Contact us   Feedback   Annual Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

1998 (12) TMI 620 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

1998 (12) TMI 620 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT - Citations: AIR 1999 Cal 106 - Dated:- 18-12-1998 - A Lala,J. ORDER 1. This application is made by one company naming thereby M/s. Murphy Food Specialities Private Limited having registered office at 203, M. G. Road, Calcutta-700007 (earlier No. 227, A.J.C. Bose Road, Calcutta-700020), under Section 41 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, praying inter alia, leave to the petitioner company to intervene in the present proceedings and to add party respondent there .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

1998 in G.A. No. 3109 of 1997 at the instance of all contesting parties. 2. One of such contesting parties was Sri Bijay Kumar Agarwal, happened or happens to be the Director of this applicant company. 3. This Court had come to the ultimate finding on 26th March, 1998 upon hearing the parties on numerous occasions and after passing several interim orders which are all available in the record. Even the order dated 26th March, 1998 was also modified thereafter as on 23rd April, 1998 at the instanc .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

erein i.e. M/s. Service & Supplies (India), a non-interested party to such dispute. 6. The petitioner herein contended that teas which were directed to be sold are of the applicant company. Therefore their right was interfered with by such order without hearing them. 7. This Court cannot shutout it's eyes without observing very much existence of the said Sri Bijoy Kumar Agarwal at the time of hearing or passing order or orders in the erstwhile application, at the time of making modificat .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ultimately came to know from an employee of M/s. Ratan Export & Industries Ltd. having registered office at New Delhi whose name cannot be disclosed for fear or reprisal. Said employee of the above company provided with the pleadings and order in the G.A. No. 3109 of 1997 to them. 9. The respondents jointly contended that the order passed on 26th March, 1998 is not the original order for sale hut order of implementation of order for sale originally passed by a Single Bench of this Court on 1 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

reafter surprisingly the applicant company explained about their knowledge of hearing and passing order by this court from a so called employee of a company having registered office at New Delhi and even his or her name cannot be disclosed. Therefore it is clear that the applicant company has not come with clear hands which is the basic element for the purpose of recalling and setting aside the original order. 11. Thirdly, the company having warehouse issued ownership certificate on 28th August, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tember, 1992 which is about a year from the delivery of the goods and unthinkable in trade and merchandise. 13. Incidentally it was submitted that this application for recalling and setting aside order is made by one Sabyasachi Mukherjee claiming to be Director/Principal Officer of the applicant company but without any affidavit of competency. 14. However, 1 am briefly on the point as to whether appropriate party represented the case and whether the order passed caused prejudice to any alleged n .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e company was un represented having interest in the goods. I cannot agree with the submission made by the petitioner since order of sale was originally made by a Single Bench of this Court at the instance of the applicant company itself as far back as on 17th August, 1993 in the matter of Bijoy Kumar Agarwal when admittedly he had resigned from the company. It is also significant that even goods were stored by said Bijoy Kumar Agarwal on behalf of the aforesaid company as on 28th August, 1992 al .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

een implemented by the order of this dated 26th March, 1998 at the instance of all the patties including Sri Bijoy Kumar Agarwal; b) Existence of Sri Bijoy Kumar Agarwal cannot be ruled out irrespective of his giving up directorship and shareholdings in the applicant 'company; c) The order of 26th March, 1998 is modified at the instance of said Sri Bijoy Kumar Agarwal but no such prayer is made to recall such order; d) Even, in merit, I found that in spite of several notices of the Joint Rec .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

this respect in the earlier occasion: e) The natural justice is not one way traffic. Therefore situation of each case has to be observed separately. In the instant case it appears that original dispute in arbitration is subsided by various interlocutory applications either under Section 41 of the Arbitration Act or in the nature of pro-inter se-suo on different occasions. If there is any dispute with regard to ownership of the goods and monetary claims in connection thereto, the same will be de .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

erties Pvt. Ltd., in liquidation as cited before this Court has no application being factually distinguishable with the present case. 19. Mr. P. C. Sen appearing with Mr. Joy Saha contended that existence of an individual and existence of a company are distinct and different. Therefore, appearance of an individual or his group cannot be said to be appearance of the company. Therefore the order which was admittedly passed in absence of the company who's right has been infringed. This court si .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t the corporate veil may be lifted where a statute itself contemplates lifting the veil, or fraud or improper conduct is intended to be prevented, or a taxing statute or a beneficent statute is sought to be evaded or where associated companies are inextricably connected as to be, in reality, part of one concern. It is neither necessary nor desirable to enumerate the classes of cases where lifting the corporate veil is permissible, since that must necessarily depend on the relevant statutory or o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version