|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 459 Records
-
2001 (5) TMI 906
Issues:
Appointment of cost auditor under Companies Act, 1956 - Discretion of Central Government to approve or disapprove appointment - Allegations of professional misconduct against the petitioner.
Analysis:
1. Appointment of Cost Auditor:
The petitioner, a fellow member of the Institute of Cost and Works Accountants of India, was appointed as the cost auditor of a company for the period 1995-96. Subsequently, the company proposed the petitioner's reappointment, which was not approved by the Central Government due to pending allegations of professional misconduct against the petitioner. The petitioner challenged this decision seeking approval for the appointment.
2. Discretion of Central Government:
The petitioner argued that under section 224 of the Companies Act, the Central Government is mandated to positively act on proposals for the appointment of cost accountants. However, the respondent contended that section 233B is the relevant provision, granting the Central Government the discretion to disapprove appointments based on valid grounds. The Central Government's power includes the authority to reject proposals after considering all relevant factors.
3. Allegations of Professional Misconduct:
The refusal to approve the petitioner's appointment was based on a complaint alleging professional misconduct by the petitioner for failing to submit an audit report despite specific instructions. The court held that the Central Government had the discretion to disapprove the appointment based on pending allegations of misconduct. The decision was deemed reasonable and not arbitrary, considering the circumstances.
4. Judgment:
The court analyzed the provisions of section 224 and section 233B of the Companies Act, emphasizing the distinction between the appointment of auditors for financial accounts and cost accounts. It concluded that the Central Government's power to approve or disapprove appointments under section 233B is not arbitrary but based on valid grounds. As the complaint against the petitioner was pending, the refusal to approve the appointment was deemed justified. The petitions were dismissed, and the court upheld the decision of the Central Government to not approve the petitioner's reappointment as the cost auditor.
-
2001 (5) TMI 905
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the detention order under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA).
2. Application of mind by the detaining authority.
3. Procedural safeguards under Article 22 of the Constitution.
4. Differences between COFEPOSA and National Security Act (NSA) in terms of detention order approval.
Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Legality of the Detention Order under COFEPOSA:
The habeas corpus writ petition was filed challenging the detention order passed by the Lt. Governor of the National Capital Territory of Delhi under Section 3(1) of COFEPOSA. The petitioner, a foreign national, was detained to prevent him from smuggling and transporting smuggled goods. The petitioner contended that the money found in his possession was not contraband and was declared upon arrival in India. The detention order was challenged on the grounds that it was not proper and lacked the necessary application of mind by the detaining authority.
2. Application of Mind by the Detaining Authority:
The primary contention was that the detaining authority did not apply its mind and merely approved the grounds of detention prepared by the sponsoring authority. The petitioner argued that the grounds of detention were a verbatim reproduction of the complaint and sanction filed against him, indicating non-application of mind. The counter-affidavit by the detaining authority initially denied this claim but later acknowledged that the grounds of detention were indeed approved by the Lt. Governor, which raised questions about the application of mind.
3. Procedural Safeguards under Article 22 of the Constitution:
Article 22 of the Constitution provides procedural safeguards for individuals deprived of their personal liberty. These include the right to be informed of the grounds of arrest, the right to consult a legal practitioner, and the right to be produced before a magistrate within 24 hours. The court emphasized the importance of these safeguards and the need for meticulous compliance with procedural requirements in cases of preventive detention. The court noted that the procedural safeguards mandated under Article 22 were not followed in this case, as the detaining authority did not independently apply its mind.
4. Differences between COFEPOSA and NSA in Terms of Detention Order Approval:
The court highlighted the differences between COFEPOSA and the NSA regarding the approval of detention orders. Under COFEPOSA, there is no provision similar to Section 3(4) of the NSA, which requires approval of the detention order by the Lt. Governor. The court noted that while the NSA requires approval of detention orders by the Lt. Governor, COFEPOSA does not. The court found that the Lt. Governor merely approved the draft grounds of detention prepared by the officials, which indicated a lack of independent satisfaction required under COFEPOSA.
Conclusion:
The court concluded that the detaining authority did not apply its mind independently and merely approved the draft order prepared by the officials. This lack of application of mind vitiated the detention order. Consequently, the court quashed the detention order and directed the immediate release of the detenu unless required in connection with any other case or proceedings.
-
2001 (5) TMI 904
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the detention order under COFEPOSA.
2. Application of mind by the detaining authority.
3. Procedural safeguards under Article 22 of the Constitution.
4. Distinction between approval and satisfaction for detention orders.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Legality of the detention order under COFEPOSA:
The habeas corpus writ petition was filed challenging the detention order passed by the Lt. Governor (LG) of the National Capital Territory of Delhi under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA). The detenu was arrested for illicit possession of US $37,500, which was found in his checked-in baggage while traveling from New Delhi to Nepal. The detenu contended that the money was not contraband and was brought for business purposes. Despite his claims and representations, the detention order was passed and served while he was in judicial custody.
2. Application of mind by the detaining authority:
The main contention was that the detaining authority had not applied its mind independently and merely approved the grounds of detention prepared by the sponsoring authority. The petitioner asserted that the grounds of detention were a verbatim reproduction of the complaint and sanction, indicating non-application of mind. The counter-affidavit filed by the detaining authority initially denied this claim, stating that the grounds were prepared after considering all material on record. However, subsequent affidavits revealed discrepancies, suggesting that the LG had merely approved the draft grounds and detention order prepared by officials, without independent application of mind.
3. Procedural safeguards under Article 22 of the Constitution:
The judgment emphasized the importance of procedural safeguards under Article 22, which protects personal liberty. The court highlighted that any deprivation of personal liberty must meticulously accord with the procedure established by law. It was noted that preventive detention laws are strictly construed, and compliance with procedural safeguards is imperative. The court referred to various judicial precedents underscoring the necessity of strict adherence to legal requirements in matters of personal liberty and preventive detention.
4. Distinction between approval and satisfaction for detention orders:
The court examined the distinction between approval and satisfaction in the context of detention orders. Unlike the National Security Act (NSA), where approval of detention orders by the LG is mandated, COFEPOSA requires the detaining authority to arrive at its own satisfaction. The court noted that the LG's role under COFEPOSA is to independently assess the material and not merely approve pre-prepared grounds. The judgment clarified that approval suggests a confirmation of an action already taken, whereas satisfaction requires an independent evaluation by the detaining authority.
Conclusion:
The court concluded that the detaining authority had not applied its mind independently and merely approved the draft order prepared by officials. This lack of independent satisfaction by the detaining authority vitiated the detention order. Consequently, the court quashed the detention order and directed that the detenu be set at liberty forthwith unless required in connection with any other case or proceedings.
-
2001 (5) TMI 903
Issues:
1. Interpretation of the trial court's order regarding payment of interest.
2. Modification of trial court's order by the appeal court.
3. Applicability of interest in case of default.
4. Consideration of interest by the appeal court.
5. Effectiveness of the appeal court's direction on payment of interest.
Interpretation of Trial Court's Order Regarding Payment of Interest:
In a winding-up petition, the trial court recorded the company's admission of liability for a principal amount and interest. The court directed interest to be paid at varying rates on the principal amount. The petitioner contended that the appeal court modified the trial court's order only to a certain extent, leaving the interest order intact. The principles of equity and legal provisions were cited to support the interpretation of the appeal court's order.
Modification of Trial Court's Order by the Appeal Court:
The Division Bench of the appeal court considered the matter comprehensively and directed the company to pay a specific sum inclusive of interest in instalments. The appeal court set aside the trial court's direction regarding default consequences and specified the consequences for default in payment of instalments. The appeal court's order quantified the total amount due, including interest, and did not provide for additional interest in case of default.
Applicability of Interest in Case of Default:
The legal representatives of the company argued that the appeal court's order encompassed all interest payable by the company to the petitioner, even in case of default. Citing legal precedents, they contended that the appeal court's order did not mandate further interest in case of default, as it quantified the total amount due, inclusive of interest, and provided consequences for default.
Consideration of Interest by the Appeal Court:
The judgment analyzed the appeal court's decision in detail, emphasizing that the appeal court factored in the interest amount in the total due sum. The appeal court's order explicitly stated that the directed payment included all interest, without specifying additional interest in case of default. The appeal court's decision was deemed final and effective, merging the trial court's order into it.
Effectiveness of the Appeal Court's Direction on Payment of Interest:
The judgment concluded that the appeal court's direction for payment of the quantified amount, inclusive of all interest, was binding. The appeal court's order did not provide for further interest in case of default, and the company was held liable to pay the specified sum due from the company to the petitioner. The Registrar of the High Court was directed to release the amount to the petitioner promptly, subject to any existing stay order.
Conclusion:
The judgment clarified the interpretation of the trial court's order, the modifications made by the appeal court, and the applicability of interest in case of default. It emphasized the appeal court's comprehensive consideration of interest and quantification of the total due amount. The decision upheld the appeal court's order, holding the company accountable for the specified sum inclusive of all interest.
-
2001 (5) TMI 902
Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the District Forum under the Consumer Protection Act regarding disputes arising from a chit fund scheme.
2. Interpretation of Section 64 of the Chit Fund Act and its applicability in resolving disputes related to chit business.
3. Adjustment of chit fund amount against a loan taken by a family member.
4. Validity of the State Commission's decision to award the complainant the due chit fund amount with interest.
Jurisdiction of District Forum under Consumer Protection Act:
The case involved a complaint by the respondent against the petitioners regarding denial of chit fund amount. Initially, the District Forum dismissed the complaint citing Section 64 of the Chit Fund Act, stating it was not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act. However, the State Commission allowed the appeal, emphasizing that there was no bar to its jurisdiction under the Act. The State Commission directed the payment of the due amount to the complainant with interest, rejecting the argument that the District Forum lacked jurisdiction. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission upheld the State Commission's decision, emphasizing that the Consumer Protection Act does not restrict the Forum from deciding disputes arising under the Chit Fund Act.
Interpretation of Section 64 of the Chit Fund Act:
The petitioners argued that disputes related to chit business should be referred to the Registrar for arbitration as per Section 64 of the Chit Fund Act. However, the Commission clarified that the Registrar could arbitrate on disputes mentioned in the Act, but there was no bar on the jurisdiction of the District Forum, State Commission, or National Commission under the Consumer Protection Act. The Commission highlighted that the Consumer Protection Act is a benevolent legislation, and its provisions should be liberally considered. It concluded that the Forum under the Consumer Protection Act is not prohibited from deciding disputes arising under the Chit Fund Act, rejecting the contention that disputes should be entertained by the Registrar under the Chit Fund Act.
Adjustment of Chit Fund Amount Against Loan:
The State Commission correctly held that the amount due to the complainant from the chit fund could not be adjusted against any loan owed by his father. The complainant was wrongfully denied the due amount, and the State Commission's decision against the petitioners was upheld by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
Validity of State Commission's Decision:
The State Commission's decision to award the complainant the due chit fund amount with interest was deemed valid by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The Commission dismissed the revision petition filed by the opposite parties, affirming the State Commission's ruling in favor of the complainant.
-
2001 (5) TMI 901
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the detention orders under section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974.
2. Delay in consideration of the detenus' representations by the detaining authority and the Central Government.
3. Constitutional and legal obligations regarding the detenus' right to make representations.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Legality of the Detention Orders:
The petitions challenged the detention orders dated 25-5-2000 issued under section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, by the Lt. Governor of the National Capital Territory of Delhi. The orders aimed to prevent the detenus from smuggling goods. The detenus were intercepted at IGI Airport with large quantities of dutiable and electronic goods, which they could not legally justify. Their voluntary statements admitted the recovery and seizure of the goods, leading to the belief that they were engaged in smuggling activities.
2. Delay in Consideration of Representations:
The detenus contended that their representations were not dealt with promptly, resulting in an inordinate delay. They made representations to the Central Government on 13-6-2000, requesting that a copy be forwarded to the detaining authority. The Central Government received these representations on 14-6-2000 but forwarded them to the detaining authority only on 29-6-2000, the same day the representations were rejected by the detaining authority. The detenus argued that this delay rendered the detention invalid.
3. Constitutional and Legal Obligations:
The respondents argued that the Central Government's power of revocation under section 11 of the Act is independent. The representation was considered and rejected by the Central Government on 26-6-2000. The detaining authority received and rejected the representation on 29-6-2000. The court emphasized that the right to make a representation implies the right to make an effective representation, as guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution. The court cited several precedents, including Gracy v. State of Kerala and Sat Pal v. State of Punjab, to highlight the importance of procedural safeguards in matters of personal liberty.
Judgment:
The court examined whether there was an obligation on the Central Government to send the representation to the detaining authority and whether the delay in doing so was fatal. It referred to R. Keshava v. M.B. Prakash, which clarified that the Advisory Board is not obligated to forward the entire record to the government. The court concluded that the delay in forwarding the representation by the Central Government did not invalidate the detention order, as the representation was considered promptly by the detaining authority upon receipt.
In conclusion, the court found no substance in the plea of unexplained inaction and dismissed the petitions, affirming the legality of the detention orders.
-
2001 (5) TMI 892
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Kolkata rejected the Revenue's appeal against the Commissioner (Appeals) order regarding a refund under Notfn. No. 33/99. The delay in filing duty payment particulars did not deny the benefit of the notification, which required suo motu refunds for certain Assam areas without a formal application. The Tribunal cited a previous case where a similar appeal was rejected, leading to the rejection of the Revenue's appeal in this case.
-
2001 (5) TMI 887
Issues Involved:
The judgment deals with the issue of whether the requirement of advertising a petition in the Official Gazette, as mandated by rule 24 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, can be dispensed with.
Summary:
The appellant filed a petition for winding up a company under section 439 of the Companies Act, 1956. The petition was admitted, and a provisional liquidator was appointed without direction to advertise the petition as required by rule 24. An application was made to advertise the petition in newspapers but dispense with the Official Gazette publication, which was rejected by the company judge. The appellant challenged this decision, arguing that rule 99 allows for dispensing with the advertisement requirement. The respondent opposed, stating that the court lacks the power to dispense with Official Gazette publication.
Upon review, the court considered the relevant rules. Rule 96 outlines the procedure for admitting a petition and giving directions for advertisement. Rule 24 specifies the advertisement requirements, including publication in the Official Gazette, an English daily, and a regional language daily. The court noted that while rule 99 provides some discretion, the mandatory nature of advertising a winding-up petition is emphasized in sub-rule (2) of rule 24. The court disagreed with the appellant's interpretation of rule 99, stating that the discretion is limited to the timing of advertisement.
Referring to past cases, the court highlighted the mandatory nature of advertising a winding-up petition and the specific requirements of rule 24. It emphasized that the court's inherent powers, as per rule 9, do not extend to dispensing with such mandatory requirements. The court also cited the principle that statutory requirements must be followed as laid out, as seen in various legal precedents.
In conclusion, the court dismissed the appellant's challenge, affirming the necessity of advertising a winding-up petition in the Official Gazette as per rule 24. The judgment underscores the mandatory nature of this requirement and the limitations on the court's discretion in this regard.
-
2001 (5) TMI 886
Issues:
Violation of section 383A(1A) of the Companies Act, 1956 by directors of a company regarding the appointment of a whole-time company secretary.
Analysis:
The judgment involves a complaint under section 383A(1A) of the Companies Act, 1956 against the directors of a company for failing to appoint a whole-time company secretary. The complaint alleges that the company's paid-up capital exceeded Rs. 50 lakhs, necessitating the appointment of a whole-time secretary as per the Act. The accused directors are facing criminal proceedings for this violation, and they sought to quash the proceedings invoking the defense provided by the proviso to sub-section (1A) of section 383A. However, the court held that the defense could only be raised during trial and not at the current stage of the proceeding, as per the law. The court emphasized that the accused cannot use the defense to nullify the legal action initiated against them at this point.
The judgment references the case of Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, where the Supreme Court highlighted the seriousness of summoning an accused in a criminal case. The court must apply its mind to the facts and law before summoning the accused, ensuring the allegations and evidence are sufficient to bring charges against them. The accused can approach the High Court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings if the complaint does not establish a case against them. In the present case, the court found that the complaint allegations justified the criminal proceedings against the accused directors, aligning with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court.
Additionally, the judgment refers to the case of Hareram Satpathy v. Tikaram Agarwala, where the Supreme Court emphasized the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction in examining the validity of criminal proceedings. The court cannot delve into detailed merits of the case at the revision stage, as the magistrate's role is to determine prima facie evidence for proceeding against the accused. Therefore, the court found no merit in the petition to quash the criminal proceedings, concluding that the petition was bound to fail. The court also clarified that an order dispensing with the attendance of the accused directors before the magistrate could not be passed at the current stage, as the accused should request such dispensation at the appropriate trial stage following the Code's provisions.
-
2001 (5) TMI 885
Issues:
- Petition for winding up of the company under sections 433(a), (e), and (f) read with section 439 of the Companies Act, 1956.
- Dismissal of the petition by the Company Judge.
- Allegations of fraud and fabrication in the allotment of shares.
- Lack of notice for the meeting of the board of directors for the allotment of shares.
- Dispute over consideration for the alleged allotment of shares.
- Legal interpretation of just and equitable grounds for winding up.
- Comparison of judgments in similar cases.
- Competency of the Company Judge to decide on the petition.
- Prima facie view on the petition's merits.
- Applicability of judgments on admission of winding up petitions.
- Conclusion and dismissal of the appeal with costs.
Analysis:
1. The appellants filed a petition seeking the winding up of the company under various sections of the Companies Act, stating that the survival of the company was not in the interest of its shareholders. The Company Judge dismissed the petition, citing lack of evidence and failure to establish a prima facie case for winding up. The judge carefully considered the facts and circumstances before making the decision, emphasizing the need for a strong case under the law for such a drastic action.
2. The core issue revolved around the alleged fraud and fabrication in the allotment of shares, with the appellants claiming that a significant sum was advanced in good faith for the construction of a hotel. However, the respondents disputed the authenticity of the documents related to the share allotment, pointing out discrepancies and lack of proper procedures followed during the share issuance process.
3. Another crucial point of contention was the absence of a notice for the board of directors' meeting regarding the allotment of shares, which raised questions about the validity of the share allocation. The respondents argued that without proper notice and resolution, the allotment could not be considered legitimate, further complicating the case for winding up the company on just and equitable grounds.
4. The legal arguments delved into the interpretation of just and equitable grounds for winding up a company, citing relevant case laws to support their positions. The judges scrutinized the facts presented by both parties, highlighting the need for a solid legal basis to initiate such drastic actions as winding up a company.
5. The judgment also compared previous decisions in similar cases to establish a framework for evaluating the current petition. The competency of the Company Judge to assess and decide on the petition was a key aspect of the legal analysis, emphasizing the importance of a thorough examination of the facts and legal principles involved.
6. Ultimately, the Court upheld the decision of the Company Judge to dismiss the appeal, citing lack of merit and the need for a detailed examination of the disputed issues in a civil court setting. The dismissal of the appeal with costs underscored the Court's stance on the insufficiency of evidence and legal grounds to support the winding up of the company.
-
2001 (5) TMI 884
Issues Involved:
1. Privity of contract between the petitioners and the respondent.
2. Compliance with the Companies Act, 1956 by the foreign petitioner company.
3. Appointment of an arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Privity of Contract:
The petitioner No. 1, a wholly owned subsidiary of petitioner No. 2, claims that the respondent failed to perform under the agreement dated 7-1-1999. The respondent objected, stating there was no privity of contract with petitioner No. 1 as the agreement was executed between the respondent and petitioner No. 2. However, the court found that the agreement and subsequent communications indicated that the respondent had dealt with both petitioners. The agreement explicitly mentioned the involvement of petitioner No. 1, and the respondent had received payments through petitioner No. 1's Chartered Accountant. Thus, the court concluded that there was indeed privity of contract between the petitioners and the respondent.
2. Compliance with the Companies Act, 1956:
The respondent argued that petitioner No. 2, being a foreign company, had an established place of business in India through its attorney, Mr. Kuldip Nar, and had not complied with Part II of the Companies Act, 1956, specifically section 599, which restricts unregistered foreign companies from suing. The court clarified that merely appointing a constituted attorney does not imply having an established place of business. The court referred to sections 591 and 592, emphasizing that an established place of business means a permanent and specific location where the company habitually conducts business. Since petitioner No. 2 did not have such a place at the time of signing the contract, it was not required to comply with Part II of the Companies Act.
3. Appointment of an Arbitrator:
The petitioners sought the appointment of an arbitrator due to the respondent's failure to appoint one despite notice. Clause 15 of the agreement mandated arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The court noted that the arbitration clause covered disputes related to the agreement, and the respondent's failure to appoint an arbitrator justified the petition. The court also referenced Supreme Court decisions in Nimet Resources Inc. v. Essar Steels Ltd. and Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. v. Mehul Construction Co., which supported the arbitrator's authority to rule on its jurisdiction and the existence of the arbitration agreement.
Conclusion:
The court allowed the petition, finding that there was privity of contract between the petitioners and the respondent, and that petitioner No. 2 was not required to comply with Part II of the Companies Act as it had no established place of business in India at the time of signing the contract. The court directed the appointment of an arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes and counter-claims raised by both parties.
-
2001 (5) TMI 883
Issues:
1. Interpretation of whether a writ petition should be treated under article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India.
2. Application of the principles of certiorari in judicial review.
3. Examination of the grounds for granting a writ of certiorari to correct decisions by BIFR and AAIFR.
4. Determination of jurisdiction under article 227 for issues arising from impugned orders.
5. Assessment of factual findings by BIFR and AAIFR in the context of writ jurisdiction.
Analysis:
1. The judgment delves into the interpretation of whether a writ petition should be treated under article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India. The appellant argued that the writ petition should have been treated under article 226 based on the Supreme Court's ruling in Mangalbhai v. Dr. Radhyshyam, emphasizing the party's right to appeal. The court highlighted the importance of fairness and justice in such cases to avoid depriving parties of their valuable right of appeal.
2. The judgment extensively discusses the application of certiorari in judicial review, drawing upon the historical origins of prerogative writs from English law. It elucidates the power of superior courts to issue orders or writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, quo warranto, prohibition, and certiorari for the enforcement of fundamental rights. The court emphasized the broad and fundamental principles guiding the exercise of jurisdiction in granting such writs in Indian law.
3. The court analyzed the grounds for granting a writ of certiorari to correct decisions made by BIFR and AAIFR. The appellant contended that the facts of the case warranted the granting of a writ of certiorari to rectify the decisions, citing discrepancies in financial accounts and misleading actions by the promoters. However, the court noted that the judgments of BIFR and AAIFR were based on factual assessments and documents filed by the parties, including balance sheets, which formed the basis for the decisions.
4. In determining the jurisdiction under article 227 for issues arising from impugned orders, the court clarified that its role was not that of a second appellate court over the order of the First Appellate Court (AAIFR). The court's jurisdiction under article 227 was limited to jurisdictional issues arising from the impugned orders, and it could not delve into factual matters beyond that scope.
5. The judgment scrutinized the factual findings by BIFR and AAIFR in the context of writ jurisdiction. The court emphasized that it could not ignore or set aside the findings arrived at by these authorities based on the appreciation of facts and documents submitted by the parties. The court underscored the importance of examining the entire factual scenario to determine the substance of the submissions made, emphasizing that each case must be evaluated based on its unique facts. Ultimately, the court dismissed the writ petition without admission based on these considerations.
-
2001 (5) TMI 882
Whether the first respondent, a limited company is entitled to sue as an indigent person under Order 33, rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. The word "person" has to be given its meaning in the context in which it is used. It refers to a person who is capable of filing a suit and this being a benevolent provision, it is to be given an extended meaning. Therefore, we are of the view that a public limited company, which is otherwise entitled to maintain a suit as a legal person, can very well maintain an application under Order 33, rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. We hold that the word "person" mentioned in Order 33 includes not only a natural person but other juridical persons also.
-
2001 (5) TMI 881
Whether the award would be governed by the Act for its enforcement or whether the provisions of the old Act would apply?
Held that:- Appeal allowed by way of remand. From the plain and literal reading of the said provision and the Gazette Notification, it is clear that the Act came into force on 22-8-1996. Thus the Act was brought into force with effect from 22-8-1996 vide Notification No. G.S.R. 375(E) dated 22-8-1996 published in the Gazette of India and that the Act being a continuation of the Ordnance is deemed to have been effective from 25-1-1996 when the first Ordinance came into force.
Section 47 states as to what evidence the party applying for the enforcement of a foreign award should produce before the court. Section 48 states as to the conditions for enforcement of foreign awards. As per section 49, if the Court is satisfied that a foreign award is enforceable under this Chapter, the award shall be deemed to be a decree of that court and that court has to proceed further to execute the foreign award as a decree of that court. If the argument advanced on behalf of the respondent is accepted, the very purpose of the Act in regard to speedy and effective execution of foreign award will be defeated. Thus, none of the contentions urged on behalf of the respondent merit acceptance so as to uphold the impugned judgment and order. We have no hesitation or impediment in concluding that the impugned judgment and order cannot be sustained.
-
2001 (5) TMI 880
Issues:
Execution of arbitral award against guarantors under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 - Interpretation of Section 22 - Legality of arbitration proceedings without specific clause in guarantee deed.
Analysis:
Issue 1: Execution of arbitral award against guarantors under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985
The case involved a petition for raising the attachment of a property belonging to a guarantor of a company, which was under the purview of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (SICA). The guarantors had guaranteed the lease rental amounts of the company. The arbitrator had passed an award against all respondents, including the guarantors, but had directed that the award would not be enforced against the company until it came out of the purview of the SICA. The key question was whether the guarantors were protected under Section 22 of the SICA, which suspends legal proceedings against industrial companies. The court analyzed relevant case law and determined that the guarantors were indeed protected under Section 22, and no execution proceeding could be initiated against them based on the arbitral award.
Issue 2: Interpretation of Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985
The court delved into the interpretation of Section 22 of the SICA, which suspends legal proceedings against industrial companies under certain circumstances. The court referred to case law, including a Full Bench decision of the Supreme Court, to establish that the provision not only covers industrial companies but also extends to guarantees provided to such companies. The court emphasized that when the legislative language is clear, it must be given effect without speculation on the intent of the legislature. In this case, the court concluded that the guarantors were protected under Section 22, and hence, no execution proceeding could be pursued against them.
Issue 3: Legality of arbitration proceedings without specific clause in guarantee deed
Another aspect of the case involved the legality of the arbitration proceedings concerning the guarantors, as there was no specific clause in the guarantee deed regarding arbitration. The respondents argued that the arbitration was a nullity due to this absence. However, the court focused on the immediate issue of whether the execution proceeding based on the arbitral award was maintainable. The court opined that the guarantors, being related to the industrial unit, were protected under Section 22 of the SICA, and therefore, no execution proceeding could be pursued against them. The court directed the attachment of the property of one of the guarantors to be lifted, keeping the issue of the award's legality open for further adjudication.
In conclusion, the court allowed the chamber summons, stating that the attachment against the guarantor's property was illegal due to the protection granted under Section 22 of the SICA. The court rejected the prayer for a stay of the order, leaving all other contentions open for future consideration.
-
2001 (5) TMI 879
Whether omission of pendente lite interest to the decree by the trial court was an accidental or clerical error?
Held that:- Appeal allowed. The correct position of law is that a decree cannot add to or subtract from any relief except what has been provided in the judgment. But this is not the case here. In this case, the trial court awarded mesne profit, however, in the decree, it was written as net profit. On an application filed by the plaintiff for correction of the decree under section 152, the word ‘net’ was the case of typographical mistake and, therefore, not applicable to the present case.
-
2001 (5) TMI 876
Whether the acts attributed to the respondents amounted to professional misconduct?
Held that:- In our opinion, the State Bar Council has abdicated its duties when it was found that there was no prima facie case for the Disciplinary Committee to take up. The Bar Council of India also went woefully wrong in holding that there was no case for revision at all. In our considered view, the appellant complainant has made out a very strong prima facie case for the Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar Council to proceed with. We, therefore, set aside the order of the State Bar Council as well as that of the Bar Council of India and we hold that the complaint of the appellant would stand referred to the Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar Council.
-
2001 (5) TMI 874
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of SEBI's interim order under section 11 and 11B of the SEBI Act.
2. Compliance with principles of natural justice.
3. SEBI's authority to impose interim suspension.
4. Impact on fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
Summary:
Issue 1: Validity of SEBI's interim order under section 11 and 11B of the SEBI Act
The petitioners challenged the SEBI's order dated 12-3-2001 and subsequent confirmations, which restrained the 1st petitioner and associated companies from undertaking any fresh business as brokers. SEBI issued the order under section 11 read with section 11B of the SEBI Act, citing the need to protect the integrity of the capital market following allegations of insider trading and market manipulation by the 1st petitioner, who was the President of the Bombay Stock Exchange.
Issue 2: Compliance with principles of natural justice
The petitioners argued that SEBI violated principles of natural justice by not providing a pre-decisional hearing. They contended that the transcripts of telephonic conversations, which formed the basis of SEBI's order, were not disclosed to them until after the petition was filed. SEBI, however, provided a post-decisional hearing on 21-3-2001, where the petitioners were given an opportunity to present their case. The Court held that in cases of urgency, pre-decisional natural justice could be dispensed with and post-decisional hearing suffices.
Issue 3: SEBI's authority to impose interim suspension
The Court upheld SEBI's power to issue interim orders under section 11 and 11B of the SEBI Act, emphasizing that SEBI is entrusted with the duty to protect investors and regulate the securities market. The Court referenced previous judgments, including Ramrakh R. Bohra v. SEBI and SEBI v. Alka Synthetics Ltd., affirming SEBI's authority to take interim measures pending inquiry to prevent further market manipulation and protect investor interests.
Issue 4: Impact on fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution
The petitioners argued that the SEBI's order violated their fundamental right to carry on trade under Article 19(1)(g). The Court rejected this argument, stating that the order was an interim measure pending inquiry and did not constitute a permanent restriction on their business activities. The Court emphasized that SEBI's actions were in public interest to maintain market integrity and investor confidence.
Conclusion:
The Court dismissed the petition, affirming SEBI's authority to issue interim orders under section 11 and 11B of the SEBI Act without pre-decisional hearing in urgent situations. The Court directed SEBI to complete the inquiry and pass final orders within four months, keeping all contentions of the parties open for consideration.
-
2001 (5) TMI 851
Issues Involved:
1. Classification of the product manufactured by the appellants under Central Excise Rules.
2. Jurisdictional interpretation of the term "article of gold" by the High Court.
3. Validity of the demand of duty and penalties imposed by the Commissioner.
4. Allegations of evasion of Central Excise duty by the appellants.
5. Bar on limitation for proceedings.
6. Retraction of statements by involved parties and its impact on the case.
7. Justification for the demand of duty and penalties by the Department.
8. Reliability of evidence and corroborative proof in the case.
1. Classification of the Product:
The appellants contested the classification of their product, "liquid gold," under Chapter 32 of the Tariff Act, arguing it should fall under Chapter 71 based on government notifications and High Court interpretations. The High Court's judgment was deemed binding, indicating the product could be non-dutiable under a specific exemption notification.
2. Jurisdictional Interpretation of "Article of Gold":
The High Court's interpretation of "article of gold" under the Defence of India Rules was crucial in determining the classification of "liquid gold" and its eligibility for exemption under Central Excise law. The judgment was considered binding on the Department, supporting the appellants' position.
3. Validity of Demand and Penalties:
The Commissioner imposed significant penalties and demanded duty based on alleged duty evasion by the appellants. The appellants argued that the demand was barred by limitation, and the proceedings lacked proper consideration of retracted statements and corroborative evidence.
4. Allegations of Evasion:
The Department accused the appellants of evading Central Excise duty by using a brand name not owned by them and misclassifying their products. The extended period of five years for invoking duty demand was justified based on alleged suppression of production.
5. Bar on Limitation:
The appellants contended that the proceedings were time-barred, as show cause notices were issued after a significant delay despite the Department's knowledge of the allegations. The case was deemed to have been adjudicated in a fragmented manner.
6. Retraction of Statements:
The retraction of statements by involved parties, including employees, was a contentious issue. The appellants emphasized the retracted statements were not considered, and the lack of corroborative evidence raised doubts about the Department's case.
7. Justification for Demand and Penalties:
The Department defended the duty demand and penalties by asserting that the final product fell under Chapter 32, not Chapter 71, and the use of an unauthorized brand name disqualified the appellants from duty exemptions.
8. Reliability of Evidence:
The reliability of evidence, including the statements of employees and seized materials, was questioned. The lack of corroborative evidence and uncertainties in the value of clandestine clearances were highlighted, underscoring the need for a thorough assessment of facts by lower authorities.
In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal remanded the case to lower authorities for a comprehensive review of the facts, emphasizing the need for a proper adjudication considering the complexities and discrepancies in the case.
-
2001 (5) TMI 850
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Kolkata disposed of Revenue's appeals related to confiscated metal scraps intercepted by Customs. The Commissioner (Appeals) ruled in favor of the respondents, stating that foreign markings do not prove smuggling without further evidence. The Tribunal upheld the decision, rejecting Revenue's appeals due to lack of evidence proving the smuggled nature of the scrap.
........
|
9911796707
