|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 675 Records
-
2000 (11) TMI 1131 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Winding up - Offences by officers of companies in liquidation ... ... ... ... ..... ssed in Company Petition No. 93 of 1991, must be deemed to have assumed finality. In view of the extract from the order dated 12-5-1995, reproduced above there can be no doubt that this Court arrived at the conclusion that Dharam Bir Bhalla and Arvind Bhalla were not in possession of the records required by the Official Liquidator. Sushil Kumar, the voluntary liquidator, who should have the custody of the records as the factual and statutory position examined above, could neither be located nor be brought before this Court despite the best efforts on the part of the Official Liquidator for the last more than 16 years. There is really no good ground to continue with the proceedings specially when the custodian of the materials to be relied upon by the Official Liquidator has not been available for such a long time. 12. In view of the factual and legal position enumerated above, Company Application No. 585 of 2000 is allowed and Company Application No. 668 of 1998 is dismissed.
-
2000 (11) TMI 1130 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Winding up - Powers of court on hearing petition ... ... ... ... ..... on the appointment of a chartered accountant to make a detailed investigation, we do not think that the present order of the learned Single Judge will in any way result in injustice. 18. The next contention by the learned counsel for the appellant is that inasmuch as a suit for rendition of accounts had already been filed in the company petition, the matter can be properly, adjudicated only in the civil court and not in the company court, particularly, when the documents have to be marked and witnesses have to be examined and cross-examined, etc. We do not find any substance in the sense that merely because a suit is filed, the Company Court will not lose its jurisdiction. If that is so, the Legislature would have made that clear in the enactment itself. Similarly, in every case, the debtor/company can drag on the matter by resorting to this method. 19. There are no merits in these appeals. Consequently, the appeals are dismissed. The connected CMPs will also stand dismissed.
-
2000 (11) TMI 1129 - HIGH COURT OF PATNA
Winding up - Transfer of proceedings ... ... ... ... ..... them. In this regard, not to be forgotten, is the observation of the Supreme Court in the matter of Allahabad Bank v. Canara Bank AIR 2000 SC 1535. In paragraph 75, the Supreme Court has given guidance that in the matter relating to realisation of debts the principle of pari passu ranking has to be kept in mind. However, when the matter relating to the merits of the matter is taken up in the writ petition, which now cannot be transferred out of Patna in view of the 1976 Act and the High Court Rules, parties may take recourse to their claims and defences, in argument, whatever they may be. 17. The letters patent appeal is allowed. The order of the learned Judge dated 16-5-2000 is set aside. 18. The pendency of the company petition would be at the principal seat of a High Court, in context. But this is one of the rare cases where a direction is not being given in view of the circumstances which will change when the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000 takes effect. Order accordingly.
-
2000 (11) TMI 1125 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Meetings - Explanatory note to be annexed to notice ... ... ... ... ..... r by the CLB, neither in the petition filed before the CLB nor in the oral submissions, the appellant had raised any plea that the notice for the annual general meeting was tricky or misleading or lacking in material particulars or that the appellant was misled by the explanatory statement. On the other hand, the appellant rsquo s case before the CLB was that the notice for the AGM was deliberately not sent to him to keep him in the dark about the special resolution and consequently he was not aware of the annual general meeting to be held. As pointed out by the CLB, the appellant was relying upon the special resolution adopted at the AGM for claiming 10,000 bonus shares. 8. Therefore, I am in complete agreement with the finding of the CLB that the appellant was not entitled to allotment and distribution of bonus shares in his favour on the basis of the special resolution passed at the AGM of the respondent-company held on 30-9-1999. Hence, the appeal is dismissed in limine.
-
2000 (11) TMI 1121 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Offences - Penalty for wrongful withholding of company’s property ... ... ... ... ..... re, not bound to await the disposal of the reference by the Labour Court in which the petitioner has challenged his dismissal from service. 14. In view of the above discussion, we find no merit in this revision application and dismiss the same. Rule is discharged. Ad interim relief granted earlier is vacated. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. 15. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays for stay of operation of this order and in the alternative prays that the ad interim relief granted earlier may be continued for some time in order to enable the petitioner to have further recourse in accordance with law. We are not inclined to stay the operation of this order, but in the fact and circumstances of the case, we direct that the respondent shall not take any coercive action or enforce the order passed by the learned Magistrate under section 630 as confirmed by the Sessions Court till 31-12-2000. Revision dismissed.
-
2000 (11) TMI 1119 - HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Winding up - Circumstances in which a company may be wound up ... ... ... ... ..... such undertaking constitutes the act of the contempt of Court. 10. In the background of the principle laid down by the Supreme Court, even if the respondent herein had not given such an undertaking and allowed this Court to allow the company petition as prayed for, by ordering the winding up of the respondent-company, the winding up proceedings could not have been continued in view of section 22 once the affairs of the respondent-company were pending consideration before the BIFR. Therefore, the respondent did not obtain any advantage by making such an undertaking/statement. 11. Looked at from any angle, and in the background of the above discussion, it cannot be said that the respondent did make a deliberate or intentional breach of undertaking given to the Court, and at the most, the conduct of the respondent is either irresponsible or imprudent. 12. In the circumstances, the respondent is discharged from the contempt proceedings and the contempt case is, therefore, closed.
-
2000 (11) TMI 1116 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Arbitrator - Appointment of ... ... ... ... ..... o select an umpire. The Arbitral Tribunal consists of three Arbitrators of which Justice Avadh Behari Rohtagi is the President/Chairman and to which Justice H.L. Anand has become a member consequent on the demise of Justice Jain. 17. The parties are directed to appear before the Arbitral Tribunal comprising Justice Avadh Behari Rohtagi, President/Chairman, Justice H.L. Anand and Mr. C.S. Agarwal on 4-12-2000 or on any other date that the learned Arbitrators may fix according to their convenience. The Arbitral Tribunal shall make and publish its Award within four months from when it recommences its hearings/proceedings, or within the period which may be extended by the mutual consent of the parties. OMP 133 of 1999 is allowed and since the temporary cessation of proceedings was a result of the questions raised by one of the learned arbitrators, the parties shall bear their respective costs. Suit No. 1893/1995 as well as all the interim applications filed therein are dismissed.
-
2000 (11) TMI 1115 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Audit - Power of Central Government to direct, in certain cases ... ... ... ... ..... general provisions regarding the audit. Section 233A of the Act empowers the Central Government to direct special audit in certain cases. Therefore, it is clear that absolutely no ground is made out by the petitioner to appoint an independent agency to audit the accounts of the 2nd respondent-company for the year 1990-91. It is also clear that as per Ext. R2(b) conciliation settlement entered into between the 2nd respondent and its employees, the dispute with regard to the payment of bonus for the year 1990-91 was referred for conciliation under section 22 of the Payment of Bonus Act and the settlement arrived at the conciliation is binding upon the petitioner also. Therefore, the prayer made by the petitioner to appoint an independent agency to conduct fresh audit so as to enable them to get more bonus for the year 1990-91 is also not sustainable. In view of what is stated above, the Original Petition is devoid of any merits. Hence the same is dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
2000 (11) TMI 1112 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Amalgamation of companies ... ... ... ... ..... lication allot to such members of the transferor-company as have not given such notice of dissent as is required by clause given in the scheme of amalgamation herein the shares in the transferee-company to which they are entitled under the said amalgamation and 5. That the transferor-company do within 30 days after the date of this order cause a certified copy of this order alongwith the copy of the order passed by the Bombay High Court to be delivered to the Registrar of Companies for registration and on such certified copy being so delivered, the transferor-company shall be dissolved, and the Registrar of Companies shall place all documents relating to the transferor-company and registered with him on the file kept by him in relation to the transferee-company and the file relating to the said two companies shall be consolidated accordingly and 6.That any person interested shall be at liberty to apply to the court in the above matter for any directions that may be necessary.
-
2000 (11) TMI 1091 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Appeal to Commissioner - Appeal - Appeal by Department - Authorisation ... ... ... ... ..... here the phrase is not used, the Tribunal shall be entitled to presume non-application of mind. 11. emsp In dozens of cases the Tribunal have held the view that in the absence of the requisite phrases, the appeal would not survive. The following judgments are merely few examples - 12. emsp (1) Commissioner of Central Excise v. Vipulam Enterprises (P) Ltd. 1998 (101) E.L.T. 706 (Tribunal) . (2) Commissioner of Central Excise v. Touch Wood 1999 (106) E.L.T. 85 (Tribunal) . 13. emsp Similar view has been adopted by this Bench also in a number of cases. Judicial discipline requires a long held view to be adopted by coordinate Benches. Where a two-member Bench is unable to agree with such a view then it is appropriate that the matter is referred to a Larger Bench. We have therefore, respectfully to dis-agree with the two member Bench. Judgment of the Tribunal cited by the ld. DR. 14. emsp With these finding we dismiss these two appeals. The cross-objections also stand disposed of.
-
2000 (11) TMI 1090 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand and penalty ... ... ... ... ..... E.L.T. 644 and in the case of Flat Products Equipment (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai reported in 2000 (115) E.L.T. 629 (Tribunal) 1999 (35) RLT 933 (CEGAT) held that where a complete machine is cleared because of convenience of transportation in piecemeal on different days in form of parts and assembled at site, such machines are to be assessed as complete machines. We find the ratio of abovesaid decision of the Tribunal are fully applicable on the facts of the present case. Hence, we hold that the appellants were clearing Gantry Crane and Gangsaw machines in parts and not parts of these machines. Hence the demand of duty is set aside. 8. emsp It is admitted by the appellants that Central Board of Excise and Customs Circular No. 252/86/96-CX dated 16-10-96 which laid down the procedure for removal of such consignment is not followed by them. Hence we uphold the penalty of Rs. 5,000/- imposed on the appellants. The appeal is disposed of as indicated above.
-
2000 (11) TMI 1086 - SUPREME COURT
Delay in filing appeal - Held that:- Appeal allowed. A perusal of the application shows that the reason for the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal was that after the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Lucknow Zone, disposed of the appeal, the order was despatched to a different authority and at a different place, the State Representative at Agra who did not forward the same to the correct place and that resulted in the delay which was beyond the control of the appellants. On this ground the Tribunal has rightly exercised its discretion to condone the delay. Before us the order of the Tribunal is not shown to be perverse or suffering from the vice of violation of principles of natural justice.
-
2000 (11) TMI 1084 - SUPREME COURT
Benefit of deferment of tax - Held that:- Appeal dismissed. It is quite apparent from a reading of the "Rajasthan Sales Tax New Deferment Scheme for Industries, 1989" that even though the appellant may have been a new very prestigious industry it is still not entitled to claim deferment of tax to the extent of 90 per cent, inasmuch as the cement industry is included in annexure B which contains a list of those industries which are ineligible to get the benefit of deferment of tax.
There is a specific benefit granted to a large scale cement unit, whether it be new very prestigious unit or otherwise, and that it may have its deferment only to the extent of 50 per cent and no more.
-
2000 (11) TMI 1079 - SUPREME COURT
APPEAL — TAX OR PENALTY TO BE PAID BEFORE APPEAL IS ENTERTAINED — DISCRETION GIVEN TO APPELLATE AUTHORITY TO REDUCE AMOUNT TO BE DEPOSITED TO NOT LESS THAN 50 PER CENT
-
2000 (11) TMI 1065 - SUPREME COURT
Transfer of property - Held that:- Appeal dismissed. In the present case, when a customer goes to a restaurant and orders food and in respect of which he pays the price indicated therein and the said food items are supplied to him, it would clearly be a case of transfer of property in goods to the customer. Whether the customer eats the entire or part of the dish or chooses not to eat at all would make no difference if he pays for the dishes supplied. The moment the dish is supplied and sale price paid, it would amount to a sale.
-
2000 (11) TMI 1056 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Rectification of mistake ... ... ... ... ..... the Bombay High Court decision cited supra. He therefore, prays that the Revenue rsquo s ROM application may be allowed and the appeal dismissed. 2. emsp On hearing both the sides and noting the Larger Bench decision in the case of Gujarat State Fertilizers and Chemicals, Vadodara v. Commissioner of Central Excise reported in 2000 (122) E.L.T. 282 (T-LB) 2000 (40) RLT 793 in which it has been held by a majority that a subsequent decision of the Tribunal, High Court or Supreme Court cannot form the basis for rectification of mistake, we hold that no error apparent arises in the present case and accordingly reject the ROM application.
-
2000 (11) TMI 1055 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... m and placed next to the extruder. The Extruder sucks in the granules from the drum through a suction pipe to a hopper loader and converts the granules into a profile of outer layer which is subsequently expanded to the desired size to form a layer of Heat Shrinkable Sleeve rdquo . 5. emsp The capacity of the film to contract would follow the expansion given to the heat shrinkable sleeves. It would thus appear that the basic granules do not have the capacity which exists in the resultant sheet. This point would have to be clarified by consultation with the chemical authorities. If the granules have the same property of ability of shrink as the sheets have then the judgment would apply to the granules and not otherwise. 6. emsp With these remark we allow the appeal and remit the proceedings back to the Commissioner who would bearing in mind the observation made by us above would dispose of the matter in de novo proceedings. 7. emsp The stay application also stands disposed of.
-
2000 (11) TMI 1054 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Clandestine removal of goods ... ... ... ... ..... ion. In the absence of it, failure of production cannot be fastened on the appellant. Show cause notice mention is vague and general. It was not specific. In personal hearing also, nothing was referred in this regard as per impugned order. Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case available on record, penalty imposed is excessive. Appellant has debitted duty amount and paid duty penalty amount. He has admitted lapses. There are no sufficient grounds to show mala fides in his action for clandestine removal. RG 23A Part II account and statements shows bona fides. So this is a deserving case to reduce penalty. Hence I pass the following order. ORDER For the reasons discussed above, impugned order is set aside for appropriation of Bank Guarantee of Rs. 30,000/- as prayed for and penalty is reduced to Rs. 10,000/-, and confirmed regarding the Excise duty demand and adjustment and appropriation of payment. Appeal is allowed accordingly with consequental relief as per law.
-
2000 (11) TMI 1053 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Manufacture ... ... ... ... ..... Assistant Commissioner was correct or not. Although we have seen the products we are extremely handicapped in deciding the case, in view of the incorrect manner in which the Assistant Commissioner went about following the Tribunals order. 4. emsp The issue whether after the process the goods would continue to fall under Chapter 74 or whether they would merit classification under heading 84, depends upon whether the process amounted to manufacture. The ld. Commissioner also failed to see the scope of inquiry the Tribunal had entrusted to the Assistant Commissioner and without examining the process himself he went about distinguishing the various processes holding that some of them did not amount to manufacture. 5. emsp We therefore, allow the appeal and remand the proceedings back to the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner with the strict direction that he should strictly follow our instructions given in our cited order. 6. emsp The stay application also stands disposed of.
-
2000 (11) TMI 1052 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Reference application - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... What exactly the question of law has to be referred in that regard is also not made clear. So this question cannot be referred to the High Court. The questions C, D, E, F and H in the application filed on 16-12-96 are the questions of law arising out of the Bench Order which can be referred under Section 130 of the Customs Act. Accordingly the following order is passed. For the reasons discussed above, the reference application in all these three cases are allowed in part. The additional questions suggested for reference are barred by time under Section 130 of the Customs Act. The question of law suggested at C to F and H are referred to the Hon rsquo ble High Court of Bombay as requested by the applicant. The other questions suggested are purely of facts, and general in nature, and does not require a reference. The registry is directed to prepare a statement of case and refer the questions on C to F and H in reference application with the Bench order and the impugned order.
............
|
