|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 51 of 51 Records
-
1964 (2) TMI 33
Issues:
Confirmation of special resolution under section 17 of the Companies Act, 1956 for adding new business objects.
Analysis:
The petition was filed by a company seeking confirmation of a special resolution to add new business objects allowing export business in various goods and commodities. The Registrar of Companies expressed concerns that the proposed objects might not align with section 17(1) of the Companies Act, as the petitioner did not adequately explain how the new objects could be integrated with the existing business. The court noted that section 17(1)(a) and (d) use broad language, making it challenging to limit their scope to specific situations. The decision on whether to expand business operations rests with the directors, who are best suited due to their industry experience. The court's role is to assess if the directors' opinion is reasonable based on the facts presented. The court emphasized that it cannot question the directors' judgment if they believe the new objects can be conveniently combined with the existing business.
The court highlighted section 17(1)(d), which allows a company to engage in a business that can be advantageously combined with its current operations. The court reiterated that while it can evaluate if the requirements of clause (d) are met, the ultimate decision hinges on the directors' assessment of convenience and advantage. The court cannot delve into the directors' rationale unless it is evidently unreasonable. Additionally, the court emphasized that section 17(1) should be interpreted liberally to enable companies to diversify their operations effectively. In this case, the company's existing objects encompass a wide range of businesses beyond cement production, including engineering, manufacturing, trading, and financial activities. The company argued that its export expansion aligns with its current business scope and leverages existing international contacts. The court found the company's reasoning logical and fair, indicating that the proposed objects likely fall within the ambit of section 17(1)(a) and (d).
The court granted the prayer for confirmation of the special resolution, acknowledging the company's valid arguments regarding the expansion of business objects. The petitioner was directed to bear the Registrar's costs, set at Rs. 150. The judgment underscores the importance of directors' discretion in determining business strategies and the court's limited role in scrutinizing their decisions under section 17 of the Companies Act.
-
1964 (2) TMI 32
Whether, in the circumstances of the present petitions, we would be justified in acceding to the argument that the veil of the petitioning corporations should be lifted and it should be held that their shareholders who are Indian citizens should be permitted to invoke the protection of article 19, and on that basis, move this court under article 32 to challenge the validity of the orders passed by the Sales Tax Officers in respect of transactions which, it is alleged, are not taxable?
Held that:- We are satisfied that the argument based on the distinction between the two rights guaranteed by article 19(1)(c) and (g) and the effect of their combination cannot take the petitioners' case very far when they seek to invoke the doctrine that the veil of the corporation should be lifted. That is why we have come to the contusion that the petitions filed by the petitioners are incompetent under article 32, even though in each of these petitions one or two of the shareholders of the petitioning companies or corporation have joined.
The second preliminary objection raised by the respondents is upheld and the writ petitions are dismissed as being incompetent under article 32 of the Constitution.
-
1964 (2) TMI 31
Issues Involved:
1. Closure of the mill.
2. Cancellation of the adat agreement.
3. Agreement dated 10th January 1958.
4. Execution of the memorandum of equitable mortgage and pledges.
5. Sale of movable and immovable properties to Bharat Kala Bhandar Limited.
6. Payment of debts to directors and their relatives.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Closure of the Mill:
The mill was closed on 23rd April 1957 due to continued losses since 1949, except for a small profit in 1955. The machinery was old, and the unit was uneconomic. The committee appointed by the Government of Gujarat confirmed that the mill could not operate efficiently without a large rehabilitation program. The closure was not motivated by an ulterior motive to benefit the directors or controlling shareholders but was necessary due to the financial condition of the company.
2. Cancellation of the Adat Agreement:
The adat agreement was terminated on 8th December 1957 following a letter from Shah Manilal Mulchand dated 1st December 1957, citing the closure of the mill. The termination was justified as the agreement's obligation was co-extensive with the mill's operation. The termination was not prejudicial to the company's interests as the adat payable was on the higher side, and there was no evidence that finances could not be obtained from other sources at the same rate.
3. Agreement Dated 10th January 1958:
This agreement was made to align with the Companies Act, 1956, and was effective from 1st January 1957. The mill was operational until 25th April 1957. Despite the agreement providing for annual remuneration of Rs. 25,000, Messrs. Prahladji Sevakram and Company Limited did not receive any part of this remuneration, negating the petitioners' claim of exploitation.
4. Execution of the Memorandum of Equitable Mortgage and Pledges:
Executed on 29th March 1958 to secure debts owed to Shah Manilal Mulchand and other creditors, this action was not oppressive to minority shareholders. The debts were admitted, and the securities were given to avoid distress sales and further financial deterioration. The execution was not a preference over other creditors as there were no other significant unsecured creditors at that time.
5. Sale of Movable and Immovable Properties to Bharat Kala Bhandar Limited:
The sale was not at an undervalue; the price of Rs. 11,40,000 was reasonable given the condition of the machinery and the unit. The sale was necessary as the mill could not operate profitably, and the proceeds were used to pay off secured creditors. The sale was not prejudicial to the company's interests. The resolution for the sale was valid, and there was no contravention of section 173 of the Companies Act, 1956.
6. Payment of Debts to Directors and Their Relatives:
The sale proceeds were used to pay off the secured creditors, including directors and their relatives. This action was not oppressive as it was necessary to settle the company's debts. The directors and their relatives were also shareholders, and their interests were aligned with the company's financial health.
Conclusion:
The petitioners failed to establish that the affairs of the company were conducted in a manner oppressive to them or prejudicial to the company's interests. The actions taken by the directors and controlling shareholders were justified and necessary given the financial condition of the company. The petition was dismissed, with each party bearing its own costs.
-
1964 (2) TMI 30
Issues:
- Validity of power to refer disputes to arbitration by liquidator in a winding-up
- Exorbitant remuneration of voluntary liquidator
- Validity of resolutions passed by the board of directors
- Necessity of a supervision order under section 522 of the Companies Act, 1956
- Removal or reduction of remuneration of the voluntary liquidator
- Validity of the resolution authorizing reference of disputes to arbitration
Analysis:
The petition in this case raised multiple issues related to the winding-up process under the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioners challenged the power of the liquidator to refer disputes to arbitration, the exorbitant remuneration of the voluntary liquidator, and the validity of certain resolutions passed by the board of directors. The primary question before the court was whether a supervision order under section 522 of the Act was necessary in this scenario.
The court considered the concerns raised by the petitioners regarding the potential jeopardy of their interests in the winding-up process. While acknowledging that the voluntary liquidator was discharging duties properly, the court noted the apprehension of the petitioners regarding the compensation awarded in disputes. The court highlighted the wide powers granted under section 522 of the Act, allowing for the court to order supervision of the winding-up process as deemed fit and just.
In the judgment, the court directed that the voluntary winding-up should continue but under the supervision of the court. This decision aimed to provide creditors, contributories, and others the liberty to approach the court for any matters arising during the winding-up process. The court found no grounds for the removal or reduction of the voluntary liquidator's remuneration, dismissing those prayers.
Regarding the validity of the resolution authorizing the reference of disputes to arbitration, the court noted that the liquidator, independently, lacked the power to refer disputes to arbitration. However, the court found the resolution of May 14, 1963, valid in the context of expediency. The court emphasized that under the supervision order, the liquidator would need court sanction before implementing the resolution.
Ultimately, the court accepted the petition to the extent indicated but made no order as to costs. The judgment provided a comprehensive analysis of the issues raised, clarifying the powers and limitations within the winding-up process under the Companies Act, 1956.
-
1964 (2) TMI 7
Whether Parliament was not competent to include Hindu undivided families in the charging section 3 of the Act in view of the provision in Entry 86 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution ?
Whether the provision relating to Hindu undivided families was discriminatory and denied equal protection of laws and was, therefore, hit by article 14 of the Constitution?
Held that:- We have come to the conclusion that these cases must be remanded to the High Court for further consideration after giving parties an opportunity to place full facts in connection with the application of article 14 before it. The High Court itself pointed out that there was no averment on behalf of the writ petitioners before the High Court (now respondents before us) on the lines on which the argument finally developed at the bearing. It is true that some adjournments were granted by the High Court in this connection ; but we are not satisfied that the case for the application or otherwise of article 14 was properly put before the High Court by either side. We should like also to point out that the High Court seemed to take the view that it was for the State to show that article 14 was not applicable. This is not correct, for it is for the party who comes forward with the allegation that equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws is being denied to him to adduce facts to prove such denial. Appeals allowed by way of remand.
-
1964 (2) TMI 6
Validity of certain provisions of the Indore Industrial Tax Rules, 1927 and assessments made thereunder for the years 1940 to 1948 questioned
Held that:- All that section 5 of Act 1 of 1948 requires is the publication of the regulation made thereunder and its being made by Government; and that has been complied with in this case. There is no other formality required for making a regulation and we are therefore of opinion that even though there was a mistake in the opening part of the notification of December 28, 1949, the amendments made in the Tax Rules can be upheld under section 5 of Act 1 of 1948 as a regulation. We therefore reject the contention under this head.
Though the right of second appeal on facts is taken away by the new rule 13 inserted in the Tax Rules, such right is taken away by legislation by necessary intendment. In the circumstances we are of opinion that the right of second appeal after the amendment must be confined in all cases by necessary intendment to questions of law only. The contention under this head also fails.
The present cases are with reference to years 1940-48, that is before the accounting year ending on March 31, 1949. The assessments in these cases were carried on by the old officers under the old law and the Validating Act specifically validates such assessments. In these circumstances we have not been able to understand how it can be said that these assessments have not been validated by the Validating Act. The contention under this head must, therefore, also fail. Appeal dismissed.
-
1964 (2) TMI 5
Whether the continuance of the Bhopal State Agricultural Income-tax Act in the Bhopal region would be whether the differentiation arising from the continuation of the levy of the agricultural income-tax was unfair and not supported by a reasonable standard, and the State having the requisite information and opportunity to make the imposts reasonably uniform, had failed or neglected to do so?
Held that:- The petition filed by the company was singularly deficient in furnishing particulars which would justify the plea of infringement of article 14 of the Constitution. It cannot be too strongly emphasized that to make out a case of denial of the equal protection of the laws under article 14 of the Constitution, a plea of differential treatment is by itself not sufficient. The State also did not place evidence before the High Court, which would in the very nature of things be in its possession, showing a rational relation between the differential treatment and the classification and has also not placed any material before the court throwing light on the question whether the continuance of the tax was justified : it merely chose to plead its case as on a demurrer.
We think that this is a case in which the parties should be given an opportunity to plead their respective cases adequately and to go to trial after the requisite evidence which has a bearing is brought before the court. We accordingly allow the appeal, set aside the order and remand the case for re-trial to the High Court.Appeal allowed. Case remanded.
-
1964 (2) TMI 4
Whether the proceedings before an Income-tax Officer under section 37 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (XI of 1922) can be said to be a proceeding in any court within the meaning of section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
Held that:- We are not prepared to accept the appellant's argument that the Bombay High Court was in error in dismissing his complaint on the ground that the condition precedent prescribed by section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure had not been complied with as no complaint had been filed by the Income-tax Officer. Appeal dismissed.
-
1964 (2) TMI 3
Whether section 34(1A)of the Income-tax Act, 1922 is valid?
Held that:- No hesitation in holding that the challenge made to the validity of section 34(1A) on the ground that the remedy by way of appeals or revisions which is available to the assessees against whom proceedings are taken under section 34(1) is not available to the assessees who are covered by section 34(1A), cannot be sustained.
Once the notice is served under section 34(1) or section 34(1A), the rest of the procedure is just the same and all the remedies available to the assessees are also just the same. Therefore, we see no substance in the argument that the absence of the restriction as to period of limitation under section 34(1A) introduces any infirmity in the said provision. In the result, we must hold that section 34(1A) is valid and has not contravened article 14 of the Constitution. Appeal dismissed.
-
1964 (2) TMI 2
As the foreign companies whose vessels have contravened Section 52A and in respect of which penalties have been imposed under Section 167(12A) read with Section 183, are not entitled to claim the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution and so, that plea fails.
-
1964 (2) TMI 1
Issues Involved:
1. Scope and effect of Section 52A of the Sea Customs Act, 1878.
2. Whether the Customs Authorities and Central Board of Revenue are tribunals under Article 136 of the Constitution.
3. Requirement of mens rea for contravention of Section 52A.
4. Nature of the liability prescribed by Section 167(12A) of the Sea Customs Act.
5. Validity of the fine imposed in lieu of confiscation.
6. Constitutionality of Section 52A under Articles 14, 19, and 31(1) of the Constitution.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Scope and Effect of Section 52A of the Sea Customs Act, 1878:
The judgment clarifies that Section 52A prohibits vessels constructed, adapted, altered, or fitted for the purpose of concealing goods from entering or being within any port in India or Indian customs waters. The section's prohibition is absolute and does not require proof of the owner's or master's knowledge or intent. The mere presence of alterations for concealing goods constitutes a contravention.
2. Whether Customs Authorities and Central Board of Revenue are Tribunals under Article 136:
The court held that the Central Board of Revenue and the Central Government, when exercising appellate and revisional jurisdiction under Sections 190 and 191 of the Act, act as tribunals under Article 136. The adjudicatory process involves judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings, and the authorities are required to act in accordance with the principles of natural justice.
3. Requirement of Mens Rea for Contravention of Section 52A:
The court rejected the argument that mens rea is required for the contravention of Section 52A. It emphasized that the section's language and the legislative intent to combat smuggling necessitate an absolute prohibition without considering the owner's or master's knowledge or intent. The court noted that requiring proof of mens rea would render the section ineffective.
4. Nature of the Liability Prescribed by Section 167(12A):
The court held that Section 167(12A) mandates the confiscation of vessels contravening Section 52A and imposes a penalty on the master. The Customs Authority has no discretion to waive confiscation but must provide the owner an option to pay a fine in lieu of confiscation under Section 183. The fine amount is at the discretion of the adjudicating officer, considering all relevant circumstances.
5. Validity of the Fine Imposed in Lieu of Confiscation:
The court found the fine of Rs. 25 lakhs imposed on the vessel "Eastern Saga" to be reasonable, given the value of the smuggled gold and the vessel. It held that the fine was not excessive or vindictive, considering the severity of the offense and the need to deter smuggling activities. The court emphasized that the fine merely provided an option to the owner to release the vessel.
6. Constitutionality of Section 52A under Articles 14, 19, and 31(1):
The court dismissed the appellant's argument that Section 52A is unconstitutional under Articles 14, 19, and 31(1). It noted that the appellant, being a foreign company, cannot claim the benefits of Article 19. The court also rejected the plea under Articles 14 and 31(1), stating that the deprivation of property was by authority of law, and the inequality argument was not applicable since Article 19 rights are confined to Indian citizens.
Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed, and the court upheld the confiscation order and the fine imposed on the vessel "Eastern Saga." The writ petition challenging the validity of the Central Government's order was also dismissed.
|
9911796707
