|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 671 Records
-
2004 (8) TMI 703
The Delhi High Court dismissed the case as the Tribunal concluded that no notice under section 158BC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was served upon the assessee.
-
2004 (8) TMI 702
Issues:
1. Whether the appellant is liable to tax on photographic papers imported from outside the State of U.P. and used in works contract?
2. What should be the turnover of the appellant based on the imported photographic papers?
Analysis:
1. The appellant, engaged in photography business, imported photographic papers for &8377; 55,48,506 from outside U.P. and used them in works contract. The dispute was whether these imported papers are liable for tax. Section 3-F of the U.P. Trade Tax Act covers tax on goods involved in works contracts. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's appeal, stating that the movement of goods was not occasioned by a specific works contract, as the papers were imported and kept as stock for general use, not tied to individual contracts. The case of M/s. Santosh and Company was cited to support the non-taxability of imported goods under Section 3-F due to the movement being in the course of inter-State trade.
2. Regarding the turnover calculation, the appellant argued that only the purchase value of &8377; 55,48,506 should be taxed. However, Section 2(h) defines sales to include property transfer in works contracts, making it taxable under Section 3-F. The turnover liable for tax is determined based on the aggregate amount of goods supplied or sold. The Tribunal estimated the turnover at &8377; 66,84,000, considering a notification stating that in cases where sale consideration is unknown, the sale price will include the cost value, expenses for bringing goods to the site, and an additional 20% markup. The Tribunal's valuation was upheld as reasonable, with no errors found in the turnover calculation.
In conclusion, the revision was dismissed as the appellant failed to establish grounds for challenging the Tribunal's order. The judgment clarified the tax liability on imported goods used in works contracts and the method for determining turnover in such cases.
-
2004 (8) TMI 701
Whether the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court quashing the order of detention dated 15.7.2003 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City (in short the 'Commissioner') directing detention of Chinnaboina Shankar @ C. Shankar (hereinafter referred to as the 'detenu') legal?
Whether the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to public order?
-
2004 (8) TMI 700
Issues:
Admissibility of Cenvat Credit on Explosives used in mines after 1-7-2001 under Rule 2(f) of Cenvat Rules, 2001.
Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the Order disallowing Cenvat Credit on Explosives used in mines after 1-7-2001. The appellant argued that Explosives were used in manufacturing the final product and fulfilled the conditions of 'Input'. They cited Tribunal cases where Cenvat Credit on Explosives used in mines was allowed. The appellant relied on the similarity between the definitions of 'Input' in different rules. The appellant also referred to a Supreme Court case supporting the eligibility of Explosives for Modvat Credit. The Tribunal noted previous decisions allowing Cenvat Credit on Explosives used in mines and set aside the Order disallowing the credit.
The appellant's consultant cited various Tribunal decisions supporting the eligibility of inputs used in mines for Cenvat Credit. The consultant highlighted that the same Commissioner had allowed Cenvat Credit on Explosives used in mines for the production of goods in a previous order. The Revenue did not appeal this decision, indicating acceptance. The consultant argued for allowing the appeal based on the previous decisions and the Order-in-Appeal.
The Tribunal reviewed the arguments and case laws presented. Considering the precedents and decisions cited by the appellant, the Tribunal overturned the Commissioner's decision and allowed the appeal. The Tribunal emphasized the eligibility of inputs used in mines for Cenvat Credit based on the established legal interpretations and previous rulings.
-
2004 (8) TMI 699
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals as the extended limitation under proviso to Sec. 11A of the Central Excise Act was not available due to no suppression of relevant facts, making the notice and demand time-barred. (2004 (8) TMI 699 - SC)
-
2004 (8) TMI 698
Judgment: Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition without interference with the High Court's order. (Citation: 2004 (8) TMI 698 - SC)
-
2004 (8) TMI 697
Issues Involved:
1. Denial of MODVAT Credit
2. Constructive Receipt of Inputs
3. Procedural Non-Compliance and Substantial Benefit
4. Limitation and Time Bar
5. Applicability of CENVAT Provisions
6. Penalty and Revenue Loss
Summary:
1. Denial of MODVAT Credit:
The denial of MODVAT Credit availed by Sunrise Ltd. and KEC was based on the grounds that inputs were never received in their factory, the factory of Sunrise was not manufacturing any goods during the period, and invoices issued by Sunrise were questionable. The Tribunal found that the deemed credit of 12% on steel angles, a declared input, cannot be denied even if the factory was temporarily closed. The credit entry in RG 23A is permissible under Rule 57A without any time limit. The delivery of inputs was taken at the factory gate of the suppliers and then transported to KEC, constituting 'constructive receipt' by Sunrise.
2. Constructive Receipt of Inputs:
The Tribunal held that the movement of inputs without physical receipt in the factory was not always required under the then existing MODVAT Rules. The concept of 'constructive receipt' was supported by a three-member bench decision in the case of Maruti Udyog Ltd., which allowed credit on inputs even if not physically received. The Tribunal emphasized that procedural non-compliance cannot deny the substantial benefit of credit when duty paid character at 16% and receipt by KEC is not in question.
3. Procedural Non-Compliance and Substantial Benefit:
The Tribunal noted that the conditions in Notification 58/97 granting deemed credit benefit are procedural in nature. It was held that technical/procedural lapses cannot deny the benefit of MODVAT credits. The Tribunal referenced the case of Shivagrico Implements Ltd., which established that procedural requirements should not negate substantial benefits. The Tribunal also highlighted that the law applicable on the date of the show cause notice should be invoked, and Rule 57I was not in existence at the time of the notice, making the notice unsustainable.
4. Limitation and Time Bar:
The Tribunal found that the entire demand was beyond the normal period of limitation. The extended period under Rule 57I(1)(ii) was invoked, but the Tribunal held that failure to follow procedure cannot be attributed as suppression or intent to evade duty. The Tribunal referenced several decisions, including Geep Industrial Syndicate and Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., to support the view that procedural errors do not constitute suppression with intent to evade duty.
5. Applicability of CENVAT Provisions:
The Tribunal concluded that CENVAT provisions cannot be invoked to recover MODVAT credit as 'Cenvat credit' is defined for inputs received after April 1, 2000, while the credit in question was availed prior to this date. The Tribunal also noted that the duty paid by Sunrise on the clearance of angles to KEC should be treated as a reversal of credit, and there was no bar on availing credit even when the factory is closed.
6. Penalty and Revenue Loss:
The Tribunal found that there was no loss of revenue to the government as the entire modus operandi was to minimize business loss. The Tribunal emphasized that the duty paid on angles would be refunded by DGFT in the form of either refund of terminal excise duty or drawback. The Tribunal held that the penalties imposed were not sustainable and set them aside.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeals, emphasizing that procedural non-compliance cannot deny substantial benefits, and there was no suppression or intent to evade duty. The penalties imposed were also set aside.
-
2004 (8) TMI 696
The High Court of Delhi upheld the Settlement Commission's order regarding the payment of additional customs duty before availing modvat credit. The writ petition was rejected.
-
2004 (8) TMI 695
Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition after condoning the delay. (2004 (8) TMI 695 - SC)
-
2004 (8) TMI 694
Whether the compensation could be awarded in a suit for specific performance without making a claim of compensation either in the original plaint or by amending the plaint during the course of the proceedings?
Whether the Court has the power to award compensation in a suit for Specific Performance, where the plaintif has not specifically prayed for it in the plaint?
-
2004 (8) TMI 693
Issues Involved:
1. Exemption eligibility of turnover related to electrical works, transformers, and foundation work under Entry 57 of the Fifth Schedule to the Karnataka Sales Tax Act.
2. Interpretation of the term "wind mill" under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act.
3. Applicability of expert opinions in determining the components of a wind mill.
4. Distinction between movable and immovable property for tax exemption purposes.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Exemption Eligibility of Turnover Related to Electrical Works, Transformers, and Foundation Work:
The petitioner company claimed exemption on the entire turnover related to the supply, erection, and commissioning of wind mills under Entry 57 of the Fifth Schedule to the Karnataka Sales Tax Act. The assessing authority allowed deductions for certain parts but disallowed exemptions for turnover related to foundation work, electrical work, and transformers, levying a tax on these components. The appellate authority and the Tribunal upheld this view, stating that these components do not form part of the wind mill as per Entry 57.
2. Interpretation of the Term "Wind Mill":
The Tribunal and the assessing authority interpreted "wind mill" narrowly, excluding foundation work, electrical work, and transformers from the exemption. The Tribunal reasoned that transformers and electrical works serve different functions and thus do not form part of the wind mill. The foundation work, although necessary for installation, was also excluded from exemption as it was not considered a component of the wind mill under Entry 57.
3. Applicability of Expert Opinions:
The Karnataka Renewable Energy Development Limited, an expert body, opined that wind mills include electrical work, transformers, and foundation. However, the Tribunal and the Court held that while expert opinions are valuable for understanding the functionality of wind mills, they cannot be the sole basis for interpreting statutory entries. The Court emphasized that statutory definitions and popular meanings in commercial parlance should guide the interpretation.
4. Distinction Between Movable and Immovable Property for Tax Exemption Purposes:
The Court discussed the distinction between movable and immovable property, noting that the Sales Tax Act exempts only movable property. Once a wind mill is embedded in the earth with a concrete foundation, it becomes immovable property, which is not exempt under the Act. Therefore, the foundation work does not qualify for exemption. However, the Court recognized that electrical work and transformers are integral to the functionality of the wind mill and should be considered part of it for exemption purposes.
Conclusion:
The Court set aside the Tribunal's order regarding the non-exemption of electrical works and transformers, recognizing them as vital parts of the wind mill. However, it upheld the Tribunal's view on the foundation work, stating it becomes immovable property once installed and thus does not qualify for exemption. The matter was remanded to the assessing authority to redo the assessment in light of these observations, emphasizing the need to distinguish between movable and immovable components for tax purposes.
-
2004 (8) TMI 692
Whether notifications issued by the Food (Health) Authority under Section 7(iv) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') by which the manufacture, sale, storage and distribution of pan masala and gutka (pan masala containing tobacco) were banned for different periods valid?
-
2004 (8) TMI 691
Issues:
1. Granting of interest at the rate of 18% per annum by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
2. Compensation for mental agony/harassment due to misfeasance in public office.
3. Refund of amounts paid with interest due to failure in delivering possession of allotted plot.
4. Applicability of Interest Act in cases of refund.
5. Deduction of TDS on the refunded amount.
6. Special features of the case affecting the judgment as a precedent.
Analysis:
1. The Supreme Court addressed the issue of granting interest at the rate of 18% per annum by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, emphasizing that such interest cannot be granted in all cases irrespective of the facts. The Court highlighted the need for a finding of loss or injury correlating with the amount of compensation granted for mental agony or harassment due to misfeasance in public office.
2. The Court examined a case where a respondent was allotted a plot but did not receive possession, leading to a complaint before the District Forum. The District Forum held the appellants at fault for the delay and directed a refund of all amounts paid with interest at 18% per annum. The State Forum and the National Commission upheld this decision based on the failure to deliver possession promptly.
3. Regarding the applicability of the Interest Act in cases of refund, the Court noted that since interest at 18% had already been paid as compensation for mental harassment and public duty failure, no additional refund could be claimed. The Court directed the appellants to forward any TDS deducted on the refunded amount to the respondent along with interest at 12% if applicable.
4. The judgment concluded by stating that the order should not be considered a precedent in other matters due to the special circumstances of the case. The Court instructed future cases to follow the principles established in previous judgments, particularly emphasizing the guidelines set in the case of Ghaziabad Development Authority vs. Balbir Singh regarding the granting of interest and compensation in consumer dispute cases.
-
2004 (8) TMI 690
Legal Judgment Summary:
- Court: Supreme Court
- Citation: 2004 (8) TMI 690 - SC
- Judges: S.N. Variava and A.K. Mathur, JJ.
- Decision: Civil Appeal dismissed
- Costs: No order as to costs
-
2004 (8) TMI 689
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the decree passed by the trial court.
2. Proper service of notice to heirs and legal representatives.
3. Jurisdiction of the court and whether the decree was null and void.
4. Non-joinder of necessary parties.
5. Execution of the decree and removal of obstructions by third parties.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of the Decree Passed by the Trial Court:
The Supreme Court examined whether the decree passed by the trial court was valid. The trial court had decreed in favor of the plaintiffs for possession of the suit premises against the heirs and legal representatives of deceased Papamiya. The decree was based on the fact that the defendants were in arrears of rent for more than six months, which went unchallenged as the defendants were absent during the proceedings. The Supreme Court concluded that the trial court's decree was valid and not null and void, as it was passed by a competent court with jurisdiction over the subject matter.
2. Proper Service of Notice to Heirs and Legal Representatives:
The appellants had made several attempts to serve notice to the heirs and legal representatives of deceased Papamiya. Notices were sent by registered post and under certificate of posting, and a notice was affixed on the suit premises. Despite these efforts, the heirs could not be served directly. The Supreme Court held that the appellants had made all reasonable attempts to serve the notice, and the presumption of service was valid under the circumstances.
3. Jurisdiction of the Court and Whether the Decree was Null and Void:
The Supreme Court addressed the distinction between a decree that is void and one that is merely incorrect or irregular. A decree is void if the court lacks inherent jurisdiction, making it non est and void ab initio. However, the trial court in this case had jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties. The Supreme Court cited precedents, including Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan and Vasudev Dhanjibhai Modi v. Rajabhai Abdul Rehman, emphasizing that a decree passed by a court with jurisdiction is not null and void, even if it is erroneous or irregular.
4. Non-joinder of Necessary Parties:
The respondents contended that they were not made party defendants in the suit and hence the decree could not be executed against them. The Supreme Court clarified the distinction between "necessary parties" and "proper parties." The respondents, being sub-tenants of Papamiya, were not necessary parties to the suit. The court held that non-joinder of the respondents did not render the decree null and void, as the respondents were not essential for the effective adjudication of the case.
5. Execution of the Decree and Removal of Obstructions by Third Parties:
The appellants faced obstructions from third parties (respondents) during the execution of the decree. The executing court had allowed the appellants to recover possession and ordered the obstructionists to pay costs. The respondents' appeal against this order was dismissed by the appellate bench of the Small Causes Court, Bombay. The Supreme Court upheld the executing court's decision, stating that the respondents, who were not parties to the original suit, could not challenge the decree's legality and validity. The court emphasized that the decree was binding and executable against the respondents, who were claiming through Papamiya.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and restored the decree passed by the trial court. The court concluded that the decree was valid, the appellants had made reasonable attempts to serve notice, the trial court had jurisdiction, the respondents were not necessary parties, and the decree was executable against the respondents. The interim stay was vacated, and no order as to costs was made.
-
2004 (8) TMI 688
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the appellant's claim to the suit land under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act.
2. Whether the appellant can protect his possession based on an agreement of sale executed by a third party (Pishorrilal) who did not have a registered sale deed.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of the appellant's claim to the suit land under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act:
The central issue was whether the appellant could claim the benefit of the equitable doctrine of part performance under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act to protect his possession of the suit land. The trial court held that a mere contract of sale does not create any right or title in favor of the transferee, and since the original agreement of sale was not proved, the appellant could not defend his possession under Section 53-A. The first appellate court, however, concluded that the appellant had an equitable/possessory title to the suit land based on the agreement of sale executed by Pishorrilal and was entitled to protect his possession under Section 53-A.
2. Whether the appellant can protect his possession based on an agreement of sale executed by a third party (Pishorrilal) who did not have a registered sale deed:
The High Court reversed the first appellate court's decision, holding that the appellant could not claim the benefit of the equitable doctrine of part performance under Section 53-A because Pishorrilal did not have a registered sale deed and thus no title in the property. The Supreme Court upheld this view, stating that the doctrine of part performance could only be availed of by the transferee or any person claiming under him, and since the appellant was not the transferee within the meaning of Section 53-A, he could not invoke this doctrine against the respondent.
The Supreme Court emphasized that Section 53-A provides protection to the proposed transferee against the transferor, preventing the transferor from disturbing the possession of the transferee who has taken possession in part performance of the contract. However, this protection does not extend to third parties with whom there is no privity of contract. The court reiterated that an agreement to sell does not create an interest in the property, and title can only be conveyed through a registered sale deed as per Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act.
The court also referred to previous judgments, including Shrimant Shamrao Suryavanshi & Anr. Vs. Pralhad Bhairoba Suryavanshi and State of U.P. Vs. District Judge & Ors., to underline that the doctrine of part performance is an equitable estoppel that operates against the original owner but does not affect the ownership of the property until a registered sale deed is executed.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant, not being the transferee within the meaning of Section 53-A, could not protect his possession against the respondent. The appellant did not acquire any possessory or equitable title to the suit land through Pishorrilal, who himself did not have any right in the property. The court ruled that the appellant's claim lacked merit and dismissed the appeal with costs.
-
2004 (8) TMI 687
Issues: Appeal against Order-in-Original for non-payment of service tax on facilitation cost reimbursement received by the appellant. Challenge to findings of adjudicating authority on grounds of service tax imposition and penalties.
Analysis:
The case involved an appeal by M/s. Maini Precision Private Limited against an Order-in-Original passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore II Commissionerate. The appellant received facilitation cost reimbursement from their joint venture unit, M/s. Berger Maine Products, which the department alleged to be for Management Consultancy services. The adjudicating authority confirmed a demand of &8377; 1,23,000/- and imposed penalties under Sections 75, 76, and 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellants contested these findings on various grounds.
Upon careful examination of the case records, it was observed that the facilitation charges received by the appellants were for providing facilities to the joint venture unit, such as factory building, lab testing facilities, and other operational expenses. The Commissioner noted that merely providing such facilities did not amount to the appellant rendering Management Consultancy services. Additionally, it was highlighted that the demand for service tax was made under Section 68, which was deemed fatal to the department's case. The Commissioner emphasized that in cases of service tax escapement, the demand should be raised under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994, rather than Section 68. Based on these findings, the Order-in-Original was deemed unjustified and set aside.
In the final order, the Commissioner allowed the appeal with consequential relief, indicating a favorable outcome for M/s. Maini Precision Private Limited in their dispute regarding the service tax imposition on the facilitation cost reimbursement received from their joint venture unit.
-
2004 (8) TMI 686
Whether to the effect of Section 70 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the '1999 Act' or the 'New Act') on the proceedings pending before this Court?
Whether if the proceedings continue to survive unabated for adjudication on merits whether a ground for eviction under Section 21(1)(f) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, hereinafter, the '1961 Act' or the 'Old Act'?
-
2004 (8) TMI 685
ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal issues considered in this judgment were: 1. Whether the retrenchment of the workman was in compliance with Section 25-F(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 2. Whether the plea of waiver or substantial compliance could be raised by the employer at the appellate stage. 3. Whether the retrenchment was illegal due to non-compliance with Rule 77-A of the West Bengal Industrial Disputes Rules regarding the maintenance of a seniority list. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS 1. Compliance with Section 25-F(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 25-F(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act mandates that a workman must be given one month's notice or wages in lieu thereof, along with compensation equivalent to fifteen days' average pay for every completed year of continuous service before retrenchment. The provision is imperative, and non-compliance renders the retrenchment void ab initio. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court emphasized that Section 25-F(b) is mandatory and that non-compliance results in the retrenchment being void. The workman had not received the full compensation as required, which was a critical factor in deeming the retrenchment illegal. Key evidence and findings: The Industrial Tribunal found that the retrenchment was not in compliance with the statutory requirements, as the compensation paid was insufficient. The Tribunal's decision was initially upheld by a Single Judge but overturned by the Division Bench, which accepted the employer's plea of substantial compliance and waiver. Application of law to facts: The Court found that the Division Bench erred in accepting the plea of substantial compliance, as the statutory requirements of Section 25-F(b) were not met. The Court reinstated the Industrial Tribunal's decision, emphasizing the mandatory nature of the provision. Treatment of competing arguments: The respondent argued that the workman had waived his rights by accepting the compensation, but the Court found that waiver was not applicable as it was not raised at the appropriate stage and the statutory right could not be waived without explicit agreement. Conclusions: The Court concluded that the retrenchment was illegal due to non-compliance with Section 25-F(b), and the workman was entitled to reinstatement with all benefits. 2. Plea of Waiver or Substantial Compliance Relevant legal framework and precedents: The principle of waiver is contractual and requires a party to knowingly relinquish a right. It cannot be presumed and must be explicitly pleaded and proven. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court held that the plea of waiver was not raised before the Tribunal or the Single Judge and could not be introduced at the appellate stage. The Division Bench's acceptance of this plea was erroneous. Key evidence and findings: The Court noted that the employer did not raise the plea of waiver during the initial proceedings, and there was no evidence of an agreement to waive the statutory rights. Application of law to facts: The Court applied the principle that waiver must be explicitly pleaded and proven, which was not done in this case. The Division Bench's reliance on waiver was therefore misplaced. Treatment of competing arguments: The Court dismissed the employer's argument of waiver due to lack of evidence and failure to raise it at the appropriate stage. Conclusions: The Court rejected the plea of waiver and reinstated the Industrial Tribunal's decision. 3. Non-compliance with Rule 77-A of the West Bengal Industrial Disputes Rules Relevant legal framework and precedents: Rule 77-A requires the maintenance of a seniority list, which is crucial for determining the order of retrenchment under the "last come, first go" principle. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court found that the employer failed to maintain the required seniority list, which was a significant procedural lapse contributing to the illegality of the retrenchment. Key evidence and findings: The Industrial Tribunal noted the absence of a seniority list and found that the retrenchment was not justified as per the rules. Application of law to facts: The lack of a seniority list was a procedural defect that rendered the retrenchment illegal, as it violated the statutory requirement. Treatment of competing arguments: The employer's argument that the omission was not significant was rejected, as the rule's compliance is mandatory. Conclusions: The Court upheld the Tribunal's finding of illegality due to non-compliance with Rule 77-A. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS The Court held that the retrenchment was illegal due to non-compliance with Section 25-F(b) and Rule 77-A. The judgment emphasized the mandatory nature of these provisions and rejected the plea of waiver. The Court reinstated the Industrial Tribunal's award, granting the workman reinstatement with all benefits. Preserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: "The requirement to comply with the provision of Section 25-F(b) has been held to be mandatory before retrenchment of a workman is given effect to. In the event of any contravention of the said mandatory requirement, the retrenchment would be rendered void ab initio." Core principles established: The judgment reinforced the mandatory nature of statutory provisions concerning retrenchment and the necessity for employers to comply fully with these requirements. It also clarified the application of waiver in legal proceedings. Final determinations on each issue: The Court determined that the retrenchment was void due to non-compliance with statutory requirements and rejected the employer's plea of waiver. The workman was entitled to reinstatement with all benefits.
-
2004 (8) TMI 684
Winding up petition - remedy for enforcing payment of a just debt - discretionary order - whether the debt which is the subject-matter of the winding up notice is a bona fide disputed one or not - Power of Company Court for jurisdiction to call for security - HELD THAT:- The general view and also our view that the formation of the opinion of the Single Judge at the admission stage that the debt of the Company is indisputable, and the binding and final nature of that opinion, docs not really come in conflict with these dicta of the Division Bench. The reason is this; at the stage of admission the parties present before the Court are the company and the petitioning creditor. The decision of the Court that the debt of the company is final and binding binds them, and all other Courts in the same manner as a summary decree does. This is putting the matter on a very high pedestal, but it is, both logically and as matter of law already placed on that high pedestal.
But at the stage of the hearing of the winding up petition, the company has already, to a certain extent split up into the creditors and the contributories who come and make representations on their own behalf and by themselves, even apart from the submission which might be made by the company. The parties are different and many more than were present at the stage of admission. After hearing all those parties the Company Court could, at the final stage, take different view as to the debt than it has taken at the stage of admission. The admission stage view bound the company and the petitioning creditor finally, but not the others, and therefore not the Company Court also, when hearing the matter finally.
But this is an exclusive and sole prerogative of the Company Court only. This is so, because before no other Court the creditors or contributories of the company have a locus standi to make separate representations about the binding nature of a debt alleged to be owed by the company. The rule in Foss V. Harbottle would prevent such a separate representation. Therefore, until the company comes up for the decision whether it is to be wound up or not, and excepting during the process of that decision only, the final nature of the debt pronounced upon at the stage of admission of the winding up petition will bind the company for all purposes and before all forums and Courts.
The rights of the parties decided at the final hearing of the winding up petition primarily mean the right of the company to stay alive. This is not finally decided at the admission stage, but only a prima facie view is taken, that it might have to die. We would thus respectfully interpret the above dicta of G.K. Mitter, J.[1966 (3) TMI 35 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA], in the John Herbert case, mentioned.
We have formed our opinion that the debt owed by the company cannot, just now, be pronounced as final, binding and indisputable, even as between the petitioning creditor and the company only. On this view, we have been unable to sustain the impugned judgment.
The order under appeal is also, and as discussed, in the right view of the matter, not a discretionary order. There is no fiduciary relationship here as between the company and the petitioning creditor. Were the proof of the debt made indisputable, the Court would be compelled to admit the winding up petition. That it has been admitted by the first Court is not because of use of any discretion in this regard; it could be admitted only upon a finding that the debt is indisputable and the defence of the company is bogus, mala fide or moonshine. These words are not used, and the purport of His Lordship's judgment is not exactly, but only nearly the same. For the reasons given above we are, with all due respect, unable to agree with His Lordship. The appeal is allowed. The order under appeal is set aside. The winding up petition shall stand and remain adjourned until the disposal of the suit, i.e., the company's claim and the petitioning creditor's counter-claim.
Costs both the Court below and before us will abide by the result of the suit.
........
|
9911796707
