|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 236 Records
-
1985 (8) TMI 297
Reduction of share capital - Application to Tribunal for confirming order, objections by creditors, and settlement of list of objecting creditors, Compromise and arrangement
-
1985 (8) TMI 296
Oppression and mismanagement ... ... ... ... ..... imself. In the above circumstances, therefore, we agree with learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner could not make out any grievance on the basis of this resolution. In view of the findings in this case, we do not think it necessary to consider or give any finding as to whether the filing of the suit would amount to an election and, therefore, the company petition is not maintaiable. We are, therefore, of the view that none of the grounds urged by the petitioner-appellant for the relief asked for by him in the petition under sections 397 and 398 are sustainable. We are also not satisfied that there is any material change in the management and control of the company which has affected or is likely to affect it prejudicially so as to constitute a ground for an action under section 398 of the Act. In the foregoing circumstances, we confirm the findings of the learned single judge and accordingly dismiss these appeals. The parties to bear their respective costs.
-
1985 (8) TMI 275
Officer who is in default – Meaning of ... ... ... ... ..... plaint cannot be maintained. These are all criminal proceedings and every technical violation should go in favour of the accused. I am unable to accept the contention of the learned Public Prosecutor that this is a matter which has to be considered at the time of trial having regard to the evidence to be adduced. That is so if an allegation is there to that effect in the complaint. But without there being a foundation and without there being a pleading, there cannot be a proof. In the case of offences by companies, in order to fasten a liability on a director, it must be clearly alleged in the complaint that the said person was in charge of and was responsible for the conduct of the business. This omission on the part of the prosecution is fatal to the case. Further, we are now in 1985 and the case relates to 1980-81 and 1981-82. In the circumstances, the proceedings are quashed. In the result, these two petitions are allowed and S.T.C. Nos. 3365 and 3366 of 1984 are quashed.
-
1985 (8) TMI 274
Compromise and arrangements ... ... ... ... ..... erefore, has no basis and is wholly imaginary. Faced with this situation, Mr. Sibal urged that the court has ample power under section 392 of the Act to modify the scheme to make it workable and in exercise of that power, the scheme may be approved after suitable modification. I am afraid, it is not permissible for, this court to adopt any such measure. As is apparent from the opening words of section 392, powers under the said section can be exercised only when a compromise or arrangement is sanctioned under section 391. If there is no valid arrangement before the court because of the non-satisfaction of the requirements of section 391(2) of the Act, it can never be sanctioned by the court and the question of coming into play of section 392 does not arise. It will, therefore, be beyond the competence of this court to order any modification in the proposed compromise or arrangement. For the reasons recorded above, this application must fail and is hereby dismissed with costs.
-
1985 (8) TMI 273
Company – Membership of ... ... ... ... ..... uted sub-rule (2) of rule 8 is sufficient to indicate that the notice contemplated under sub-rule (2) need not precede grant of permission under clause (a) or issue of direction under clause (b), of sub-rule (1) of rule 8, as it stands substituted by the Amendment Act. Hence, the decision of the Bombay High Court can lend no assistance in the interpretation of sub-rules (1) and (2) of rule 8, as they stand substituted by the Amendment Act. In conclusion, I hold that clause (a) of sub-rule (1) of rule 8 of Order 1 of the Code does not require a court to issue prior notice before it grants permission thereunder. From this it follows that the order under revision does not call for interference. In the result, I dismiss this revision petition, however, without costs. The records of the court below may be sent back forthwith. Before parting with the case, I place on record my appreciation to the assistance of Shri Padubidri Raghavendra Rao, learned counsel, rendered at my request.
-
1985 (8) TMI 272
Whether the workmen of the Associated Rubber Industry Ltd., Bhavnagar entitled to be paid bonus at the rate of 16% for the year 1969 as the transfer of the shares of INARCO Ltd. to Aril Holdings Ltd. was no more than a device to avoid payment of higher bonus to the workmen?
Held that:- The amount. of dividend from INARCO Ltd. received by the Aril Holdings Ltd. should be taken into account in assessing the gross profit of the Associated Rubber Industry Ltd. for the purpose of calculating the rate of bonus payable to the workmen of the Associated Rubber Industry Ltd. The appeal is allowed with costs and it is declared that the workmen of the Associated Rubber Industry Ltd., Bhavnagar, are entitled to be paid bonus at the rate of 16% for the year 1969. Appeal allowed.
-
1985 (8) TMI 271
Compromise and arrangement, Oppression and Mismanagement ... ... ... ... ..... dated January 9, 1984, has not been challenged even by these two shareholders on the ground that they are persons aggrieved by the said decree. A perusal of section 399 of the Act indicates that proceedings under sections 397 and 398 are really in the nature of representative proceedings where the interests of the shareholders are represented by the concerned directors. For all these reasons, we are unable to take a view contrary to the view taken by the learned company judge in regard to the nature of the objection filed by these two shareholders. No other point has been pressed. Indeed, several of the grounds taken in the memorandum of appeal are such which cannot be raised in the execution proceedings and could be raised only in an appeal, against the decree dated January 9, 1984. In the result, we find no merit in these appeals. They are accordingly dismissed but, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. The interim order of stay is vacated.
-
1985 (8) TMI 240
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... is beyond doubt that any modification in the classification list or subsequent revocation of approval given earlier can be only prospective and not retrospective. However, there would be no bar to the raising of demand by the department in pursuance of this revised classification within the period of limitation provided in Rule 10 of Central Excise Rules 1944. In this particular case, we notice that the show cause notice was issued on 26th June, 1982 and the period relating to demand of duty is from 28-2-1982 onwards. It is also observed by us that the respondents were under notice by the Range Superintendent regarding proposed change of classification through a letter dated 14-4-1982 although the show cause notices were issued on 26-6-1982 and 12-7-1982. In view of these facts it has to be held that the demand for duty in this matter is not hit by limitation. 14. emsp Accordingly, we set aside the order of the Collector of Central Excise(Appeals) Bombay and allow the appeal.
-
1985 (8) TMI 238
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... on of the arguments show that the transducer is a general purpose instrument and is essentially an electrical device. Transducer has other applications also. It is used to convert physical magnitude of one form of energy into another. The transducers in the present case are used mainly to measure differential pressure of transmitters. Although it operates on the electrical principles, the function to which it is employed is only for mechanical purposes which are classifiable under heading 90.24. In view of this, although it is basically an instrument working on electrical principles since the use it is put to is for mechanical purposes, the classification as an electrical instrument under Item 90.28(4) would be, in the facts of the case, appropriate. This endorses the finding of the Appellate Collr. in his order dated. 26-4-1979 though not for the same reasons which the learned Appellate Collr. has adopted. 7. ensp In the result, we allow the appeal with consequential relief.
-
1985 (8) TMI 235
Import of Tin plate prime OTS quality/MR type against REP licence ... ... ... ... ..... respondent authorities are directed to revalidate the date of licence only for the purpose of making endorsement and this revalidation would remain in operation only for a period of six months from the date of endorsement. The endorsement on the licence would enable respondent No. 5 to import OGL items permissible under the Policy for the year 1985-88. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. August 29,1985. For speaking to minutes 6. Heard Shri Rana for the petitioners, and Shri Lokur for the respondents. 7. The last line in sub-para 2 of paragraph 5, which reads as follows ldquo The endorsement on the licence would enable respondent No. 5 to import OGL items permissible under the Policy for the year 1985-88 is deleted and the following sentence is substituted ldquo The endorsement on the licence would enable respondent No. 5 to import OGL items permissible under the Policy -1983-84 except those items which are banned under the Policy -1985-88 .
-
1985 (8) TMI 232
Writ jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... hs as from 8th July 1986, there was hardly any propriety in passing an order of detention on 10th July 1986. This apart, when Sayed Ahmed was prevented from coming to India to stand trial by the Simple device of not being given a Visa, there was hardly any justification for making an order of detention. It is well settled that the object of an order of preventive detention is to prevent the intending detenu from indulging in prejudicial activities. The object is not to deter any one from coming to the country, so as to be in a position to indulge in prejudicial activities. Here the background was such that Sayed Ahmed was not likely to return to indulge in prejudicial activities. Therefore, there was no occasion for the making of an order of detention as on the date i.e. 10th July, 1986, on which it was made. Having regard to this patent flaw in the detention order, we need not go further in the matter. 5. Rule in terms of petition prayers (a) and (b) is hereby made absolute.
-
1985 (8) TMI 229
Firm’s liability to pay tax after its dissolution, continues for the period of its existence
-
1985 (8) TMI 228
Iron & Steel Products ... ... ... ... ..... Pipe. There had been only incorrect payment of duty. Therefore, the recovery cannot stretch for more than 6 months. 21. The assessment under Item 68 suggested by the Department is in our view correct, and we reject M/s. Indian Hume Pipe rsquo s claim for assessment under Tariff Item 26AA(iv). The demand for duty is correct but it will work only for six months backwards since we have held that there has been no fraudulence to bring in the 5 years period. We direct M/s. Indian Hume Pipe to pay the duty short paid during the period of six months preceding the notice. We, however, set aside the confiscation of seized goods i.e. Rs. 145,361.24 as we do not think that there have been conditions warranting confiscation. If the fine in lieu of confiscation has been paid it shall be refunded. We also set aside the penalty of Rs. 25,000/- imposed under Rule 173Q. The demand of Rs. 11.628/- payable on the goods under seizure is correctly leviable and M/s. Indian Hume Pipe shall pay it.
-
1985 (8) TMI 223
Confiscation ... ... ... ... ..... absolutely banned items. But Entry 96 specifically excludes consumer goods appearing individually in Appendix 5 and 8. Therefore, it was necessary for the department to consider whether the imported goods appears individually in Appendix 5. No efforts appears to have been made by the authorities below in this regard. On behalf of the appellants, it was contended that the imported goods fall under Item 431 of Appendix 5. If the contention of the appellants is correct, then the Customs cannot object for the import on the ground that the imported item is a consumer goods and the same is banned either under Appendix 3 or Appendix 4. Neither Appendix 3 nor Appendix 4 imposes a ban on the import of items appearing in Appendix 5 specifically. 8. ensp In the above view of the matter, I allow this appeal, set aside the orders passed by the authorities below and remand the matter to the Asstt. Collector for consideration afresh in the light of the observations contained in this order.
-
1985 (8) TMI 219
classification ... ... ... ... ..... ration. It appears that the attention of the Hon rsquo ble Tribunal was not drawn to the provisions of Section 4 of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1931, which reads as under ldquo 4. Effect of declarations under this Act, and duration thereof ndash (1) A declared provision shall have the force of law immediately on the expiry of the day on which the Bill containing it is introduced. rdquo In the present case it is an admitted position that subject amendments were made by Clause 49 of the Finance Bill, 1982, in respect of which a declaration under Section 3 of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1931, was also made by the Central Government See para 4 of the decision . On the face of this admitted position and the mandatory provision of the aforesaid Section 4, there is no escape from the conclusion that the changes brought about by the said Clause 49 of the Finance Bill, 1982, would be effective from 1-3-1982 unless the declaration in this respect is set aside.
-
1985 (8) TMI 218
Gold Dealer’s Licence ... ... ... ... ..... Dealers) Rules, stipulates that in respect of application for issue of licence in a village the turnover of the district in which it is located should be considered for the purpose of the said Rule . (ii) When there is a specific and expressly worded provision in law for assessing the demand for the gold for the purpose of issue of gold control licence, whether the Tribunal was correct in ignoring such expressly worded provision and basing its decision on intent of Rulemaking authority. 4. emsp We have heard both sides on the application for reference. As a result of discussion, it has been decided to refer the following question to the Honourable High Court of Judicature at Madras ldquo Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the decision of the Tribunal to equate Padi Township with a lsquo town rsquo for purposes of issue of a gold dealer rsquo s licence, for purposes of Rule 2(f) of the Gold Control (Licensing of Dealers) Rules, 1969, is correct in law. rdquo
-
1985 (8) TMI 211
CLASSIFICATION ... ... ... ... ..... her two decisions cited 33-S.T.C. 333 (Orissa) holding that stencil paper is not ldquo paper rdquo , 31-S.T.C.-625 (Allahabad) holding that ammonia paper and ferro paper are not lsquo paper rsquo and 28-S.T.C.-469 (Kerala) holding that cellophane is not paper. 20. emsp The fact that carbon paper was inserted as a specific entry in item No.17 by the 1982 Finance Bill would not be decisive of the question whether, prior to the said change, carbon paper did or did not fall under Item No. 17(2) as it then stood. We have found that Item No. 17(2), CET covered carbon paper. The specification of carbon paper in the tariff item by the 1982 Bill may have been necessitated by the need to levy duty on carbon paper under a specific entry. 21. emsp Summing up, we hold that, during the material period, carbon paper manufactured by the appellants fell for classification under Item No. 17(2), C.E.T. and not under Item No. 68. In the result, we uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal.
-
1985 (8) TMI 210
Valuation - Packing - Durable and returnable ... ... ... ... ..... overed in six equal instalments on each occasion when the bakery products are sent. This clearly establishes that the cans in question have actually been returned at least on five occasions. On the face of such an admitted factual position, the evidence as to the existence of a contract or an agreement for return of cans is absolutely irrelevant. Moreover under Section 4(4Xd)(i), the cost of durable and returnable packing material is exiudible even if it is paid by the buyer, therefore the ground that six installments were not the amount of security, but was the cost of the cans is irrelevant for the purpose of determining whether the packing is returnable or not. Such a criteria is foreign to the language of the definition of lsquo value rsquo as given in Section 4. In view of the Supreme Court decision reported in 1987 (27) E.L.T. 598, Supreme Court and Larger Bench Decision of the Appellate Tribunal reported in 1987 (27) E.L.T. 746, the present decision does not hold good.
-
1985 (8) TMI 203
Set-off of duty ... ... ... ... ..... process of electrodes in another connection namely the manufacture of ferro alloys - vide order in appeal No. ED (MAS) 14/82 ldquo Ferro Alloys Corporation Ltd. v. CCE, Guntur rdquo . After a detailed study it was held that carbon paste is not a source of carbon in the manufacture of ferro alloys and cannot be treated as a material for the purpose of Notification No. 201/79. On analogy the carbon paste used in an electrode in the manufacture of calcium carbide cannot be treated as a raw material, electrode being merely a device for delivery of current into the material for reaction. The reference to the general principle stated in the case of Rajalakshmi Paper Mills (Appeal No. ED (MAS) 20/84) is not inconsistent with the above decision of the Bench. 5. emsp Accordingly, I set aside the orders of the Collector (Appeals) and the Asstt. Collector and disallow the claim that carbon paste used in the manufacture of electrode/calcium carbide is entitled to Notification No. 201/79.
-
1985 (8) TMI 202
Gold - Non-declaration of - Confession ... ... ... ... ..... uld be met if the redemption fine is considerably reduced. In giving reduction in the quantum of redemption fine I also take into consideration factors like the long established tradition of the appellants family in gold business with unblemished record as well as the quantity, purity and nature of the ornaments, the place where from the ornaments were recovered, viz., the residential premises of the appellants vis-a-vis the charge of non-declaration. Accordingly I reduce the redemption fine from Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) and consequently the penalty is reduced to Rs. 100/- (Rupees one hundred only). Except for the above modifications, the appeal is otherwise dismissed. 11. emsp In my opinion, the technical breach of contravention of Section 16(7) of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the case relating to the year 1974 should not at this distance of time be held to be an offence for purposes of non-renewal of the licence of the appellants.
........
|
