|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 655 Records
-
2002 (2) TMI 1219 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Debt Recovery Tribunal - Procedure and powers of ... ... ... ... ..... y be inferred that the said witness was not aware of the exact amount due and payable to the bank, that fact does not mean that the first sentence should also be recorded although the petitioner really denied such suggestion. Therefore, I delete the first sentence of the aforesaid three sentences, as it was not the real answer given by the DW-1 the other two sentences will, however, remain. 11. I, thus, allow the application thereby deleting the aforesaid sentence from the deposition of the DW-1 as it is established that that very sentence was not uttered by the DW-1. However, the other part of the deposition will remain as it is. The Bank, if so desires, may further cross-examine the DW-1 in view of deletion of the aforesaid sentence from the deposition. 12. With the above observation, the revisional application is allowed. I make it clear that I have not gone into the merit of the claim and it is for the Tribunal to decide whether the claim of the Bank has been established.
-
2002 (2) TMI 1218 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
State Commission - Jurisdiction of ... ... ... ... ..... king for writ of mandamus to deprive the second respondent of the benefit of the order of the lsquo State Commission rsquo . In the above settled principle of law, in my considered view, the petitioner is not entitled to raise the question of jurisdiction of the lsquo State Commission rsquo after the said order has become final, more particularly due to his conduct, after he made the complainant, to believe that the lsquo State Commission rsquo had, in fact, the jurisdiction and also invited an order. Hence, I consider that this is not a fit case where this Court could exercise the discretionary remedy of writ of mandamus in favour of the petitioner. 17. For the above reasons, the writ petition has no merit and is liable to be dismissed and, accordingly, it is dismissed. No costs. The third respondent is directed to execute the non-bailable warrant issued by the lsquo State Commission rsquo in its order dated 18-8-1997 in E.P. No. 4 of 1997 against the petitioner immediately.
-
2002 (2) TMI 1217 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Winding up - Offences by officers of companies in liquidation and managers whose liability is unlimited
-
2002 (2) TMI 1216 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Winding up - Circumstances in which a company may be wound up ... ... ... ... ..... Defendants. The Procedure prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be allowed to be by passed. This Procedure, 1908 cannot be allowed to be short-circuited. The Division Bench, in its order dated 14-2-1994 deprecated this practice of allowing the Plaintiffs to withdraw the amount when there was no decree in the Plaintiffs favour. I have already observed that as far as the Defendants application for withdrawing the said amount is concerned, the same critria would apply. Everything has to be proved by recording evidence and that stage is yet to come. If the Plaintiffs claim ultimately is found to be true then the Defendants were rightly asked to deposit the said amount, therefore, in the interest of justice, if that amount is deposited in a fixed deposit, it will yield some interest, which will be for the benefit of the party, who ultimately wins. Hence, the following order mdash Notice of Motion No. 1056 of 2001 and Notice of Motion No. 2218 of 2001 are both dismissed.
-
2002 (2) TMI 1215 - HIGH COURT OF ANDH RA PRADESH
Registers and returns - Place of keeping, and inspection of ... ... ... ... ..... required to be copied. 5. It is clear from section 163(1) and (3) that all members and debenture- holders of a company can, without paying any fee, and any other person on payment of fees prescribed, inspect the registers, etc., mentioned in sub-section (1) of section 163, and they can by paying the fees prescribed, require copies of those registers, etc., to be furnished to them. Section 163(4) mandates furnishing copies on such request within ten days (exclusive of non-working days) of receipt of that request. 6. Since the names of the shareholders of the company have to be entered in the lsquo register of members rsquo as laid down in sections 150 and 151 referred to above, the contention of the petitioner that the list of registered shareholders of the first petitioner-company from 30-4-1995, to 1996 is not one of the registers to be maintained under section 163(1), cannot be accepted. Therefore, I find no grounds to quash the complaint. Hence, the petition is dismissed.
-
2002 (2) TMI 1214 - SUPREME COURT
Offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Held that:- Set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court, allow this appeal and remand the matter of the Magistrate to proceed with the complaint in accordance with law.
This is not a case where the cheque was drawn in respect of a debt or liability, which was completely barred from being enforced under law. If, for example, the cheque was drawn in respect of a debt or liability payable under a wagering contract, it could have been said that debt or liability is not legally enforceable as it is a claim, which is prohibited under law. This case is not a case of that type. But at this stage of the proceedings, to say that the cheque drawn by the respondent was in respect of debt or liability, which was not legally enforceable, was clearly illegal and erroneous.
-
2002 (2) TMI 1213 - HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Winding up - Suits stayed on winding up order ... ... ... ... ..... already been taken in possession of by the applicant R.F.C. under section 29 on 17-2-1993 (c)for permitting the applicant R.F.C. to remain outside the winding up proceedings and realise its dues independent of winding up proceedings and outside of it under section 29 of S.F.C. Act. 4. As per directions of this Court, a detailed affidavit has been filed by the applicant in regard to the assets taken over by the R.F.C. 5. After having considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, I deem it proper to allow RFC to sell the assets of the company under liquidation as mentioned in the additional affidavit. However, the sale will be subject to approval of this Court. It is further directed that the disbursement or utilisation of the sale proceeds shall also be subject to approval of this Court. The applicant R.F.C. may file necessary application before this Court in the present matter as and when required.
-
2002 (2) TMI 1211 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Penalties for wrongful withholding of property ... ... ... ... ..... cupy the premises and secondly they cannot get any protection. It is an admitted fact that there is nothing on record to suggest that respondents company is going to develop the land or redevelop it and secondly rights conferred by the Act under section 630 upon the companies are not taken away by any of those circulars, etc., relied upon by Mr. Samant. Therefore, this aspect also cannot be considered in favour of the petitioners-accused. For all these reasons, I pass the following order ORDER All the criminal revision applications are dismissed. Rule discharged in all the revisions. Orders of the trial court dated 24th August, 2000 and 7th April, 2001 and that of the appellate court dated 27th September, 2001 are confirmed. Four weeks time granted to the petitioners-accused to pay fine and vacate the premises on humanitarian grounds. Parties to act on an ordinary copy of this order duly authenticated by the Sheristedar of this court. Criminal revision applications dismissed.
-
2002 (2) TMI 1210 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Compromise or arrangements ... ... ... ... ..... ss such special purpose vehicle is proposed to be merged with the parent, i.e., the holding company. It is not for the Court to sit in judgment over the commercial wisdom of the businessmen in creating such special purpose vehicles as long as they do not infringe any law of the land. Courts do not have the access to the materials which necessitated creation of such special purpose vehicles and their eventual merger with the parent. Unless the scheme is shown to be contrary to any law or shocks the conscience of the Court or is patently unfair to the members or creditors or any class of them. The Court is against the public interest or against the public policy, the Court should not come in the way of business by rejecting bona fide scheme under section 391. 19. I, therefore, sanction the scheme. Accordingly, Company Petition No. 1096 of 2001 is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) to (j) and Company Petition No. 1097 of 2001 is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) to (i).
-
2002 (2) TMI 1192 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Excisability ... ... ... ... ..... lies upon the decision of this Tribunal in Sri Venkatesa Paper and Boards Ltd. and Ors. v. CCE - 2000 (90) ECR 526. In this decision, the Tribunal has held that broke was not marketable and hence not excisable. 4. emsp The counsel for the applicant contends that the Commissioner has not established the marketability of the broke that the applicant manufacture, merely says that because it was being used by the applicant it was marketable. 5. emsp The departmental representative echoes the view of the Commissioner. However, the fact that the applicant used broke in its factory does not by itself establish (prima facie) its marketability. It was for the department to show that the broke was capable of being bought and sold and prima facie it is not done so. The fact that the Tribunal in its earlier order has found the same commodity not to be marketable also goes in the applicant rsquo s favour. 6. emsp Therefore, we waive deposit of the duty and penalty and stay their recovery.
-
2002 (2) TMI 1191 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Appeal - Natural justice ... ... ... ... ..... s fixed on 28th August, 2001. The contention of the appellant is that the notice of hearing was not received by it. The appeals are silent as to why no one attended the three earlier hearings which, the Commissioner says, were fixed. On this ground alone, we might not have interfered. However, we note that the order in each case is stated to have been passed on 20th August, 2001. If that is so, the hearing that was fixed for 28th August, 2001 would be meaningless since the Commissioner had already passed the order. 4. emsp In the light of this confusing position, we think it appropriate that the appellants be given one opportunity of being heard on the application of condonation of delay. 5. emsp Accordingly, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order. The Commissioner shall, after giving the appellants a reasonable opportunity of being heard, pass orders on the application of condonation of delay and thereafter, if necessary, on the appeals, in accordance with law.
-
2002 (2) TMI 1190 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Redemption fine and penalty when reducible - Quantum of ... ... ... ... ..... plea made before me by the ld. Counsel Shri Chatterjee is that the appellant has already suffered by having been convicted under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act and Customs Act as well as the Passport Act. He, therefore, pleads that the redemption fine and penalty be reduced considerably. 3. emsp The prayer is opposed by the ld. Departmental Representative who submits that lenient view had already been taken by the Commissioner of Customs and that no further leniency is called for having regard to the foreign currency confiscated. 4. emsp On careful consideration of the submissions made by both sides and noting that the appellant was arrested and in custody and has undergone conviction under the different Acts and also considering that he is in bad health, I reduce the fine to Rs. 1.5 lakhs (Rupees One lakh fifty thousand) and penalty to Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand). 5. emsp Subject to this modification, the impugned order is upheld. The appeal is partly allowed.
-
2002 (2) TMI 1183 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat/Cenvat - Modvat on capital goods ... ... ... ... ..... The appellant is only aggrieved by the latter part of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) allowing the Modvat credit of Rs. 66,000/-. 3. emsp Examined the records and heard the DR. Ld. JDR has reiterated the grounds of the appeal. On a careful examination of the grounds, I find that the issue arising therefrom stands squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of this Tribunal rsquo s Larger Bench in Jawahar Mills Ltd. v. CCE, Coimbatore 1999 (108) E.L.T. 47 since approved by the Supreme Court by the decision reported in 2001 (132) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) . As per the said decision, all electrical goods used for supply of electricity to the manufacturing plant and machinery are capital goods eligible for Modvat credit under Rule 57Q. The Rotating Machine involved in the instant case was, admittedly, so used and hence the same was eligible for capital goods credit at the relevant time. 4. emsp In view of the above position, this appeal has no merit and is rejected.
-
2002 (2) TMI 1182 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Penalty - Smuggled goods - Evidence ... ... ... ... ..... nd items and the appellant also denied his involvement with the seized goods. It is the appellants rsquo contention duly represented by Shri K.P. Dey, ld. Advocate that imposition of penalty based upon the statements of the co-accused which is not corroborated, is not justified. I agree with the above contention. Except the statement of the driver, there is nothing on record to show the involvement of the appellant in the seized and confiscated goods. Such statement of the co-accused without any corroboration in material particulars is not a safe evidence to rely upon. Accordingly I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
-
2002 (2) TMI 1181 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Modvat/Cenvat - Modvat on capital goods ... ... ... ... ..... ss is integrally connected with the manufacturing process. They also relied on the Trade Notice No. 116/96, dt. 13-12-96 issued by Madras Central Excise Commissionerate. 8. emsp On a careful consideration, all these findings, I notice that the Hon rsquo ble Apex Court judgment rendered in the case of CCE v. Jawahar Mills Ltd. (supra) would clearly apply to this item also. The Apex Court has analyzed in great detail the definition of capital goods and the findings rendered by the Apex Court and the Larger Bench would cover this item as this item performs important function inasmuch as that the lean HCL gas is absorbed by de-mineralised water stored in FRP scrubber. In view of the clear cut findings given by the Commissioner (Appeals) with regard to this item and the same is to be treated as capital goods. Therefore, I find no infirmity in the said order and hence the same is confirmed. There is no merit in the Revenue appeal and hence the same is rejected. Ordered accordingly.
-
2002 (2) TMI 1180 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Appeal by Department - Limitation - Delay ... ... ... ... ..... se that is not the ground in the application. If the same has been mentioned in the application, it could have been emphasised by means of oral arguments. Mr. Agnihotri, Consultant for the assessee, pleads before me that in similar matters two members of the Bench have considered these types of request and have rejected the plea of the department. He cites Order Nos. C-I/2672- 73/WZB/2001 passed on 10th August, 2001 in Application E/COD-292/01- Mum. in Appeal No. E/1177/01-Mum. I have gone through the same. I cannot take a different view. I therefore dismiss the COD. Hence the appeal also stands dismissed.
-
2002 (2) TMI 1178 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Modvat/Cenvat ... ... ... ... ..... -94 did not give the Revenue sufficient time to decide upon the same for the permission of transfer. I agree with the appellant rsquo s contention that if the application would have been decided in time, they would have utilised the said credit before 31-3-94. In the circumstances, the appellant rsquo s failure to utilize the credit before cut-off date, cannot be attributed to them but the same is clearly attributable to the non-action on the part of the Assistant Commissioner. 6. emsp Inasmuch as the appellants had paid duty to the extent of Rs. 25.29 lakhs from their PLA in the month of March, 1994, I am of the view that the said duty payment is required to be adjusted against an amount of Rs. 2,87,270/- which was admissible to the appellants. The same may either be credited to the appellants Modvat account or be adjusted in PLA account. There is no justification for imposition of personal penalty of Rs. 1,000/- upon the appellants. Appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
-
2002 (2) TMI 1175 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Modvat/Cenvat - Declaration - Rectification of mistake ... ... ... ... ..... been availed, had not given the particulars of the manufacturers/importers in proper form. The appellants have agreed that the manufacturers rsquo particulars have not been given and they had rectified the said discrepancies by placing on record subsequently, manufacturers rsquo particulars in the shape of a letter given by the dealers. The authorities below have not taken note of the said letter on the ground that the defects are not rectifiable. It is now well-settled law that such minor defects, if rectified subsequently should not be made the basis for denying the benefit of the Credit, if there is no allegation of non-receipt of the inputs. Accordingly, I set aside this portion of the demand and remand the matter to the Assistant Commissioner for looking into the said letter issued by the dealers and if correlatable to the invoices, he may extend the benefit of the Modvat credit. The appeal is thus allowed partly and partly remanded. Stay Petition also gets disposed of.
-
2002 (2) TMI 1174 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ere was no basis for not accepting the factory gate prices to its clearance from the depot. The Tribunal has relied upon the Supreme Court rsquo s judgment in Indian Oxygen v. CCE - 1988 (36) E.L.T. 723. 3. emsp Since the matter is covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court, we do not think that the matter requires reconsideration by recalling our order in the light of the fact that the Department rsquo s appeal has now come to notice. It would then follow that there was no question of imposing penalty on the assessee. 4. emsp The appeal is dismissed.
-
2002 (2) TMI 1173 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat/Cenvat - Waste - Steel rods sent for job work ... ... ... ... ..... d be covered as ldquo waste rdquo under Rule 57D and, therefore, Modvat credit could not be denied on such material on the ground that the same was not physically available. In the case of Rishi Iron and Steel Ltd. (supra), a similar situation was considered. It was held by a 2-Member Bench in that case that burning losses of iron and steel had to be treated as ldquo waste rdquo in the nature of invisible loss and Modvat credit should be extended to such goods under Rule 57D. The decision in Bharat Radiators Ltd. (supra) is also, by and large, to this effect. The issue involved in this case is thus covered by case law in favour of the assessee. The reliance placed by the JDR on the Larger Bench decision does not appear to help the appellant rsquo s case as the context in which that decision was rendered was quite different from the one obtaining in the present case. 5. emsp In the result, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is sustained and the present appeal is rejected.
............
|
