|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 271 Records
-
1994 (4) TMI 316
Whether groundnut protein flour is a deoiled cake within entry 29 of Schedule I of the Act?
Held that:- Appeal allowed. It is true that the analyst report in this appeal does indicate that both deoiled cake and groundnut protein flour contain common properties but the use and purpose being different and distinct, they cannot be considered to be the same commodity. The groundnut protein flour is an edible protein food for human consumption and is a different commercially marketable entity and thereby is distinct from deoiled cake for animal feed though obtained in the course of same process at different stages. Both emerge into different and distinct commodities commercially known in common parlance for distinct and different use. Thereby groundnut protein flour did not remain part of the genus, i.e., deoiled cake, but became a new and different entity known in the commercial parlance. Accordingly it is exigible to CST at the relevant time at 4 per cent. The appeals, therefore, are allowed. The order of the High Court is set aside and that of the Deputy Commissioner and Commercial Tax Officer and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal are confirmed.
-
1994 (4) TMI 315
Issues Involved:
1. Notice to Central Government
2. Joint Petition by Transferor and Transferee Companies
3. Public Interest and Bona Fide Nature of the Scheme
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Notice to Central Government:
The first issue involved whether a notice was required to be served on the Central Government during the initial proceedings for holding meetings of creditors and shareholders of the two companies. The legal objection raised by the Central Government was dismissed because the statute and the Companies (Court) Rules do not necessitate issuing a notice to the Central Government at the stage of taking out judges summons. Section 391(1) does not require such notice before getting a scheme of arrangement or amalgamation approved in a meeting of shareholders and creditors. The court supported its decision by referencing the Madras High Court's ruling in W.A. Beardsell and Co. P. Ltd., In re and Mettur Industries Ltd., In re [1968] 38 Comp Cas 197, which confirmed that notice to the Central Government need not be given at the initial stage.
2. Joint Petition by Transferor and Transferee Companies:
The second issue was whether a joint petition by the transferor and transferee companies was competent. The Central Government argued that separate petitions should have been filed, citing the Karnataka High Court's decision in Electro Carbonium P. Ltd., In re and Electric Materials Co. P. Ltd., In re [1979] 49 Comp Cas 825 (Kar). However, the court found no reasons in that judgment to support the necessity of separate petitions. The court held that neither the Companies Act nor the Companies (Court) Rules prohibit a joint petition when the subject matter is the same and common questions of fact and law arise for decision. The court referenced Order I, rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which allows all persons to be joined in one suit as plaintiffs where any right to relief arises out of the same act or transaction. Thus, the court ruled that a joint petition is maintainable.
3. Public Interest and Bona Fide Nature of the Scheme:
The most significant issue was whether the scheme of arrangement was in public interest and bona fide. The Central Government argued that the scheme was framed to avoid payment of Government revenue in the form of stamp duty and registration charges by transferring valuable immovable assets of the transferor company to the transferee company. The petitioner's counsel contended that the scheme was unanimously approved by shareholders and creditors and aimed at better management of the transferor company's businesses.
The court examined the details of the companies and the proposed scheme. The transferor company had a substantial business with a high turnover and valuable immovable assets, while the transferee company was recently incorporated with minimal capital and was essentially a paper company. The court noted that the scheme did not explicitly mention the transfer of the export business but focused on transferring valuable immovable assets. The court emphasized that the real market value of these assets was much higher than the book value shown in the scheme.
The court referenced several judgments, including Veal Fuel Systems Ltd., In re [1992] 73 Comp Cas 63 (Mad), New Central Jute Mills Co. Ltd. v. Rivers Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. [1959] 29 Comp Cas 357 (Cal), and Wood Polymer Ltd., In re and Bengal Hotels Pvt. Ltd., In re [1977] 47 Comp Cas 597 (Guj), to underline the importance of public interest and the bona fide nature of schemes. The court highlighted that while lawful tax avoidance is permissible, schemes designed primarily to evade taxes and transfer assets without paying Government dues are against public interest.
The court concluded that the scheme's main purpose was to transfer valuable immovable assets to the transferee company, which was not in public interest. The court upheld the Central Government's objection and declined to sanction the scheme, dismissing the petition.
Conclusion:
The petition was dismissed on the grounds that the scheme was not in public interest, primarily aimed at transferring valuable immovable assets without paying Government dues, and thus, was not bona fide. The court emphasized the importance of transparency and genuine intent in schemes of arrangement and amalgamation.
-
1994 (4) TMI 312
Whether section 9(1)(b) of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973, ultra vires the powers of the State Legislature insofar as it imposed a tax on the despatch of goods outside the territory of the State?
Held that:- These appeals are allowed and it is declared that section 13AA as substituted by the Bombay Sales Tax (Amendment) Act 2 of 1990 (which replaced Maharashtra Ordinance 9 of 1989) is perfectly valid and competent piece of legislation. Indeed, the result of our judgment would be that the decision in Goodyear [1996 (12) TMI 349 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT] insofar as it declared the original section 13AA as invalid must be deemed to be not correct in law.
-
1994 (4) TMI 302
whether the appellate authority, whether the first or the second appellate authority, has the power to receive form C in appeal and to grant relief, in case the dealer satisfies the appellate authority that he had sufficient cause for not producing the said certificate before the first assessing authority?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. Mere use of the words "the first assessing authority" in sub-rule (7) of rule 12 cannot and does not mean, in the context and scheme of the enactments concerned herein, that the appellate authorities do not have the power to receive form C in appeal. This power can of course be exercised only where sufficient cause is shown by the dealer for not filing them up to the time of assessment before the first assessing authority.
-
1994 (4) TMI 294
Whether a revision under section 20(2) is maintainable at the instance of the assessee?
Held that:- Appeal allowed. The High Court has committed an error in rejecting the revision by the State. Accordingly we hold that the aggrieved assessee has only to pursue the remedies provided in the Act and he has no right to make an application under section 20 of the Act seeking revision of the orders of assessments made under the Act by original authorities. The appeals are accordingly allowed. The orders of the High Court and STAT are set aside and the orders of the Deputy Commissioner is restored. But in the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.
-
1994 (4) TMI 285
Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the petition under Sections 397, 398, and 402 of the Companies Act, 1956.
2. Validity of the consent obtained from shareholders under Section 399(3) of the Companies Act.
3. Authority of Mr. C.P. Sodhani to present the company petition.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Maintainability of the Petition under Sections 397, 398, and 402 of the Companies Act, 1956:
The appeal was filed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge who set aside the order of the Company Law Board (CLB) and dismissed the company petition filed under Sections 397, 398, and 402 of the Companies Act, 1956. The petition was initially filed by some shareholders alleging mismanagement and personal gain by the Managing Director and another Director. The learned Single Judge held that the petition was not maintainable due to invalid consent and lack of proper authority for filing the petition.
2. Validity of the Consent Obtained from Shareholders under Section 399(3) of the Companies Act:
The core issue revolved around whether the consent obtained from shareholders, as contained in Annexure-2, was valid under Section 399(3). The learned Single Judge concluded that the consent did not meet the statutory requirements, as it did not indicate that the shareholders had applied their minds to the specific allegations and reliefs sought in the petition. The judgment referenced the Division Bench decision in *M.C. Duraiswami v. Sakthi Sugars Ltd.*, which established that consent must be an "intelligent consent" given for a particular petition with specific allegations and reliefs.
3. Authority of Mr. C.P. Sodhani to Present the Company Petition:
Another significant issue was whether Mr. C.P. Sodhani had the authority to present the petition on behalf of the company. The learned Single Judge found that there was no valid board resolution authorizing Mr. Sodhani to file the petition, further undermining its maintainability. The appellant later attempted to introduce a board resolution as additional evidence to establish Mr. Sodhani's authority, but this was contested by the respondents.
Judicial Pronouncements and Legal Principles:
The judgment discussed several judicial pronouncements, including:
- *M.C. Duraiswami v. Sakthi Sugars Ltd.*, which emphasized that consent must be specific to the petition and reflect an application of mind by the shareholders.
- *Nibm Ltd v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.*, which held that individual directors need specific authorization to institute legal proceedings on behalf of the company.
- *P. Punniah v. Jeypore Sugar Co. Ltd.*, which allowed consent given by a power of attorney holder on behalf of a shareholder.
Court's Decision:
The High Court found that both the CLB and the learned Single Judge erred in their handling of the preliminary objections. The CLB's order was deemed cryptic and lacking in objective consideration, while the learned Single Judge's decision was based on an incorrect application of the principles laid down in *M.C. Duraiswami's case*. The High Court decided to set aside both the orders of the learned Single Judge and the CLB and remitted the matter back to the CLB for fresh consideration. The CLB was directed to conduct a thorough enquiry into the maintainability of the petition, including the validity of the consent and the authority of Mr. Sodhani, and to pass appropriate orders within three months.
Conclusion:
The High Court's judgment underscores the importance of adhering to statutory requirements for shareholder consent and proper authorization in company petitions. It also highlights the necessity for judicial bodies to provide detailed and reasoned decisions, especially in matters involving serious allegations of mismanagement and abuse of power. The remittance to the CLB for fresh consideration aims to ensure a fair and comprehensive adjudication of the preliminary objections raised.
-
1994 (4) TMI 284
Issues:
- Priority of claim between a secured creditor and statutory dues under the Employees' State Insurance Act and Payment of Gratuity Act.
- Whether the amount deducted from employees' wages by the company is held in trust and has priority over other claims.
Analysis:
The judgment involves a dispute between the Central Bank of India, as a secured creditor, and statutory dues under the Employees' State Insurance Act and Payment of Gratuity Act. The bank sought a direction to prevent further recovery actions by respondents regarding the company's assets. The bank had initiated a civil suit for recovery of dues against a company under liquidation, and the Recovery Mamlatdar issued a notice for payment of statutory dues. The bank argued that as a secured creditor, it should have priority in recovering its dues by selling the mortgaged properties. On the other hand, the respondent representing the Employees' State Insurance Corporation contended that the amount deducted from employees' wages was held in trust and should take precedence over other claims, citing legal provisions and precedents.
The respondent relied on Section 40 of the Employees' State Insurance Act and Section 66 of the Indian Trusts Act to argue that the amount deducted from employees' wages was held in trust by the company. Referring to a previous case, the respondent highlighted that such amounts should be kept separate and not mingled with the company's assets. The court agreed with this argument, acknowledging that the deducted amount was held in trust and should be returned to the employees or the corporation. This ruling established the priority of the statutory dues over other claims, including those of secured creditors.
The bank, while not disputing the claim of the Employees' State Insurance Corporation, sought permission to realize its dues by selling the securities and requested court approval before appropriating the sale proceeds. The court granted the application, restraining respondents from further recovery proceedings. However, it directed that the amount equivalent to the statutory dues should be kept apart from the sale proceeds and intimated to the corporation upon realization. This decision balanced the rights of the secured creditor and the statutory dues, ensuring compliance with legal obligations while allowing the bank to recover its dues through proper channels.
In conclusion, the judgment resolved the conflict by recognizing the priority of statutory dues held in trust over the claims of a secured creditor. It provided a framework for the realization of dues, ensuring that both parties' interests were safeguarded within the legal boundaries.
-
1994 (4) TMI 283
Issues Involved:
1. Locus standi of the applicant.
2. Maintainability of the application.
3. Timeliness of the application.
4. Viability and feasibility of the proposed scheme.
5. Objections from secured creditors.
Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Locus Standi of the Applicant:
Objection (a): The secured creditors argued that the application was filed by a co-operative society (Applicant No. 1), which is a private party with no locus standi to move such an application under Section 391 of the Companies Act, 1956. They contended that Applicant No. 1 is unconnected with the workers of the mill company in liquidation.
Court's Response: The court acknowledged that initially, the application was filed by Gujarat Kamdar Sahakari Mandali Ltd., which is neither a creditor nor a shareholder of the company in liquidation. However, during the course of the hearing, leave to amend the application was granted, and Applicants Nos. 2 and 3, who are workers of the company, were added as party applicants. Since these applicants are creditors entitled to retrenchment compensation, gratuity, etc., the objection to locus standi was overruled.
2. Maintainability of the Application:
Objection (b): It was contended that Applicant No. 1-society is neither a creditor nor a shareholder of the company in liquidation and thus the application is not maintainable.
Court's Response: The court held that once Applicants Nos. 2 and 3, who are creditors of the company, were added, the application became maintainable. The objection was overruled as the amended application laid a foundation for maintainability under Section 391.
3. Timeliness of the Application:
Objection (d): The secured creditors argued that the application was filed belatedly, at a stage when significant progress had been made towards the sale of the company's assets. They contended that the application was filed to defeat the sale process initiated by the court.
Court's Response: The court noted that although steps were taken towards the sale of the company's assets, no concrete sale had been completed. The court found that the delay in filing the application had not adversely affected the secured creditors' rights. The objection was overruled, recognizing the potential for restarting the unit and providing employment opportunities.
4. Viability and Feasibility of the Proposed Scheme:
Objection (e): The secured creditors argued that the proposed scheme was vague, technically and economically unviable, and based on unrealistic assumptions, such as the waiver of liabilities by the Government of India.
Court's Response: The court emphasized that Section 391 of the Companies Act gives the court wide discretion to approve schemes of arrangement and compromise. The court held that the scheme should not be rejected at the threshold unless it is shown to be unfair, unjust, or absolutely unworkable. The court noted that the scheme's viability could be discussed and deliberated upon in the meetings of the affected interests. The objection was overruled, allowing the scheme to be considered in the meetings.
5. Objections from Secured Creditors:
Objection (c): The secured creditors raised a technical objection regarding the procedural competence of the application, arguing that it was filed in the context of previous incompetent proceedings.
Court's Response: The court dismissed this objection as purely technical and not affecting the substantive rights involved. The court held that the application could be filed in the winding-up proceedings, and the procedural context did not render the application incompetent.
Conclusion:
The court overruled all objections raised by the secured creditors and granted the application under Section 391(1) of the Companies Act, 1956. The court directed the convening of meetings of various stakeholders, including equity shareholders, preference shareholders, employees, preferential creditors, debenture holders, unsecured creditors, and secured creditors, to consider the proposed scheme of compromise and arrangement for the revival of the company. The court emphasized the importance of consulting affected interests and providing an opportunity for discussion and deliberation on the proposed scheme.
-
1994 (4) TMI 267
Issues Involved:
1. Principal civil court for Bombay for removal of trustees under Chapter VII of the Indian Trusts Act, 1982.
2. Civil suit for removal of directors of a private limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Principal Civil Court for Removal of Trustees:
The primary issue was to determine which court holds jurisdiction for the removal of trustees under Chapter VII of the Indian Trusts Act, 1982. The defendants argued that only the High Court, being the principal civil court of original jurisdiction for Bombay, could entertain such suits, citing sections 73 and 74 of the Indian Trusts Act. They contended that the city civil court, with its limited pecuniary jurisdiction, is not the principal civil court. The court referred to the decision in Chatrabhuj Mavji Merchant v. Sumati Morarjee, which established that breach of trust suits must be instituted in the principal court, which for Bombay is the High Court. The court concluded that the city civil court is an additional civil court and not the principal court, thus lacking jurisdiction for such matters.
2. Civil Suit for Removal of Directors:
The second issue pertained to whether a civil suit could be filed for the removal of directors of a private limited company. The defendants argued that the Companies Act, 1956, provides a comprehensive mechanism for the appointment, functioning, and removal of directors, specifically under sections 10, 283, and 284. They asserted that any disputes regarding the removal of directors must be resolved through the procedures outlined in the Companies Act, and not through civil suits, referencing the Supreme Court decision in Dhulabhai v. State of MP. The court agreed, noting that the Companies Act's detailed provisions for internal management and the removal of directors imply that civil courts should not interfere in such matters. The court emphasized that the rule in Foss v. Harbottle and its exceptions, such as acts that are ultra vires or constitute fraud, did not apply in this case.
Conclusion:
The court concluded that the city civil court at Bombay is not the principal civil court of original jurisdiction for Bombay and, therefore, lacks jurisdiction to decide suits seeking the removal of trustees. Additionally, it held that the civil court does not have jurisdiction to entertain suits for the removal of directors of a limited company, as such matters are governed by the Companies Act. Consequently, the revision application was allowed, and the trial court's order was set aside, with the preliminary issue of jurisdiction answered in the negative. The operation of this order was stayed for eight weeks upon the respondent's counsel's request. The application was allowed with no order as to costs.
-
1994 (4) TMI 266
Issues Involved:
1. Power to retain the seized currency under section 41 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FERA).
2. Validity of the show-cause notice issued on August 4, 1993, under section 51 of the FERA.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Power to Retain the Seized Currency:
The primary issue in Writ Petition No. 1279 of 1994 concerns the power to retain the currency seized from the petitioner under section 41 of the FERA. The key dates are:
- Seizure of currency: August 18, 1992
- Amendment to section 41: January 8, 1993
- Show-cause notice: August 4, 1993
- Service of show-cause notice: August 24, 1993
The petitioner argued that post-amendment, section 41 allowed the authorities to retain the currency only for six months unless proceedings were initiated as per sub-clauses (i) and (ii) of section 41. Prior to the amendment, the retention period was one year. The respondents contended that the amended provisions did not apply retrospectively and that the right of seizure and retention is a substantive right, not procedural.
The court examined whether the amended provisions of section 41, effective January 8, 1993, were prospective or retrospective. The court noted that the law of limitation is procedural and generally applies retrospectively unless it affects a vested right. The court cited several judgments to support this principle, concluding that the amended section 41, which reduced the retention period to six months, is procedural and applies retrospectively.
The court also noted that the amended section 41 includes a proviso allowing the Director of Enforcement to extend the retention period by six months for recorded reasons. Since the respondents did not seek such an extension, the court held that the authorities lost the power to retain the currency beyond February 17, 1993.
Consequently, the court allowed Writ Petition No. 1279 of 1994, directing the respondents to return the seized currency of Rs. 1,65,000 to the petitioner within eight weeks.
2. Validity of the Show-Cause Notice:
In Writ Petition No. 1280 of 1994, the petitioner challenged the show-cause notice issued on August 4, 1993, arguing that the Special Director lacked jurisdiction under sections 3 and 4 of the FERA. The petitioner contended that the delegation of powers to the Special Director was illegal.
The respondents countered that a specific notification dated September 22, 1989, authorized the Special Director to act as an Officer of Enforcement with adjudication powers under section 50 of the FERA. The court found that section 4(1) of the FERA allows the Central Government to appoint any person as an Officer of Enforcement. The Special Director, Mr. S. S. Renghen, was specifically appointed with such powers.
The court also invoked the de facto doctrine, which validates the acts of an officer who is clothed with the insignia of office, regardless of the legality of the appointment. Citing the Supreme Court's decisions in Gokaraju Rangaraju v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Pushpadevi M. Jatia v. M.L. Wadhavan, the court upheld the validity of the show-cause notice.
Therefore, the court dismissed Writ Petition No. 1280 of 1994, affirming the jurisdiction of the Special Director to issue the show-cause notice. There was no order as to costs.
-
1994 (4) TMI 265
Issues Involved:
1. Appointment and authority of the arbitrator.
2. Validity and scope of the arbitration award.
3. Alleged misconduct and procedural fairness of the arbitration process.
4. Allocation and ownership of shares.
5. Validity of a will and its impact on share distribution.
6. Ownership and control of company properties.
7. Future management and directorship of the company.
8. Workability and operational feasibility of the arbitration award.
9. Registration and enforceability of the arbitration award.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Appointment and Authority of the Arbitrator:
The arbitrator was appointed based on applications filed by both parties under Rule 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, and Order 23, Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code. The court order stated that the arbitrator would decide disputes regarding Raghbir Cycles Pvt. Ltd. and Overseas Cycles Company. The arbitrator's appointment was within the provisions of the Arbitration Act, specifically Section 21, which allows for reference to arbitration in ongoing suits with the agreement of all parties.
2. Validity and Scope of the Arbitration Award:
The arbitrator's award addressed various disputes, including share ownership, property rights, and the validity of a will. The court held that the scope of the arbitration included all disputes between the parties, not just those explicitly mentioned in the company petitions. The award was comprehensive and aimed at reconciling all issues to avoid liquidation of the company.
3. Alleged Misconduct and Procedural Fairness:
The objectors claimed that the arbitrator conducted separate meetings with the parties, violating natural justice principles. However, the court found that the arbitrator's actions were aimed at reconciliation and were within the scope of his duties. The arbitrator's process was deemed fair, as both parties had agreed to the procedure and had the opportunity to present their cases.
4. Allocation and Ownership of Shares:
The arbitrator reallocated shares to maintain a 60:40 ratio between Raghbir Singh's and Gurcharan Singh's families. The court upheld this decision, noting that the arbitrator aimed to rectify alleged manipulations in share allotments and ensure fair distribution.
5. Validity of a Will and Its Impact on Share Distribution:
The arbitrator declared a will executed by Smt. Chanan Devi invalid, affecting the distribution of 1,500 shares. The court supported this decision, stating that the arbitrator had the authority to address all disputes, including those related to the will, as part of the comprehensive arbitration agreement.
6. Ownership and Control of Company Properties:
The arbitrator awarded certain properties to Gurcharan Singh and his family, including a house at 319, Model Town, Ludhiana. The court found this within the arbitrator's authority, as the order of reference allowed him to decide on properties acquired through company funds.
7. Future Management and Directorship of the Company:
The arbitrator directed that Raghbir Cycles Pvt. Ltd. would have only two directors, Gurcharan Singh and Raghbir Singh, or their nominees, maintaining parity between the families. The court upheld this arrangement, emphasizing that it aimed to ensure balanced management and prevent future disputes.
8. Workability and Operational Feasibility of the Arbitration Award:
The objectors argued that the award would create operational difficulties, particularly regarding the management of Arora Palace Cinema. The court dismissed these concerns, stating that the arbitrator's decision was practical and aimed at ensuring smooth operation and management of company assets.
9. Registration and Enforceability of the Arbitration Award:
The objectors contended that the award required registration under Section 17(1)(e) of the Registration Act. The court rejected this argument, noting that the award was filed in court and would form part of the decree, thus not requiring separate registration.
Conclusion:
The court found no merit in the objections raised by the respondents. The arbitrator had acted within his authority, and the award was fair and comprehensive. The objections were rejected, and the award was made the rule of the court, with a decree to be drawn up accordingly. The respondents were ordered to pay costs of Rs. 5,000.
-
1994 (4) TMI 264
Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the trial court to hear and decide the suits.
2. Procedural error in the trial court's decision.
3. Consideration of relevant legal principles in deciding preliminary issues.
4. Requirement to decide all issues together in a suit.
Jurisdiction of the Trial Court:
The civil revision applications arose from a common order directing the trial court to frame the issue of its jurisdiction to try the suits challenging various transactions. The trial court initially rejected the defendant's applications challenging its jurisdiction, leading to the filing of revision applications before the High Court. The High Court found a jurisdictional error in the trial court's decision, emphasizing the need to consider legal principles and evidence before determining jurisdiction. The trial court was directed to proceed expeditiously with the suits in accordance with the law.
Procedural Error:
The High Court noted a procedural error in the trial court's decision, where the judge delved into the merits of the issues while deciding whether they should be tried as preliminary issues. The High Court held that the trial court's comprehensive judgment discussing the merits at that stage was unnecessary. The error led to the quashing and setting aside of the trial court's decision, requiring a remand for proper consideration of the preliminary issues.
Consideration of Legal Principles:
In analyzing the trial court's decision, the High Court referred to a previous judgment highlighting the need to follow legal principles and consider evidence before determining the validity of resolutions and actions challenged in the suits. The court emphasized the importance of recording evidence to assess whether the issues fell within the purview of relevant provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. The trial court's failure to consider binding decisions was deemed a jurisdictional error.
Requirement to Decide All Issues Together:
The High Court reiterated the principle that all issues in a suit should be decided together to avoid piecemeal trials and subsequent delays in the legal process. Citing a previous judgment, the court emphasized that trying preliminary issues separately could lead to prolonged proceedings and exhaustion for the litigants. Therefore, the trial court's order to raise only the jurisdictional issue as a preliminary matter was quashed, and the defendant's application was dismissed.
In conclusion, the High Court allowed the revision applications, quashed the trial court's order, and directed the trial court to proceed with the suits expeditiously, considering all issues together. The request for a stay on the implementation of the order was refused, allowing the opponents to challenge the decision before the Supreme Court.
-
1994 (4) TMI 263
Issues:
Violation of section 454 of the Companies Act, 1956 - Failure to submit statement of affairs by company directors without reasonable excuse.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Background and Allegations:
- A criminal complaint was filed against seven individuals who were directors of a company in liquidation for failing to submit a statement of affairs to the official liquidator as required by section 454 of the Companies Act, 1956.
2. Prosecution's Case:
- Official liquidator issued notices to the accused directing them to file the statement of affairs, but the accused failed to do so without any reasonable excuse, constituting an offense under section 454(5) of the Act.
3. Defense and Witness Testimonies:
- Accused denied the allegations, citing reasons such as loss of company records and not being directors at the relevant date.
- Prosecution presented the official liquidator and a dealing assistant from the Registrar of Companies as witnesses.
4. Established Facts:
- It was established that notices sent to the accused were returned undelivered.
- The accused's directorship status at the time of winding up was clarified, showing that some were not directors on the relevant date.
5. Legal Provisions and Interpretation:
- Section 454(5) of the Act imposes penalties for default without reasonable excuse in submitting the statement of affairs.
- The relevant date for directorship determination was the date of winding up, and only directors at that time were obligated to file the statement.
6. Analysis of Accused:
- Accused 1, 6, and 7 were proven to be directors at the time of winding up and failed to submit the statement of affairs, constituting a default.
- However, the prosecution needed to prove the default was without a reasonable excuse, which was not established conclusively.
7. Reasonable Excuse and Burden of Proof:
- The prosecution failed to prove that the accused had access to company books for preparing the statement of affairs.
- Accused's claim of lost records, supported by a police report, raised doubt about the prosecution's case.
8. Court's Decision:
- Due to lack of evidence regarding the availability of company books and service of notices, the prosecution failed to discharge its burden of proof.
- The accused were acquitted based on the lack of conclusive evidence and benefit of doubt.
This judgment highlights the importance of proving default without reasonable excuse under the Companies Act, emphasizing the burden of proof on the prosecution to establish the elements of the offense. The court's decision was based on the lack of evidence regarding the accused's access to company records and service of notices, leading to the acquittal of the accused individuals.
-
1994 (4) TMI 238
Winding up - Suits stayed on winding-up order - single judge passed an order directing the two suits be transferred to the Bombay High Court - Held that:- Without intending to lay down the law broadly but confining only to the facts of this case, we feel that the order of transfer of the suits to the High Court of Bombay cannot be supported. This transfer will result in greater expenditure to the appellant bank which certainly is avoidable "than the wasteful expenditure" to the official liquidator. Accordingly that part of the order directing the transfer is set aside.
-
1994 (4) TMI 237
Issues:
1. Whether the respondent qualifies as a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act.
2. Whether the conversion of debentures into shares without the respondent's consent constitutes a violation of the redemption clause.
3. Jurisdiction of the District Forum in consumer disputes involving debentures and shares.
Analysis:
Issue 1: Consumer Qualification
The primary contention was whether the respondent could be considered a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. The appellant argued that the respondent did not meet the definition of a consumer, as no defect in goods or deficiency in services was alleged. The appellant relied on previous judgments, including Sqn. Ldr. Gurdial Singh v. United Land & Housing Ltd., to support their position that the respondent did not fall within the Act's ambit. The Commission referred to precedent cases, such as Pfizer Ltd. v. Hansraj Singh Barak and Braham Dutt Agarwal v. San Tubes Ltd., to conclude that purchasing shares in a public issue did not constitute a consumer dispute. Ultimately, the Commission held that the respondent was not a consumer under the Act, rendering the complaint not maintainable within consumer jurisdiction.
Issue 2: Violation of Redemption Clause
The respondent's grievance stemmed from the conversion of debentures into shares by the appellant without the respondent's express consent. The District Forum found this action unjustified due to the lack of explicit consent from the respondent. Consequently, the District Forum ordered the refund of the debenture value with interest. However, the appellant argued that a meeting was held where debenture holders were offered equity shares as redemption, and the respondent failed to exercise the option to retain the debentures. The appellant contended that no cause of action arose for the respondent, as the decision was communicated to all debenture holders, including the respondent.
Issue 3: Jurisdiction of the District Forum
The appellant raised a preliminary objection regarding the jurisdiction of the District Forum, arguing that the dispute did not fall within the consumer jurisdiction as the respondent was not a consumer under the Act. The Commission referred to various precedents, including Neela Vasant Raje v. Amogh Industries and N. Maduram Financial Services (P.) Ltd v. Modern Woollens Ltd., to analyze the consumer status in cases involving debentures and shares. Ultimately, the Commission relied on Sqn. Ldr. Gurdial Singh's case and previous decisions of the Commission to establish that the respondent's complaint was not maintainable within the consumer jurisdiction. The Commission allowed the appeal, setting aside the District Forum's order and dismissing the respondent's complaint.
In conclusion, the Commission held that the respondent did not qualify as a consumer under the Act, and the complaint was not maintainable within the consumer jurisdiction. The conflict of precedents and the complex legal question led the Commission to leave the parties to bear their own costs.
-
1994 (4) TMI 236
Issues Involved:
1. Disinvestment of 11% of shares without considering intrinsic value.
2. Impact of disinvestment on workers' interests.
3. Historical inadequacies in the disinvestment process.
4. Violation of SEBI guidelines.
5. Arbitrary decision to use the tender method over public issue.
6. Lack of consultation with stakeholders.
7. Potential undervaluation of shares.
8. Violation of principles of natural justice and legitimate expectations.
Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Disinvestment of 11% of shares without considering intrinsic value:
The petitioner argued that the disinvestment of 11% of shares was being carried out without considering the intrinsic value of the shares. The petitioner emphasized that the intrinsic value of Bharat Electronics' shares was significantly higher than the price at which they were being sold. The petitioner highlighted that the assets of Bharat Electronics, including its land, plant, and machinery, were grossly undervalued in the books, and their current market value was many times higher.
2. Impact of disinvestment on workers' interests:
The petitioner contended that the workers were vitally interested in the management of the company and that the disinvestment process disregarded their interests. The petitioner argued that the workers should be given the opportunity to buy at least 26% of the shares to effectively participate in the decision-making process of the factory's management. The petitioner referenced the SEBI's Guideline on Employees Stock Option Scheme, which recognizes the legitimate interest of workers in the future of their factory.
3. Historical inadequacies in the disinvestment process:
The petitioner criticized the previous disinvestment process, citing the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of India's report, which highlighted several inadequacies. The CAG report pointed out that the approach to disinvestment lacked necessary preparatory work, and the valuation and sale of shares were arbitrary. The petitioner argued that the current round of disinvestment was occurring without addressing the criticisms and recommendations made by the CAG in its 1993 report.
4. Violation of SEBI guidelines:
The petitioner argued that the Government had not followed the SEBI guidelines for disclosure and investor protection in the disinvestment process. The petitioner pointed out that the brochure issued by the Government for the latest round of disinvestment violated SEBI guidelines, contrasting it with the prospectus issued by Videocon Leasing and Industrial Finance Ltd., which adhered to SEBI guidelines.
5. Arbitrary decision to use the tender method over public issue:
The petitioner contended that the Government's decision to disinvest through the tender method instead of a public issue was arbitrary and unreasonable. The petitioner argued that a public issue would have resulted in a more transparent and democratic process, allowing a wider dispersal of shares and preventing cartelization. The petitioner provided a comparative analysis of the advantages of disinvestment by public issue over the tender method.
6. Lack of consultation with stakeholders:
The petitioner argued that the disinvestment process was carried out without any consultation with the management or workers of Bharat Electronics, violating principles of natural justice. The petitioner emphasized that the workers and the Union should have been consulted and given a chance to participate in the process of disinvestment.
7. Potential undervaluation of shares:
The petitioner argued that the shares of Bharat Electronics were being sold at grossly undervalued rates, resulting in a significant loss of money to the exchequer. The petitioner highlighted that the shares were being sold at around 10% of their actual value, and the Government's failure to revalue the assets of Bharat Electronics contributed to this undervaluation.
8. Violation of principles of natural justice and legitimate expectations:
The petitioner argued that the Union of India's decision to disinvest shares without consulting the workers or management of Bharat Electronics violated principles of natural justice and breached legitimate expectations. The petitioner contended that the decision was in violation of Article 14, read with Article 43A, of the Directive Principles of State Policy, which emphasizes workers' participation in management.
Conclusion:
The High Court of Karnataka, acknowledging the far-reaching implications of the issues raised, directed the respondents to file their statement of objections at the earliest. The Court issued an interim direction restraining the respondents from taking any decision regarding the disinvestment of the remaining 69% of shares until further orders. The petitioner was allowed to move the Vacation Bench for further interim orders if necessary.
-
1994 (4) TMI 235
Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of petitions under Section 22A of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act (SCRA).
2. Entitlement to rectification of the register of members.
3. Recovery of dividends paid to the respondent companies.
4. Reliefs entitled to the parties.
Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: Maintainability of Petitions under Section 22A of the SCRA
The respondent companies contended that the petitions filed by the appellant company before the Company Law Board (CLB) were not maintainable under Section 22A of the SCRA. They argued that:
- Section 22A governs the transferability and registration of listed securities.
- The company can refuse registration only on grounds specified under Section 22A(3).
- The petition was barred by limitation as per Section 22A(4).
- The transferors were not made parties to the petition, and the CLB did not hear them.
- The company had exercised its discretion to register the transfers, and it cannot later seek rectification.
The court agreed that Section 22A of the SCRA, being a special statute, overrides the provisions of Section 111 of the Companies Act. The court emphasized that the objective of Section 22A is to ensure free transferability of listed securities and that the company's discretion to refuse registration is limited to specific grounds. The court held that the appellant company failed to comply with the statutory requirements and time limits under Section 22A and thus, the petitions were not maintainable.
Issue 2: Entitlement to Rectification of the Register of Members
The appellant company sought rectification of the register by deleting the names of the respondent companies, alleging that the instruments of transfer were defective. The court noted that:
- The instruments of transfer were lodged and registered by the company's One-Man Committee.
- The company had issued dividends to the respondent companies and accepted their applications for rights issues.
- The defects in the instruments of transfer were not noticed at the time of registration.
The court held that the appellant company, having exercised its discretion to register the transfers, cannot later seek rectification, especially after a considerable lapse of time. The court emphasized that allowing such rectification would undermine the objective of free transferability of listed securities and create instability in the stock market.
Issue 3: Recovery of Dividends Paid to the Respondent Companies
The appellant company sought to recover dividends paid to the respondent companies in the event of rectification. However, the court held that since the petitions for rectification were not maintainable, the question of recovering dividends did not arise.
Issue 4: Reliefs Entitled to the Parties
The court concluded that the appellant company is not entitled to the relief of rectification of the register of members. The court set aside the CLB's order directing rectification of the register in respect of shares falling under lists A and C. The court allowed the appeals filed by the respondent companies and dismissed the appeals filed by the appellant company challenging the CLB's decision on shares falling under list B. The appellant company was directed to finalize and allot rights PCDs and additional rights PCDs to the respondent companies within two weeks.
Final Judgment:
- The CLB's order dated 20-10-1993, directing rectification of the share register in respect of shares falling under lists A and C, is set aside.
- Appeals by the respondent companies (C.M.A. Nos. 1412 to 1422 of 1993) are allowed.
- Appeals by the appellant company (C.M.A. Nos. 1245 to 1251 of 1993) are dismissed.
- The appellant company shall finalize and allot rights PCDs and additional rights PCDs to the respondent companies within two weeks.
- Other directions of the CLB are vacated.
- Each party will bear its own costs.
-
1994 (4) TMI 233
Whether the consent given by her general power of attorney holder for and on her behalf—and not by her personally—is a valid consent within the meaning of sub-section (3) of section 399?
Held that:- Appeal is allowed and the orders of the learned company judge and the Division Bench impugned herein are set aside. The consent given by the first appellant for and on behalf of Smt. V. Rajeshwari, as her general power of attorney holder is a valid consent within the meaning of section 399(3) and, therefore, the preliminary objection to the maintainability of the application filed under sections 397 and 398 is unsustainable in law. The application may be proceeded with in accordance with law expeditiously, in view of the fact that about fifteen years have been spent on a preliminary objection alone.
-
1994 (4) TMI 230
Consumer dispute - Whether private placement or purchase of shares of a public limited company and their subsequent non-delivery would come within ambit of consumer dispute - Held, no , Consumer - Whether complainants who had deposited money with a company for buying its equity shares but to whom those shares had neither been allotted nor delivered could be considered consumers for purposes of Act - Held, no
-
1994 (4) TMI 228
The petition under section 434 of the Companies Act, 1956, sought winding up of Partap Rajasthan Special Steels Ltd. due to financial losses. The company was declared a sick industrial company under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. The court held that the company petition proceedings do not abate due to proceedings under the Act of 1985. The petition proceedings were frozen, and the petitioner could seek revival after the Act of 1985 proceedings conclude.
........
|
9911796707
