|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 655 Records
-
2002 (2) TMI 1261 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Demand - Show cause notice - Jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... Superior, not cadrewise but as a functionary, to the officer of Customs who had been assigned the function of collection of the Customs duty. 9.6 emsp With none of the criteria indicating the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs to be the ldquo proper officer rdquo competent to issue notice for demand, vide Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, the show cause-cum-demand notices issued by him have to be held as without jurisdiction and hence, invalid and any adjudication proceedings initiated thereon have to be held as void. rdquo 4. emsp From the reading of the above three paragraphs, it is very clear that the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) does not have jurisdiction to issue the impugned show cause notice and in view thereof he could not have the jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter when imports have taken place at Bombay Customs House. Hence the impugned order is set aside and the appeals stand allowed, ordering consequential relief, if any, according to law.
-
2002 (2) TMI 1258 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Classification of goods ... ... ... ... ..... appeal on 23-4-1986, the Tribunal noted the manufacturing process and that the product is profile shaped having been extruded and being integrated shape consisting of two layers of sheets with corrugation inside, all fused into one, but not further worked. The sheet is not defined. The Tribunal in its order was concerned with classification contained in Notification 68/71 inter alia to rigid plastic sheets and found the process of manufacture and the presence of fluting inside two layers to disqualified the product being considered as sheets. 6. emsp Prima facie therefore we are not able to find how the change in the tariff, particularly the presence of Note 10 to Chapter 39 renders the Tribunal decision inapplicable to the classification of the product. Having regard to these factors, and noting the application made for out of turn hearing on the ground that the issue is continuing, we waive deposit of the duty, stay its recovery and list the appeal for hearing on 8-4-2002.
-
2002 (2) TMI 1253 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Natural justice - Documents - Non-supply of relied upon documents - Demand - Clandestine manufacture and removal - Panchnama - Defective - Penalty - Mandatory penalty
-
2002 (2) TMI 1248 - HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Debt Recovery Tribunal ... ... ... ... ..... itioners by way of memo dated 22-11-2001 in the original application and that too after the matter was adjourned by the Court Officer to 7-1-2002. The Tribunal, in our opinion, has no power to pass the impugned order without affording opportunity to the petitioners to present their case. In our opinion, the Tribunal has exercised the discretionary powers vested in it in an unreasonable manner. We, therefore, allow this writ petition and set aside the impugned orders dated 10-12-2001 and 7-2-2002 passed in O.A. No. 784 of 2001 and restore both the applications to file. The Tribunal shall, after giving notice to the petitioners herein and to the banks, consider the prayer in paras 7(1) to 7(3) of the original application and pass appropriate orders thereafter in accordance with law. The Tribunal is directed to dispose of the memo for appointment of receiver as prayed for in paras 7(1) and 7(3) of the original application within two months from the date of receipt of this order.
-
2002 (2) TMI 1247 - HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
RBI’s Guidelines ... ... ... ... ..... date. (b)The guidelines will also cover NPAs classified as sub-standard as on 31-3-1997, which have subsequently become doubtful or loss category. (c)These guidelines will also cover cases pending before Courts/DRTs/BIFR, subject to consent decree being obtained from the Courts/DRTs/BIFR. (d)Cases of wilful default, fraud and malfeasance will not be covered. (e)The revised guidelines will remain operative only up to 31-3-2001. Emphasis supplied A reading of the above guidelines would show that the guidelines will only cover cases where the Court cases are pending and in case the banks obtained decrees, the same has no application. Though the petitioner herein filed an interlocutory application seeking to set aside the ex parte decree till the decree is set aside, it cannot be said that the suit is still pending. In that view of the matter, it must be held that RBI guidelines have no application to the petitioner rsquo s case. 2. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed.
-
2002 (2) TMI 1245 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Inherent powers of Court ... ... ... ... ..... oned in the report as guilty of the offences mentioned therein and convict them and impose the punishment. When that has not been done and the prosecution has been directed to be initiated, it is nothing but setting the law in motion, which is essential in order to proceed further pursuant to the report. Otherwise there is some possibility that because of the pendency of the company petition the police authorities may think that till the company petition is over they may not be in a position to initiate the criminal proceedings against those who have been found to have committed the offence. The mere direction to prosecute a person will not amount to an order of imposing the punishment. It is for the concerned person to establish his innocence in the trial before the criminal court. In our view, the company court is empowered to issue such direction under rule 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules. Hence we do not find any merit in the appeal and accordingly the same is dismissed.
-
2002 (2) TMI 1244 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Winding up - Application of insolvency rules ... ... ... ... ..... re concerned. 22. In view of the above order, Company Application No. 248 of 2000 filed by Bank of India does not survive, and is accordingly disposed of as infructuous. 23. In order to see that the workers of the company in liquidation are not deprived of their legitimate dues, it is directed that if the Official Liquidator has not so far disposed of the properties of the company in liquidation, immediate steps shall be taken for disposing of the unsold assets of the company in liquidation, and thereafter, to disburse the same amongst the secured creditors and workers of the company in liquidation. 24. At this stage, Mrs. Anand, learned counsel for the National Labour Union, prays that the interim stay operating till today may be continued for sometime to enable her clients to have further recourse in accordance with law. 24.1 In the facts and circumstances of the case, the request is granted and the ad interim/interim stay operating till today shall continue till 22-3-2002.
-
2002 (2) TMI 1243 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Power to make regulations ... ... ... ... ..... Board and its quantum with reference to the need of the Board and not with reference to whether it is the best available method of levy. 10. In the case in hand, the counsel for the petitioner during the course of argument stated that he was not challenging the quantum of fee fixed by the SEBI. Nor he is challenging the right of the SEBI to charge fee. He is only challenging the excessive legislative delegation of the powers to the SEBI and that no guidelines for minimum and maximum have been fixed. 11. So far as the question of legislative delegations is concerned we have already discussed above. As regard guidelines the Apex Court in the case of Organon (India) Ltd. v. Collector of Excise AIR 1994 SC 2489 held that delegation to levy duty on State Government cannot be assailed on the ground that it is made without fixing maxima or minima. For this reason also power of the SEBI cannot be faulted. 12. For the reasons stated above, we find no merits in the petition. Dismissed.
-
2002 (2) TMI 1242 - SUPREME COURT
Whether section 10 is a non-derogable provision?
Held that:- Unable to accept Mr. Venugopal’s argument that, as a matter of public policy, section 10 should be held to be non-derogable. Even though the said Act is now an integrated law on the subject of arbitration, it cannot and does not provide for all contingencies. An arbitration being a creature of agreement between the parties, it would be impossible for the Legislature to cover all aspects. Just by way of an example, section 10 permits the parties to determine the number of arbitrators, provided that such number is not an even number.
A conjoint reading of sections 10 and 16 shows that an objection to the composition of the Arbitral Tribunal, is a matter which is derogable. It is derogable, because, a party is free not to object within the time prescribed in section 16(2). If a party chooses not to so object, there will be a deemed waiver under section 4. Thus, we are unable to accept the submission that section 10 is a non-derogable provision.
-
2002 (2) TMI 1241 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Payment of consideration ... ... ... ... ..... ange- ment would be the best and most equitable arrangement pending the hearing of the stay application and the hearing of main appeal. We are also conscious that the applicants having blocked Rs. 8.27 crores, cannot be made to wait for long after paying such a huge amount and not get any rights to the shares at all. At the same time because of the inter se dispute between the parties, the interests of the bank/financial institutions, to whatever extent it can be safeguarded by the sale of assets of Modipon in the form of MRL shares, should also not to be allowed to be put to prejudice. 16. We have tried to consider the matter only from the stand point of a prima facie consideration by way of interim arrangement, and, therefore, have avoided to take any view on the vexed issues involved. By way of abundant caution, we further clarify that nothing stated in this order shall have any effect either on the consideration of the stay application, or the final hearing of the appeal.
-
2002 (2) TMI 1240 - HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Winding up - Circumstances in which a company may be wound up ... ... ... ... ..... as on 25-9-2001 and IFCI shall take possession of the assets of the company and arrange for their insurance and security. 4. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court accepts the opinion of the BIFR and directs that Chandra Synthetics Ltd. with its registered office A-50, UPSIDC Industrial Area, Sikandrabad, district Bulandshahr be wound up. The official liquidator is appointed as liquidator of the company. 5. The official liquidator shall inform the IFCI of this order and to find out the status of the sale as directed by the BIFR. In case the assets or any part of assets have been sold, the IFCI shall be directed to deposit the sale consideration after deducting the sale expenditure, with the official liquidator. In case the assets have not being sold, the official liquidator shall intimate IFCI and shall take charge of the assets of the company and proceed in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and Companies (Court) Rules, 1959.
-
2002 (2) TMI 1238 - HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Winding up - Circumstances in which a company may be wound up ... ... ... ... ..... g all its financial obligations, and that the company as a result thereof is not likely to become viable in future and, hence, it is just, equitable and in public interest that it should be wound up. The Court noticed the fact that in response of winding up notice, the company/promoters did not appear before the BIFR on 22-5-2001, and that despite issuance of notice by this Court deemed to have been served upon them under the Rules of Court, no one has entered appearance on behalf of the company to make any objection for accepting the opinion of BIFR. In the circumstances, this Court accepts the opinion of BIFR and orders the company mdash Vijayshree Chemicals Ltd. (VCL), with its registered office at lsquo Shyam Mahal rsquo , Vishram Bazar, Mathura to be wound up. The official liquidator is appointed as liquidator of the company and is directed to proceed to liquidate the company in accordance with the provisions of Companies Act, 1956, and the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959.
-
2002 (2) TMI 1236 - HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Winding up - Circumstances in which a company may be wound up by court ... ... ... ... ..... ing closed for four years and that all efforts to finalise the settlement of agreement with Bank of Baroda had failed. He further informed that there is no hope for revival of the company and that the company is showing gradual increase in accumulated losses of the company. In the circumstances, the Board formed its opinion that it would be just and equitable in public interest if the company is to be wound up. The Bank of Baroda was granted time to inform whether they would be in a position to take up the sale of the company rsquo s assets in terms of section 20(4). It appears that the bank did not inform their position in this regard. 4. In the aforesaid circumstances, the Court confirms the opinion of BIFR recorded on 13-11-2001 and directed the company to be wound up. The official liquidator is appointed a liquidator of the company. He shall take the assets of the company and shall proceed in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959.
-
2002 (2) TMI 1235 - HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Winding up - Circumstances in which a company may be wound up ... ... ... ... ..... ition to put in more money into the company that no body responded to the advertisement issued by IFCI to join as co-promoter and that considering the position and opinions of all concerned, BIFR concluded that the company is liable to be wound up. In para 8 of the affidavit, it has been stated that the deponent/company has no objection to the opinion for winding up the company. He has also given the address of the registered office and the present address for correspondence at 859/71, Afim Kothi, Kanpur in para 7 of the affidavit. 4. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the Court has accepted the opinion of BIFR that Ganges Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd., is having its registered office at Bewar Bye-pass, Farrukhabad and directs it to be wound up. The Official Liquidator is appointed as liquidator of the company and is directed to proceed to liquidate the company in accordance with the provisions of Companies Act, 1956, and the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959.
-
2002 (2) TMI 1234 - HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Rehabilitation by providing financial assistance ... ... ... ... ..... urt to act as a superboard or with the zeal of a pedantic school master substituting its judgment for that of the administrator. This statement of the Apex Court speaks volumes about the self-imposed restraints imposed by the constitutional courts on their own powers of judicial review. 31. In the premise of the above noticed limitations of the power of judicial review under article 226, with great respect, we are not inclined to fall in line with the opinion recorded by the learned Single Judge or the direction issued by His Lordship. Looking from any angle, and after required reflection over the whole gamut of the matter, we are unable to sustain the order of the learned Single Judge impugned in these writ appeals. 32. In the result and for the foregoing reasons, the appeals are allowed and the order of the learned single Judge dated 20-8-1999 in W.P. No. 26961 of 1972 is set aside and the writ petition filed by the respondent-company is dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2002 (2) TMI 1230 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Dishonour of cheques for insufficiency of funds in account - Cognizance of ... ... ... ... ..... lder thereof is a question of fact, and has to be pleaded. In the present case, there is no such pleading and in fact, the person who filed the complaint had not filed the complaint on his behalf, he had filed the complaint on behalf of the payee which is not permissible in terms of provisions of section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. We do not agree with the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Surinder Singh rsquo s case (supra) for the same reasons. 6. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, we hold that complaint cannot be filed by a power of attorney holder on behalf of the payee under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complaint can only be filed in writing by the payee or the holder in due course. The law laid down by the learned Single Judge of this court in Smt. Payyati Savitri Devi rsquo s case (supra) is not good law. The reference is accordingly, answered and the matters are referred back to the learned Single Judge for disposal.
-
2002 (2) TMI 1228 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Debt Recovery Tribunal ... ... ... ... ..... and 227. Though there is no express bar in the Act regarding the exercise of jurisdiction under articles 226 and 227, when there is an effective alternative remedy available in the Act, judicial prudence demands that the Court should refrain from exercising its jurisdiction under the constitutional provision, namely, article 227. On this ground, both the civil revision petitions are liable to be dismissed accordingly dismissed. No costs. Inasmuch as the Debts Recovery Tribunal itself has shown concessions to the defendants, the petitioner herein/second defendant has granted two weeks rsquo time from today to avail the said concessions as stated in para 6 of its order or else file an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal as per section 20. It is made clear that if the petitioner avails the appellate remedy, the time taken by him in prosecuting the above revisions before this Court shall be excluded for the purpose of limitation. Connected C.M.P. No. 11689 of 2001 is dismissed.
-
2002 (2) TMI 1224 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Compromise and arrangement ... ... ... ... ..... te that the Central Government on which a copy of the petition is served along with the notice does not oppose the scheme as already indicated earlier in para. 5.3 hereinabove. In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in any of the objections raised by the objector. As far as the costs claimed against the objector are concerned, it is true that the court has not found any merit in any of the objections raised by objector mdash Mr. Dipakkumar J. Shah, but nothing is brought on record to show that he is a habitual objector for extraneous considerations. Hence, the court does not propose to pass any order of costs against the objector. ORDER The petition is accordingly allowed and the sanction is granted to the scheme of arrangement and restructure at annexure C to the petition. The prayer in terms of para. 21(a) is granted. The petitioner-company shall pay the fees of the learned additional standing counsel for the Central Government which are quantified at Rs. 2,500.
-
2002 (2) TMI 1223 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Registrar - Additional powers and duties of ... ... ... ... ..... sel, I am of the view that counsel is right in his submission. The office order is only challenged for the first time in this petition. Now that I have set aside the office order, it should not result in unsettling the settled cases. In this connection it is necessary to refer to a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Managing Director, ECIL v. B. Karunakar 1995 AIR SCW 1050, in the said case, the Supreme Court has noticed that both administrative reality and public interests do not require that past cases are to be reopened. In the light of the dictum of the Supreme Court, I further direct that this decision is available prospectively and not to other settled cases, settled already by the Tribunal. 16. In the result, this petition is allowed. The impugned order dated July 31, 1996, and the office order No. 12, dated December 2, 1996, are set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for reconsideration of the interlocutory applicatons in accordance with law.
-
2002 (2) TMI 1221 - HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Winding up - Powers of liquidator, Power of court to stay winding up ... ... ... ... ..... proceeds after deducting expenses incurred by the official liquidator, so far and expenditure made during the sale, shall be deposited with the official liquidator as per provision of the Companies Act 1956. Scales of fees and expenditure shall be allocated in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 and the orders to be passed by the Court relating to the liquidation of the company under the Companies Act. 56. The official liquidator is directed to take steps for sale of the assets of the company expeditiously keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and observations made in this order and the reliefs and concessions offered by the State Government to any intending higher offerer. The official liquidator will firstly explore the possibility of sale of the assets lsquo as a whole rsquo as going concern, and in the alternative by sale of assets in such parcels as may be convenient and expedient with the approval of the Court.
............
|
