|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 290 Records
-
1990 (3) TMI 324
... ...
... ... ..... er the expiry of six months from the date of the order referred to in section 33-C to the date the refund is granted. In the present case before us, the assessee became entitled to refund for the first time by virtue of the order of the Tribunal dated 23rd February, 1989 and inasmuch as the amount was withheld under section 33-C pending disposal of the T.R.C., simple interest at 12 per cent per annum becomes payable by the State with effect from 23rd August, 1989, under section 33-F(2). We, therefore, allow the writ petition and direct the respondent to refund to the petitioner, the sum of Rs. 2,00,764.92 with simple interest at 12 per cent per annum with effect from 23rd August, 1989, till date of payment. Time for payment will be four weeks from today. In the result the T.R.C. is dismissed and the writ petition is allowed as stated above. There will be no order as to costs in the two cases. Advocate s fee Rs. 250 in each. Tax revision case dismissed. Writ petition allowed.
-
1990 (3) TMI 323
Validity of Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 - levying market-fee on sale and purchase of agricultural produce in market-yard or sub-market yard was challenged by dealers for lack of legislative competence - violation of Articles 14, 19, 301 and 304 of Constitution, absence of any quid pro quo in the fee paid and service rendered, illegal and arbitrary inclusion of manufactured articles such as Khandsari, Shakkar, Gur and Sugar as agricultural produce in the schedule etc.
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. All 'Acts and the notifications issued thereunder by the Centre in regard to sugar and sugarcane were enacted in exercise of concurrent jurisdiction'. Effect of it was described thus, 'The Provincial Legislature as well as the Central Legislature would be competent to enact such pieces of legislation and no question of legislative competence would arise'.
-
1990 (3) TMI 322
Whether the panchayat could not recover the amount due to it from out of the properties of the sick industrial company without the consent of the Board?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. High Court was justified in quashing the recovery proceedings taken against the properties of the company as it may be against the principles of equity if the creditors are not allowed to recover their dues from the company, but such creditors may approach the Board for permission to proceed against the company for the recovery of their dues/outstandings/overdues or arrears by whatever name they are called. The Board, as its discretion, may accord its approval for proceeding against the company. If the approval is not granted, the remedy is not extinguished. It is only postponed. Sub-section (5) of section 22 provides for exclusion of the period during which the remedy is suspended while computing the period of limitation for recovering the dues.
-
1990 (3) TMI 315
Whether tax imposed under sub-sections (2), (2A) and (5) of section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act on inter-State sales do not amount to law giving or authorising the giving of any preference to one State over the other on the ground of varying rates of tax prevailing in different States?
Held that:- Appeal allowed. The provision which is impugned in this case is ultra vires and accordingly set aside the judgment of the High Court and allow the writ petition filed by the assessee in the High Court. So long the rates applicable are in accordance with the section 8 no discrimination would arise and none of the provisions of Part XIII of the Constitution could be said to have been offended. But the case on hand is not one arising out of the Central Act. The tax was levied under the State Act in respect of steel semis. The State Act exempted steel semis which have been manufactured out of iron scrap which have suffered tax but not the other categories where the scrap had not suffered tax at that stage.
-
1990 (3) TMI 310
Modify the judgment of the High Court only in so far as it directs that an assessee who has not made any return at all and has not admitted any figure of turnover in the course of the assessment proceeding - Held that:- As the High Court has already permitted the appeals to be disposed of without requiring any deposits. The learned counsel for the appellants is not in a position to state whether the appeals are still pending or whether they have since been disposed of pursuant to the directions of the High Court. It would not be proper, in this situation, to modify the decretal position of the High Court's order.
-
1990 (3) TMI 300
Power to adjudicate, Winding up - Company when deemed unable to pay its debts ... ... ... ... ..... f he were to proceed against him, at least this court may direct release from out of the funds seized from him a sum of Rs. 1,60,000. That is the subject-matter of adjudication. If the adjudicating officer finds in favour of the Enforcement Directorate, then that money is liable to confiscation and penalty of five times that amount which has been seized is liable to be imposed. Therefore, offering a bank guarantee for Rs. 1,60,000 would not be sufficient to enable this court to make a direction to return the money to him because he is carrying on his business as a building contractor. But then his statement was made under duress or voluntarily, that the money was not to be used for business but for construction of a house for his brother. Unless the petitioner is prepared to furnish a bank guarantee for a sum equal to six times the amount seized, this court ought not to direct the release of the same. For the above reasons, the player for return of the money also is rejected.
-
1990 (3) TMI 299
Restrictions on persons resident in India associating themselves by participating in concerns outside in India, Supplemental provisions
-
1990 (3) TMI 283
Winding up – Power of court to assess damages against delinquent directors, etc ... ... ... ... ..... hat he was not in charge of the accounts of the company and the records of the company were not tampered with on account of any act of omission or commission, nor was he responsible for any recoveries. So long as he was a director, he acted in a bona fide and honest manner in doing his duty and no act of omission or commission, directly or indirectly, can be attributed to him which may amount to misfeasance or malfeasance against him. He always acted reasonably, honestly and diligently with a view to promote the interest of the company, during his period as a director. This position is unrebutted. In the present circumstances, in my view, it will be an abuse of the process of court to proceed against respondent No. 4 in the absence of any specific allegations. Thus, respondent No. 4 succeeds and proceedings against him are dropped. Company Application No. 311 of 1974 is dismissed against respondent No. 4. C.A. No. 1122 of 1986 is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
-
1990 (3) TMI 282
Board’s report ... ... ... ... ..... 47, since the Supreme Court prohibits participation of the accused while the court is considering the question of taking cognizance and issuance of process. In determining the question of limitation after hearing the accused, no such participation occurs. On determination of the question of limitation only, process is not issued. The Court has, thereafter, to apply its mind to the complaint or police report to decide whether cognizance is to be taken and process is to be issued. The procedure suggested by us has found favour with the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Krishna v. State of M. P. 1977 Crl LJ 90 and in another earlier Andhra Pradesh decision in Bharat Hybrid Seeds and Agro Enterprises v. State 1978 Crl LJ 61. The single judge in the former case was not unmindful of the fact that in the Code there is no provision for a notice to the accused. Thus, I have set out reasons for according with the view expressed in the preceding paragraph and concluded by my learned brother.
-
1990 (3) TMI 281
Circumstances in which a company may be wound up, Winding up – Company when deemed unable to pay its debts
-
1990 (3) TMI 280
Penalty for wrongful withholding of property ... ... ... ... ..... rved that this suit has been filed after the filing of the present complaint. It is now well-established that a criminal complaint once lodged should be expeditiously disposed of and the same can be stayed only if the special facts and circumstances of the case so warrant. I do not find any special facts or circumstances in the present case to stay the present criminal prosecution pending the suit. It is well-known that civil suits take years before decisions are given. To stay the present complaint under section 630 of the Companies Act would be to defeat the very object of the said provision. It may be that the suit has been directed to be disposed of expeditiously prior to the end of the year. That, however, may not be an answer to the malady of the second respondent company as appeals and writ petitions are known to take several years before they are finally decided. In the result, I find the present petition devoid of any merit and the same is dismissed. Rule discharged.
-
1990 (3) TMI 279
... ...
... ... ..... of the present case, it is the case of the respondents-accused that it is not provided in section 383A of the Act that the secretary of the company should be the employee of the said company. In the instant case, it is an admitted fact that the said Shri R.V. Patel is not an employee of the company. The view taken by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate regarding the interpretation of section 383A of the Act is just, proper and reasonable. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the instant case, in my opinion, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate has rightly held that the respondents-accused have committed no offence. I see no reason to interfere with the view taken by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. Hence, there is no substance in this appeal and it requires to be dismissed. Appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order dated June 12, 1981, passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad, in Criminal Case No. 69 of 1981 is hereby confirmed.
-
1990 (3) TMI 278
Directors - Power of ... ... ... ... ..... bviously, in the present case, the surveyor had assessed the damage at the instance of the plaintiff without prejudice. The correspondence between the parties, exhibit-2/8 to PW-2/16, is ample evidence of this fact. In my view, the circumstances in this case do not admit of a reasonable inference that there is a binding contract of insurance between the parties. The plaintiff having failed to prove the receipt of the cover-notes allegedly prepared by Shri Dilip Bhattacharjee and having failed to prove that there was a contract of insurance between the plaintiff and the defendant, issue No. 1 is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant. Since issue No. 1 is not proved by the plaintiff, the defendant company is not liable to pay for the loss suffered by the defendant in the fire. Thus, issue No. 3 is also decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant. The plaintiff is thus not entitled to the relief sought and the suit is dismissed with costs.
-
1990 (3) TMI 247
Oppression and mismanagement –Power of Tribunal on application under sections 397 and 398 ... ... ... ... ..... n, the substantial prayer was to take action against the person who was in the control of the company s affairs in the past, and the relief sought there was against the existing management. The court was considering, broadly, the amplitude of the court s powers in a proceeding under section 398. Stadmed P. Ltd. v. Kshetra Mohan Saha, AIR 1968 Cal 572 1969 39 Comp. Cas. 741 (Cal) says that misappropriation of money in the past is not a continuing wrong and, therefore, cannot be a cause for proceedings under sections 397 and 398. The prayers made in the instant case, while invoking section 398, are outside the scope of the said provision, when, admittedly, the reliefs are sought against the respondent who is not in management or control of the company they may fall under Schedule XI to the Act, but, that by itself would not make the application under section 398 maintainable. In the result, for the reasons stated above, this petition is rejected in limine. No order as to costs.
-
1990 (3) TMI 246
Sale to be subject to confirmation by court ... ... ... ... ..... costs of the appeal to the first respondent and to the workers union(s) quantified at 100 Gms each and to the official liquidator quantified at 50 Gms. Pursuant to the interim directions passed on February 9, 1990, the appellant deposited a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 with the official liquidator. The said amount will be returned to him forthwith. Similarly, the like amount deposited by the first respondent will also be returned to it by the official liquidator after deducting therefrom payments, if any, made by him to the workmen under the orders of the court. Interim stay stands vacated. In case the parties want a copy of this judgment, the Registrar, Original Side, will arrange to have such copies supplied to them at their own cost within 24 hours by utilising the services of the contractor who has installed a xerox machine in the court premises. Such copies will be taken out from the original judgment and supplied on the usual undertaking to apply for and obtain a certified copy.
-
1990 (3) TMI 230
Confiscation and penalty ... ... ... ... ..... circumstances of the import, such as concealment of acrylic fibre, a high rate of duty item, under the cover of wool waste, is an added factor to be considered for imposing personal penalty, and that too when the adjudicating authority in this case had thought it fit to confiscate the wool waste under Section 119 of the Act as the goods used for concealing the unauthorisedly imported goods. The conclusion therefore follows that the Additional Collector ought to have, in the circumstances, imposed a personal penalty under Section 112 of the Act on the respondents. In this view of the matter, therefore, we allow the appeals of the department by remand, and the case is remanded to the Additional Collector of Customs, Bombay, for issuing fresh orders on this aspect of the case for imposing personal penalties on the respondents under Section 112 of the Customs Act in accordance with law and after hearing them in the matter. 14. emsp The appeals are disposed of in the above terms.
-
1990 (3) TMI 229
Rate of duty ... ... ... ... ..... overnment Printing Press which Printed the Notifications 307 and 308 dated 25-11-1988. It has been pointed out that the notification was printed on 25-11-1988. It was, however, put on sale by the press on 2-12-1988. From the overall facts, therefore, the earliest date of knowledge of the notification dated 25-11-1988 to the public at large is 28-11-1988 when the Board sent the telex to the Custom House. 6. We have considered the pleas advanced on both sides and gone through the various judgments relied upon by the opposing counsels. In view of the Supreme Court rsquo s judgment in the case of B.K. Srinivasan and Others v. State of Karnataka, mentioned supra, Bombay High Court rsquo s judgment in the case of G.T.C. Industries Ltd. and Madras High Court rsquo s decision in the case of Asia Tobacco Co. 1984 (18) E.L.T. 152 , we find that the weight of authoritative opinions is in favour of the appellants. Hence the appeals are allowed with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
1990 (3) TMI 228
Adjudication ... ... ... ... ..... condition for import of the goods under OGL under the Licensing Policy. In this view of the matter we confirm the finding of the adjudicating authority that the import of the goods was in contravention of law under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. At this stage Shri Kuppuswami pleaded for reduction in the quantum of fine and penalty urging that fine and penalty have been levied on two counts, viz., that the appellants were guilty of mis-declaration and unauthorised import. Since the quantum of fine is not very much, we confirm the same and since the appellants would appear to have imported the goods bona fide under OGL being a manufacturer of coconut oil, we are inclined to think that the interests of justice would be met if the appellants are let off with an admonition. In this view we set aside the penalty of Rs. 5,000 imposed on the appellants under the impugned order and admonish the appellants. Except for the above modification, the appeal is otherwise dismissed.
-
1990 (3) TMI 227
Appeal - Cross-objection if not filed ... ... ... ... ..... seen the cited decisions. There is no new issue raised by the department, which has not been considered in the above orders. 7. The only point that is made on behalf of the respondents is that the Collector (Appeals) has allowed the benefit of Notification No. 234/82-C.E., subject to the respondents producing before the lower authorities, evidence that the goods in question have been used as drug intermediate. It is submitted that in view of the abovecited judgments, it was not legal or proper for Collector of Customs (Appeals) to allow the appeal subject to satisfaction as regards usage of the goods. 8. We have pointed out to the learned advocate that what we have before us is an appeal of the department. No cross objection has also been filed by the respondents. Therefore, the respondents cannot take up the point as regards user rsquo s condition. 9. As regards the department rsquo s appeal, in view of the case law cited before us, it must fail and is, therefore, dismissed.
-
1990 (3) TMI 226
... ...
... ... ..... onsignments namely 7,02,000 pcs. of Cleaning Cassettes and components covered by invoice No. 810981. The invoice in question is HK 0.85 per pc. and the correct price of the components covered by invoice No. 810981 is US 27900 plus HK 209766.50. rdquo 15. The contents of the statement of account dated 1st January, 1981 tallies with the contents of the scribbling pad. The scribbling pad is admitted to be in the handwriting of Shri O.P. Marda. The statement of Shri O.P. Marda is corroborated by the documents recovered from the premises of appellants. In other words the statement of Shri Marda that the invoice in question is HK 0.85 per p.c. is corroborated by the items mentioned in the scribbling and namely....... 701000 x .85 595850. 16. Therefore, the Additional Collector is justified in taking the value mentioned in the seized documents as the real value of the goods. We see no reason to interfere with the order of the Additional Collector. We, accordingly dismiss the appeal.
........
|
