not for claiming substantive reliefs not granted under the decree. Referring to the decision in State of Punjab Vs. Darshan Singh, the Court clarified that Section 152 cannot be used as a pretext to review final orders. The judgment highlighted the limited scope of Section 152 C.P.C., which does not permit claiming benefits beyond what was originally granted under a decree. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, finding it lacking in merit and ordered no costs to be imposed.
Overall, the judgment provided a clear interpretation of the scope and limitations of Section 152 C.P.C. in correcting errors in judgments, emphasizing that it cannot be utilized to claim substantive reliefs or review final orders. The decision underscored the importance of adhering to the specific purpose of legal provisions to prevent misuse and maintain the integrity of the judicial process.
-
2005 (4) TMI 596
The Supreme Court overturned a Madras High Court decision in a case involving a writ petition filed by Swami Bodhananda. The High Court had allowed the petition for assistance in taking over management of specified institutions, but the Supreme Court ruled that a Civil Court decree must be executed according to the Civil Procedure Code, not through a writ petition. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and directed the First Respondent to execute the decree in accordance with the law.
-
2005 (4) TMI 595
The Supreme Court admitted the appeal and tagged it with C.A. Nos. 4247-4248/2000. (2005 (4) TMI 595 - SC)
-
2005 (4) TMI 594
Declaration of Ownership - Suits filed by the appellant as presumptive reversioner of the widow - Whether the finding of the High Court in the impugned judgment that the earlier decree obtained by the appellant being declaratory in nature would not operate as res judicata in favour of the appellant and would not enable her to obtain possession through the court of law by filing a suit for possession, is correct in law or not ? - HELD THAT:- It is to be noticed that in the present case when the first declaratory decree was obtained, the law as it stood then right of Uttamdassi remained a limited right, in the suit property hence, a declaratory decree was given in favour of the plaintiffs in that suit, but by the time the second declaratory decree was obtained by the appellant herein, this Court by the judgment in V. Thulasamma's case [1977 (3) TMI 156 - SUPREME COURT] had declared the law u/s 14 of the Hindu Succession Act holding that the estate of persons similarly situated as Uttamdassi got enlarged and a beneficiary under a Will with limited rights became the absolute owner of the same. Since the judgment of this Court in Tulasamma's case was the law on that date and is the law currently, the second declaratory decree was contrary to the said declaration of law made by this Court. Therefore, that declaration cannot be of any use to the appellant.
In the instant case, in our opinion, the High Court rightly held that the declaratory decrees obtained by the appellant being contrary to the judgment in Tulasamma's case (supra) would not be of any assistance to the appellant to obtain the possession of the suit property.
The Principle of res judicata belongs to the domain of procedure. When the decision relates to the jurisdiction of a court to try an earlier proceedings, the principle of res judicata would not come into play. Thus, it is clear that if the earlier judgment which is sought to be made the basis of res judicata is delivered by a court without jurisdiction or is contrary to the existing law at the time the issue comes up for reconsideration such earlier judgment cannot be held to be res judicata in the subsequent case unless, of course, protected by any special enactment.
Unfortunately for the appellant the declaration obtained by her based on which she was seeking possession in the present suit being contrary to law, the courts below correctly held that the appellant could not seek possession on the basis of such an illegal declaration. Thus, the law is clear on this point i.e. if a suit is based on an earlier decree and such decree is contrary to the law prevailing at the time of its consideration as to its legality or is a decree granted by a court which has no jurisdiction to grant such decree, principles of res judicata u/s 11 of the CPC will not be attracted and it is open to the defendant in such suits to establish that the decree relied upon by the plaintiff is not a good law or court granting such decree did not have the jurisdiction to grant such decree.
In the instant case, as noticed, the present suit is filed for possession of the suit properties on the basis of a declaratory decree obtained earlier which is found to be not a lawful decree as per the law prevailing at present. Hence, the impugned judgment cannot be interfered with. Thus, examined from any angle, we do not find any merit in this appeal.
Appeal dismissed.
-
2005 (4) TMI 593
Tender for allotment of land reserved for educational use - highest tenderer having quoted for the land and that his tender was rejected unreasonably - tender notice had asked for bids from registered institutions carrying on educational activities - appellant did not have any experience of managing an educational institution, its tender was rejected - HELD THAT:- The fact that the appellant had bid the highest was, in the circumstances, immaterial as the object of allotting the land to an educational institution was not the making of profit. The learned Single Judge was therefore wrong in construing the advertisement dated 22nd September, 1993 in the manner he did and the Appellate Court erred in dismissing Crescent's appeal. In our opinion the appellant was not competent to participate in the tender.
However, the appellant is entitled to succeed on the ground that the order of the Division Bench disposing of Crescent's appeal operated as res judicata to bind not only Crescent but also Jagriti and the appellant. It makes no difference that Jagriti was a co-respondent with the appellant. The principle of res judicata has been held to bind co- defendants if the relief given or refused by the earlier decision involved a determination of an issue between co-defendants (or co-respondents as the case may be).
In the present case the facts show that all the three conditions were fulfilled. There was a conflict of interest between the two co-respondents in Crescent's appeal, namely between Jagriti and the appellants. For the purposes of deciding the relief, if any, to be granted to Crescent it was necessary for the Appellate Court to decide whether the appellant was entitled to participate. Although, the decision of the Appellate Court is cryptic, nevertheless, it cannot be said that the Court had not applied its judicial mind to the merits of the case.
Jagriti's counsel was recorded as being present. The fact that the Appellate Court was wrong in affirming the decision of the learned Single Judge would not make the decision less binding. They refer to the principle of precedent which is distinct from the principle of res judicata. A precedent operates to bind in similar situations in a distinct case. Res judicata operates to bind parties to proceedings for no other reason, but that there should be an end to litigation.
Thus, the appeals are allowed without any order as to costs.
........
|
9911796707
