|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 349 Records
-
1998 (10) TMI 456
Whether a pawnbroker is a “dealer” and carries on “business” within the meaning of the State General Sales Tax Act read with the State Pawn Brokers Act and Rules when he causes the sales of unredeemed articles/goods, occasioned by the default of the pawner through (statutory) auctioneer?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. No hesitation to reject the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the pawnbroker cannot be treated as a seller of goods in the facts and circumstances of these cases and, therefore, not a “dealer” under the Sales Tax Act.
It is now well-settled that any activity incidental or ancillary to the main business will also come within the definition of “business” under the Sales Tax Act and, therefore, the contention that the sale of unredeemed goods, being incidental to the business of pawnbroker was not liable to sales tax, cannot be accepted.
-
1998 (10) TMI 452
Whether “toffee” is “sweetmeat” or a commodity of a like nature and therefore the appellant’s industrial units making toffees, though newly set-up, were not entitled to the benefit of exemption from payment of sales tax under notification dated July 27, 1991, issued by the State of Uttar Pradesh, in exercise of its powers under section 4-A of the Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax Act, 1948?
Held that:- Appeal allowed. High Court has not correctly interpreted and construed entry No. 18 of the notification. Considering the object of the notification and the intention of the State Government in granting exemption from payment of sales tax and applying the correct principles of interpretation in such cases, we hold that the word “sweetmeat” and the words “commodities of like nature” as used in the notification dated July 27, 1991 did not include within their sweep toffees manufactured by industrial units as contemplated by the notification and the Joint Director of Industries, the Tribunal and the High Court were wrong in taking a contrary view.
-
1998 (10) TMI 443
Issues Involved:
1. Legality and jurisdiction of the Government of India's decision to transfer the mining lease of Deposit 11-B to a joint venture company (JVC).
2. Allegations of mala fides and misuse of power by the Government in the transfer process.
3. Compliance with the National Mineral Policy and Industrial Policy Resolution.
4. The necessity and legality of floating tenders for the transfer of government property.
5. The role and authority of NMDC versus the Government of India in the decision-making process.
6. Judicial review of economic policy decisions and administrative actions.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Legality and Jurisdiction of the Government's Decision:
The petitioner questioned the transfer of the mining lease of Deposit 11-B by NMDC to a private sector JVC, arguing it was without jurisdiction and illegal. The court noted that the decision to transfer the deposit to the private sector was initially taken in 1991, and reiterated that the Government of India had the final authority to decide on such matters. The decision was part of a broader policy of economic liberalization and privatization, consistent with the National Mineral Policy of 1993 and the Industrial Policy Resolution of July 1991.
2. Allegations of Mala Fides and Misuse of Power:
The petitioner alleged that the Government's decision to transfer the lease to the 'M' group was a "naked sell-out" intended to enrich the private entity at the expense of the national exchequer. The court examined the decision-making process and found that various viewpoints, including those of NMDC, were considered over a period of five years. The court concluded that the final decision was not arbitrary, mala fide, or contrary to public interest, and thus did not warrant judicial interference.
3. Compliance with National Mineral Policy and Industrial Policy Resolution:
The petitioner argued that the transfer violated the guidelines of the National Mineral Policy and Industrial Policy Resolution, which preferred the allocation of undeveloped "green field" areas to the private sector. The court held that the policy did not prohibit the transfer of developed or semi-developed blocks and noted that the cost of development incurred by NMDC was to be reimbursed. The court found no contradiction with the policy guidelines.
4. Necessity and Legality of Floating Tenders:
The petitioner contended that the transfer should have been conducted through a public tender to ensure transparency and maximize revenue. The court acknowledged that while tenders or auctions are the normal methods for transferring government property, they are not the only methods. The court cited precedents where exceptions were made, provided the government acted fairly and in the best available arrangement. The decision to transfer the lease without a tender was deemed justified given the specific circumstances and national interest considerations.
5. Role and Authority of NMDC versus the Government of India:
The petitioner argued that NMDC, being an autonomous body, should have the final say in the transfer of its property, and that any directive should come from the President of India. The court referred to case law establishing that directives from the Government of India, expressed in the name of the President, are valid and binding. The court found that the Government's decision, including the letter dated 24-5-1994, did not require cabinet approval and was within its jurisdiction.
6. Judicial Review of Economic Policy Decisions and Administrative Actions:
The court emphasized the principle of judicial restraint in reviewing economic policy decisions and administrative actions. It reiterated that judicial review is concerned with the decision-making process, not the merits of the decision itself. The court cited multiple precedents affirming that the government has the latitude to make economic decisions, including privatization, provided they are not arbitrary or mala fide. The court concluded that the decision to transfer the lease to the 'M' group was a policy decision beyond the scope of judicial review, as it did not violate any constitutional or statutory provisions.
Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petition, finding no grounds to interfere with the Government's decision to transfer the mining lease of Deposit 11-B to the private sector JVC. The decision was deemed consistent with national policies, not arbitrary or mala fide, and within the Government's jurisdiction. The court emphasized the importance of judicial restraint in economic policy matters and upheld the Government's authority to make such decisions.
-
1998 (10) TMI 442
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the sale of assets by secured creditors during winding-up proceedings.
2. Applicability of sections 536(2) and 537 of the Companies Act, 1956.
3. Pari passu charge of workmen's dues under sections 529 and 529A of the Companies Act, 1956.
4. Requirement of court approval for the sale of assets by secured creditors.
5. Bona fide nature of the sale and protection of interests of the applicant and workmen.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of the sale of assets by secured creditors during winding-up proceedings:
The applicant sought a declaration that the respondent, through the official liquidator, had no claim on the factory premises. The applicant contended that the sale was conducted by the secured creditors, MSFC and SICOM, outside the winding-up proceedings, and thus no permission was required under section 537. The sale was completed before the winding-up order was passed, and the applicant had paid the entire consideration.
2. Applicability of sections 536(2) and 537 of the Companies Act, 1956:
Section 536(2) states that any disposition of the property of the company made after the commencement of the winding-up shall be void unless the court orders otherwise. Section 537(1)(b) provides that any sale held without the leave of the court after the commencement of the winding-up shall be void. The court noted that the winding-up is deemed to commence at the time of the presentation of the petition for winding-up, as per section 441(2). Therefore, the sale held by the secured creditors after the presentation of the winding-up petition was subject to the court's approval.
3. Pari passu charge of workmen's dues under sections 529 and 529A of the Companies Act, 1956:
The amendments introduced by the Companies (Amendment) Act, 1985, created a pari passu charge in favor of the workmen over the assets secured by the secured creditors. This charge arises from the date of the winding-up order. The court emphasized that the secured creditors no longer have an absolute right to the security but must consider the pari passu charge in favor of the workmen. The court referred to the Division Bench judgment in Maharashtra State Financial Corpn. v. Ballarpur Industries Ltd., which held that the secured creditors must obtain the court's permission before disposing of the assets.
4. Requirement of court approval for the sale of assets by secured creditors:
The court held that the secured creditors could not dispose of the property without the court's permission due to the pari passu charge in favor of the workmen. The court rejected the contention that the pari passu charge arises only upon the appointment of a provisional liquidator or the passing of a winding-up order. The court stated that accepting such a contention would defeat the purpose of the amendments introduced by the Companies (Amendment) Act, 1985, which aimed to protect the interests of the workmen.
5. Bona fide nature of the sale and protection of interests of the applicant and workmen:
The court found that the sale was conducted by public auction and the price obtained was reasonable, indicating that the sale was bona fide. The applicant had paid the entire consideration and made changes to the property, and was carrying on activities therein. The court decided to protect the interests of the applicant by confirming the sale, subject to certain conditions to protect the interests of the workmen.
Order:
The court confirmed the sale in favor of the applicant, subject to the secured creditors (Respondent Nos. 2 and 3) filing undertakings to deposit the amounts due to the workmen with the official liquidator. The undertakings must include a clause to deposit the sums within four weeks of the claims being ascertained by the official liquidator, along with simple interest at 12% per annum from the date of winding-up. The secured creditors were also directed to advance sums to the official liquidator for ascertaining the claims of the workmen. The judge's summons was disposed of accordingly, with parties bearing their own costs.
-
1998 (10) TMI 441
Issues Involved:
1. Petition for winding up under sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956.
2. Alleged debt and non-payment by the respondent company.
3. Disputed repayment and settlement claims.
4. Allegations of fraud, forgery, and manipulation of records.
5. Maintainability of the winding-up petition.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Petition for Winding Up:
The petitioner sought the winding up of the respondent company under sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956, on the grounds that the respondent company was indebted to the petitioner and had not paid its dues despite the service of statutory notice.
2. Alleged Debt and Non-Payment:
The petitioner claimed that a short-term loan of Rs. 4,75,000 was given to the respondent company in April 1989, which was payable on 28-2-1990 along with interest. Despite statutory notices served on 22-9-1995 and 4-1-1996, the respondent company did not pay the amount or reply to the notices.
3. Disputed Repayment and Settlement Claims:
The respondent company contended that a sum of Rs. 4.50 lakhs was paid to the petitioner in full and final settlement via cheque dated 29-3-1996, and this amount was credited to the petitioner's account. The petitioner disputed this claim, stating that the alleged payment was fraudulent and that the petitioner did not have an account in the Bank of Baroda, Khatema Branch, where the payment was allegedly credited.
4. Allegations of Fraud, Forgery, and Manipulation of Records:
The respondent alleged that the present petition was engineered by the petitioner's Chartered Accountants, who were also statutory auditors for both companies, in collusion with an ex-director of the respondent company. The petitioner denied these allegations, asserting that the directors who allegedly accepted the settlement had resigned in 1987 and had no locus standi to accept any payment on behalf of the petitioner.
5. Maintainability of the Winding-Up Petition:
The court noted that under section 433(e) of the Act, the debt must be undisputed, sure, and ascertained. The machinery for winding up cannot be used as a means for realizing a disputed debt. The court found that the allegations and counter-allegations raised highly disputed questions that required thorough investigation and could not be decided in summary proceedings. Therefore, the petition was dismissed on the grounds that the disputed questions could only be resolved through a regular trial before a competent court.
Conclusion:
The court dismissed the winding-up petition, emphasizing that the issues raised required detailed examination of evidence and could not be resolved through affidavits in summary proceedings. The court also clarified that any observations made in this order would not affect the merits of any subsequent suit or proceedings initiated by the parties. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.
-
1998 (10) TMI 440
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the respondent-company owes the petitioner an ascertained sum of money.
2. Whether the debt is within the period of limitation.
3. Whether the defense raised by the respondent-company is bona fide.
4. Whether the court should consider the commercial insolvency of the company at the admission stage.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Whether the respondent-company owes the petitioner an ascertained sum of money:
The petitioner, Ficom Organics Ltd., claimed that the respondent, Leffans Petrochemicals Ltd., owed a sum of Rs. 16,27,422.15 along with further interest at 24% p.a. The petitioner supplied various quantities of Nonyl Phenol to the respondent under eight invoices, and the respondent issued post-dated cheques for payment. However, the respondent requested the petitioner not to deposit these cheques and later issued stop payment instructions, leading to dishonor of the cheques. The petitioner served statutory notice under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, which the respondent did not honor.
2. Whether the debt is within the period of limitation:
There was no dispute regarding the limitation period for the debt claimed by the petitioner. The transactions and the subsequent statutory notice were all within the permissible period under the law.
3. Whether the defense raised by the respondent-company is bona fide:
The respondent-company raised defenses related to the delay in delivery, quantity, and quality of the material supplied. However, the court found these defenses to be not bona fide. The respondent did not raise these issues prior to the statutory notice and provided no substantial evidence to support their claims. The court noted that the respondent's conduct, including issuing post-dated cheques and then stopping payment, indicated a lack of bona fide defense. The court concluded that the dispute raised by the respondent was not genuine and was an afterthought.
4. Whether the court should consider the commercial insolvency of the company at the admission stage:
The court discussed the principles laid down in various judicial precedents, including the Apex Court's decision in Madhusudan Gordhandas & Co. v. Madhu Woollen Industries (P.) Ltd. The court emphasized that if the debt is undisputed and the defense is not bona fide, the court should admit the winding-up petition. The court held that the commercial insolvency of the company should be considered at the final hearing stage rather than at the admission stage. The court also noted that the respondent-company's assertion of being a running concern and commercially solvent did not preclude the admission of the petition if the defense to the debt was not bona fide.
Conclusion:
The court granted the respondent-company time until 30-11-1998 to pay the petitioner the sum of Rs. 16,27,422.15. If the respondent provided a letter from Sunstar Chemicals agreeing to adjust Rs. 3,50,000 against the amount payable, the respondent would need to pay Rs. 12,89,608 instead. The court clarified that this payment would not affect the petitioner's claim for interest. If the respondent failed to pay by the stipulated date, the court would proceed with the admission and advertisement of the winding-up petition. The court rejected the respondent's request for a stay of the order, noting that sufficient time had already been granted for further recourse.
-
1998 (10) TMI 439
Issues:
Postponement of shareholders' meeting due to alleged lack of clear notice period.
Analysis:
The judgment concerns an application seeking the postponement of a shareholders' meeting scheduled for 23-10-1998. The meeting was arranged for the approval of a scheme of amalgamation involving several companies. The applicant shareholder contended that he did not receive the notice of the meeting with sufficient time to prepare, as he received it on 12-10-1998. The applicant requested various documents related to the scheme of amalgamation, asserting that a 21-day clear notice period was mandatory and had not been met. However, the court examined the timeline of notice dispatch and receipt. It was determined that the notice was dispatched on 28-9-1998 and deemed to have been served on the applicant by 1-10-1998, meeting the 21-day requirement as per the Companies (Court) Rules, 1953. The court noted that the applicant likely received the notice within a few days of posting, as per postal regulations. Consequently, the court rejected the argument that the notice was invalid due to insufficient notice period and dismissed the application for postponement of the meeting.
In conclusion, the court found that the notice period for the shareholders' meeting was in compliance with the legal requirements, and therefore, there was no valid reason to postpone the meeting. The judgment highlighted the importance of adhering to the prescribed notice periods in such corporate matters to ensure procedural fairness and compliance with the Companies Act and relevant rules.
-
1998 (10) TMI 438
Issues Involved:
1. Petition for winding up under sections 433(e) and (f) of the Companies Act, 1956.
2. Alleged debt and non-payment by the respondent company.
3. Bona fide dispute regarding the amount claimed.
4. Admission of debt and subsequent dispute.
5. Filing of civil suit by the petitioner.
6. Interest on the admitted amount.
7. Financial status and ability of the respondent company to pay its debts.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Petition for winding up under sections 433(e) and (f) of the Companies Act, 1956:
The petitioner filed a petition under sections 433(e) and (f) of the Companies Act, 1956, seeking the winding up of the respondent company on the grounds of insolvency and inability to pay its dues despite receiving a statutory notice.
2. Alleged debt and non-payment by the respondent company:
The petitioner claimed that the respondent owed Rs. 28,88,529.25 along with interest at 24% per annum based on custom and trade practices. Despite repeated demands and a statutory notice dated 31-12-1994, the respondent did not make the payment.
3. Bona fide dispute regarding the amount claimed:
The respondent disputed the amount claimed, alleging overcharging by the petitioner and a bona fide dispute regarding the accounts. They claimed that the petitioner charged higher rates than agreed upon and that the dispute was genuine and not an afterthought.
4. Admission of debt and subsequent dispute:
The petitioner argued that the respondent had admitted a debt of Rs. 30 lakhs in an agreement dated 2-5-1994, and the dispute raised in the counter affidavit was not bona fide but a "moonshine" defense. The respondent, however, contended that the admission was inadvertent and the dispute regarding the rates was genuine.
5. Filing of civil suit by the petitioner:
The respondent highlighted that the petitioner had filed a civil suit for the recovery of the claimed amount, and the winding-up petition should be dismissed on this ground. The court noted that the suit involved the same disputed questions and should be adjudicated in the civil court.
6. Interest on the admitted amount:
The petitioner claimed interest at 24% per annum on the outstanding amount based on trade custom and practices. The respondent denied any liability for interest, and the court found no agreement or evidence supporting the claimed interest rate. However, the court directed the respondent to pay interest at 15% per annum (simple) on the admitted amount from the date of the statutory notice until the date of payment.
7. Financial status and ability of the respondent company to pay its debts:
The respondent argued that the financial difficulties were temporary due to the relocation and setting up of an affluent plant, and they had already paid a substantial amount to the petitioner. The court found no evidence of insolvency or inability to pay debts and noted that the company was operational and employing over 200 persons.
Conclusion:
The court concluded that the dispute raised by the respondent was bona fide and could not be decided in summary winding-up proceedings. The court directed the respondent to pay interest at 15% per annum on the admitted amount and costs to the petitioner. The winding-up petition was finally disposed of.
-
1998 (10) TMI 437
Issues:
1. Non-compliance with sections 454/456/468 of the Companies Act, 1956 by Ex-Directors.
2. Responsibility of Ex-Directors in filing statement of affairs and handing over assets.
3. Explanation for non-compliance by Ex-Directors.
4. Discharge of notices issued under section 454.
5. Failure to hand over assets to the Official Liquidator.
6. Investigation by CBI for cheating by Chit Fund Companies.
Analysis:
1. The case involved the Official Liquidator filing Company Application No. 24 of 1993 against Ex-Directors for non-compliance with sections 454/456/468 of the Companies Act, 1956. The Official Liquidator alleged that the Ex-Directors had not filed the statement of affairs within the statutory period, leading to the application seeking appropriate orders against them.
2. The Official Liquidator contended that the Ex-Directors had willfully committed default by not handing over assets and records of the company. On the other hand, the Ex-Directors argued that they were not in control of the company's affairs or possession of records due to the actions of the main Directors who had absconded post the winding up order.
3. The Court considered the submissions and noted that the Ex-Directors were required to file the statement of affairs and hand over assets as per legal provisions. While some Ex-Directors had valid explanations for non-compliance, such as being low-paid employees fraudulently shown as directors, the Court found their reasons acceptable and discharged the notices issued under section 454.
4. Regarding the failure to hand over assets to the Official Liquidator, the Court found that the Ex-Directors had given the assets in supurdgi to another individual who was not traceable. The Court acknowledged the explanation provided by the Ex-Directors and allowed the Official Liquidator to take further steps to investigate the matter.
5. The judgment highlighted the prevalence of Chit Fund Companies cheating the public and emphasized the need for investigation by agencies like the CBI. The Court expressed concern over such fraudulent activities and recommended thorough investigation to hold the culprits accountable.
6. Ultimately, the Court disposed of Company Application No. 24 of 1993, concluding the case with observations on the need for stringent actions against fraudulent practices in Chit Fund Companies and the importance of investigating such cases to ensure justice.
-
1998 (10) TMI 435
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of the Limitation Act to arbitration between a member and a non-member of the Bombay Stock Exchange.
2. Validity of the award passed beyond the prescribed time without consent for extension.
3. Composition of the Arbitral Tribunal under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Applicability of the Limitation Act:
The common question in all three petitions was whether the provisions of the Limitation Act apply to transactions between a member and a non-member conducted on the Bombay Stock Exchange under the bye-laws framed by the Bombay Stock Exchange pursuant to section 9 of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 (SCRA). The petitioners argued that the arbitration agreement between a member and a non-member is independent of the bye-laws framed under the SCRA and, therefore, the Limitation Act should apply. They cited various precedents to support their contention, including the case of Collector of Aurangabad v. Central Bank of India, where the Supreme Court held that the procedure for recovering tax as arrears of land revenue does not convert tax into land revenue. However, the court held that the arbitration provision is under the bye-laws of the Bombay Stock Exchange, which are framed under section 9 of the SCRA. Consequently, the arbitration agreement falls within section 46 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, and section 2(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Therefore, the provisions of the Limitation Act do not apply to arbitration between a member and a non-member in respect of transactions done under the Bombay Stock Exchange Act.
2. Validity of the Award Passed Beyond Prescribed Time:
The petitioners contended that the award was passed beyond the time specified for making the award without the parties' consent for an extension, making the award liable to be set aside. However, the court noted that the parties continued with the proceedings without any demur or protest. The Supreme Court, in the cases of State of Punjab v. Hardyal and Hindustan Steel Works Constructions Ltd v. C. Rajasekhar Rao, has held that the court can extend the time on the facts of the case. Therefore, the court extended the time under section 28 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, and rejected the petitioners' contention.
3. Composition of the Arbitral Tribunal:
In Arbitration Petition No. 318 of 1998, the petitioners argued that the composition of the Arbitral Tribunal was contrary to section 10 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which requires an odd number of arbitrators. The court upheld this contention, noting that the tribunal consisted of two members, which is contrary to section 10 of the 1996 Act. The court also addressed the issue of maintainability of the petition, stating that under section 14 of the 1996 Act, the mandate of the arbitrator shall terminate if he becomes de facto or de jure unable to perform his functions. Since the tribunal was not properly constituted, the arbitrators de jure could not perform their functions, and the court had jurisdiction under section 14(2) to decide the question. Consequently, the proceedings were terminated.
Conclusion:
- Arbitration Petition Nos. 82 of 1997 and 83 of 1997: The awards were set aside, and the matters were remitted back to the arbitrators for fresh decisions within four months.
- Arbitration Petition No. 318 of 1998: The proceedings were terminated due to improper composition of the Arbitral Tribunal.
Each party was ordered to bear their own costs.
-
1998 (10) TMI 433
Issues:
Winding up petition based on outstanding debt for air tickets sold and delivered. Maintainability of the petition due to alleged running account. Distinction between Network Limited and Network Medical entities. Claim of the petitioner against the respondent company. Reflection of payments and statutory notice service location.
Analysis:
The petitioner sought winding up of the respondent company due to an outstanding debt of Rs. 1,13,289.16 for air tickets sold and delivered, with an additional claim of interest at 24% per annum. The respondent raised defenses including the maintainability of the petition based on a running account and the distinction between Network Limited and Network Medical entities. The respondent denied liability, claiming payments were not correctly reflected in the accounts, and the statutory notice was not served at the registered office.
The court found the respondent's arguments regarding the petition's maintainability unsubstantiated. The claim was not based on a running account but on outstanding amounts against specific bills. The respondent admitted liability for Network Medical's outstanding amount of Rs. 75,143, which was not paid, making the denial of liability mala fide. The court cited a similar case where an acknowledgment of dues rendered a petition maintainable despite being a running account.
Regarding the distinction between Network Limited and Network Medical, the court found no merit in the respondent's argument. The petitioner was appointed as the travel agency for Network Limited, and Network Medical was considered a unit of Network Limited, not a separate entity. The court emphasized that maintaining separate accounts did not establish distinct entities.
The court also dismissed the respondent's claim of payments not being reflected in the accounts, as the petitioner had provided evidence of reflecting payments. The statutory notice was found to have been correctly served at the registered office, contrary to the respondent's argument of it being served elsewhere.
Lastly, the court rejected the respondent's argument of a bona fide dispute, finding the defenses raised to be mala fide. The respondent's failure to pay admitted amounts and the lack of genuine disputes led to the admission of the winding-up petition. The court appointed the official liquidator as the provisional liquidator of the company, ordering the seizure of assets and preparation of inventory.
-
1998 (10) TMI 432
Issues:
1. Petition for winding up under sections 433 and 434 read with section 439 of the Companies Act, 1956.
2. Dispute over the security deposit and refund.
3. Financial position and insolvency of the respondent-company.
4. Legitimacy of the winding up petition in the face of a disputed debt.
5. Time-barred claim for refund of security deposit.
Analysis:
1. The petitioner filed a winding-up petition against the respondent company under sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956, seeking to wind up the respondent due to commercial insolvency and failure to pay dues. The petitioner alleged non-acceptance of supplied cartons and sought a refund of the security deposit along with interest, claiming the respondent was unable to discharge debts.
2. The dispute centered around the security deposit, with the respondent contending that the deposit was forfeited due to the petitioner's failure to meet supply conditions. The court noted that such disputes over the validity of forfeiture are not suitable for summary proceedings and should be resolved through a civil suit, especially if the defense appears bona fide and likely to succeed.
3. The financial position of the respondent company was questioned, citing significant accumulated losses and liabilities exceeding assets. However, the respondent argued that being a government company, it was financially sound and fully supported by the Government of Himachal Pradesh to meet obligations, presenting a counter to the insolvency claim.
4. The court emphasized that a winding-up petition is not a tool to enforce disputed debts, cautioning against misuse to exert pressure. Citing legal precedents, the court highlighted that if a defense appears bona fide and likely to succeed in a civil court, it may not be a suitable case for winding up under section 433 of the Act.
5. Additionally, the court noted that the claim for refund of the security deposit was time-barred as the petition was filed more than six years after the refusal to refund. The court referred to the Limitation Act, 1963, specifying a three-year period for recovery of movable property, including money, which encompassed the security deposit. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition due to the time-barred nature of the claim and the presence of a bona fide defense by the respondent company.
-
1998 (10) TMI 399
Issues Involved:
1. Direction to convene meetings under Section 391 of the Companies Act, 1956.
2. Bona fides of the applicant-company.
3. Financial viability and turnaround strategy of the applicant-company.
4. Opposition from petitioning creditors and their objections.
5. Legal principles governing the court's role in sanctioning schemes under Section 391.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Direction to Convene Meetings:
The applicant-company, engaged in the business of manufacturing industrial oils, sought directions to convene meetings under Section 391 of the Companies Act, 1956, to consider and approve a Scheme of compromise and arrangement between the company, its shareholders, and creditors. The Scheme included detailed provisions for the repayment of dues to unsecured and trade creditors based on the outstanding principal amounts.
2. Bona Fides of the Applicant-Company:
The bona fides of the applicant-company were questioned due to its past conduct, particularly in relation to the dues of ITC Classic Finance Ltd., which had advanced funds for purchasing windmills. The applicant-company retained a refunded amount without repaying ITC Classic Finance and produced a false certificate regarding the installation of windmills. This conduct raised doubts about the trustworthiness of the company in managing any Scheme.
3. Financial Viability and Turnaround Strategy:
The applicant-company proposed a turnaround strategy involving a joint venture with an NRI group, negotiations with banks for working capital, and the sale of office buildings. However, the financial statements indicated significant losses, reduced sales, and income, suggesting commercial insolvency. The Scheme's success depended on securing funds from the NRI group and banks, which were not firmly committed.
4. Opposition from Petitioning Creditors:
Petitioning creditors in various winding-up petitions opposed the Scheme, alleging it was a subterfuge to delay the hearing of winding-up petitions and to benefit others by dissipating the company's assets. They highlighted discrepancies in the company's accounts and the non-payment of declared dividends, which violated Section 205 and constituted an offense under Section 207 of the Companies Act.
5. Legal Principles Governing the Court's Role:
The court referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Mihir H. Mafatlal v. Mafatlal Industries, emphasizing that the court's role is limited to ensuring the proper conduct of the Scheme rather than evaluating its merits. However, the court must ensure the Scheme is bona fide and in the company's interest. In this case, the court found no prima facie evidence that the Scheme was bona fide or in the company's interest, given the serious allegations and substantial opposition from creditors.
Conclusion:
The application to convene meetings under Section 391 was rejected due to the lack of prima facie evidence of the Scheme's bona fides and the significant opposition from creditors, coupled with the company's questionable conduct and financial instability.
-
1998 (10) TMI 398
Issues:
1. Petition for winding up under sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956.
2. Disputed lease agreement for gas cylinders.
3. Defenses raised by the respondent company.
4. Jurisdiction of the Court.
5. Company's financial position and ability to pay debts.
6. Disputed claims and time-barred payments.
7. Arrears of rent and liability of the company.
8. Appointment of Official Liquidator and winding up order.
Analysis:
1. The petitioner filed a winding-up petition against the respondent company under sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956, based on a lease agreement for 1000 gas cylinders. The company failed to make lease payments, leading to the petitioner's claim of Rs. 62,06,958.74.
2. The respondent company contested the petition on the grounds of disputed claims, time-barred payments, and jurisdiction. They argued that the lease amounts from certain months were time-barred and disputed the interest rate. However, the court found that the company had not paid the principal amount of Rs. 57 lakhs, rendering the interest rate dispute irrelevant.
3. The defense regarding territorial jurisdiction was dismissed as the company's registered office was within the Court's jurisdiction. The company's claim of having assets over Rs. 10 crores and being commercially solvent was rejected based on the principle that undisputed debts warrant winding-up orders.
4. The court addressed the issue of arrears of rent as a debt, emphasizing that the company's liability was clear despite attempts to dispute it. The defense that rent payment was contingent on an explosive certificate was deemed unfounded, especially since the company had issued a cheque for the rent.
5. The court found the company's defenses to be lacking in bona fides, citing precedents that supported the petitioner's request for winding up. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the respondent company was ordered to be wound up. The Official Liquidator was appointed to take possession of the company's assets and carry out the liquidation process as per sections 456 and 457 of the Companies Act, 1956. Public notices of the winding-up were to be published in specified newspapers.
-
1998 (10) TMI 395
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the petitioner creditor is owed an ascertained sum of money by the respondent company.
2. Whether the said debt is within limitation.
3. Whether the defence of the respondent company is valid or bona fide or merely a moonshine.
Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: Whether the petitioner creditor is owed an ascertained sum of money by the respondent company.
The petitioner, Conart Engineers Ltd., claimed that the respondent, Laffans Petrochemicals Ltd., owed them Rs. 92,866 for construction work at the respondent's factory. The petitioner had completed the work and submitted bills, which were allegedly certified by the respondent's General Manager (Operations). Despite repeated requests and a statutory notice dated 20-1-1997, the respondent failed to pay the outstanding amount. The respondent, however, disputed this claim, stating that no amount was outstanding as per their books and that they had made all payments duly certified by their architect. The respondent also mentioned a final payment of Rs. 25,000 made in October 1996.
Issue 2: Whether the said debt is within limitation.
The petitioner served a statutory notice on 20-1-1997, and the petition was filed in July 1997. The respondent did not provide a timely reply to the statutory notice, leading to the filing of the winding-up petition. The petitioner argued that the respondent's failure to reply to the statutory notice indicated an after-thought defence. The respondent claimed to have replied via a letter dated 14-3-1997, but failed to produce a copy or acknowledgment of this letter.
Issue 3: Whether the defence of the respondent company is valid or bona fide or merely a moonshine.
The court examined the nature of the respective cases and the conduct of the parties. The respondent's claim of a final payment in October 1996 was inconsistent with a fax message dated 22-7-1997, in which the respondent requested duplicate certified copies of the invoices to settle the outstanding payment. This inconsistency suggested that the respondent's defence might not be bona fide. However, the petitioner failed to produce certified copies of the bills or the original bills at the hearing, which weakened their position.
Court's Findings:
1. Summary Inquiry: The court held a summary inquiry to determine if the petitioner made a prima facie case that the respondent owed a determinate sum of money. The court noted that the petitioner did not produce certified bills, and the respondent's inconsistent pleas raised doubts about the bona fides of their defence.
2. Bona Fide Defence: The court found it challenging to conclusively determine whether the respondent's defence was bona fide due to the inconsistent statements and lack of documentary evidence from both parties. The court noted that the respondent's defence appeared to be an after-thought and potentially a mere cloak to cover up their refusal to pay.
3. Order: The court ordered the respondent to deposit 50% of the claimed amount (Rs. 44,000) within one month. If the respondent complied, the petition would be dismissed, and the petitioner could pursue a civil suit. If the respondent failed to deposit the amount, the petition would be admitted and placed for advertisement.
Conclusion:
The court's decision was based on a detailed examination of the pleadings and evidence. The respondent's inconsistent defence and the petitioner's failure to produce crucial documents led to a conditional order requiring the respondent to deposit part of the claimed amount. This approach balanced the interests of both parties and provided a pathway for further legal action if necessary.
-
1998 (10) TMI 394
Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the petition based on running account.
2. Validity of the affidavit filed in support of the winding-up petition.
3. Allegations of irregular and defective supply of materials.
4. Admission of liability by the respondent-company.
Summary:
1. Maintainability of the Petition Based on Running Account:
The respondent argued that the petition is based on a running account and thus not maintainable. They cited the petitioner's suit before the Civil Judge, Howrah, where it was stated that the account was "open, current continuous and running." However, the petitioner contended that payments were made against individual invoices, not a running account. The court found substance in the petitioner's argument, noting that the suit was based on non-payment of specific invoices. The court concluded that the petition is maintainable, as the respondent had admitted liability in various communications.
2. Validity of the Affidavit Filed in Support of the Winding-Up Petition:
The respondent challenged the affidavit's validity, claiming it did not comply with Rule 21 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, and Form No. 3. The court acknowledged that the affidavit was defective as it was not properly verified and did not disclose the affiant's authority. However, the court held that a defective affidavit is a procedural irregularity that can be rectified. Citing precedents, the court allowed the petitioner to file a fresh affidavit within two weeks.
3. Allegations of Irregular and Defective Supply of Materials:
The respondent claimed that the supply of materials was irregular and defective, causing them losses. However, the court found no evidence supporting these allegations. The respondent had not lodged any complaints about the supply before the demand notice and had even placed further orders. The court deemed the respondent's defense as an afterthought and not bona fide.
4. Admission of Liability by the Respondent-Company:
The court noted that the respondent had admitted its liability in several letters, citing financial difficulties as the reason for non-payment. These admissions undermined the respondent's defense of irregular and defective supply. The court concluded that the respondent's inability to pay its debts was evident, attracting the provisions of section 433 of the Companies Act, 1956.
Conclusion:
The court found no merit in the objections raised by the respondent-company and admitted the winding-up petition. The petitioner was given an opportunity to file a proper affidavit in compliance with the rules.
-
1998 (10) TMI 392
Issues Involved:
1. SEBI's request for court intervention to protect investors.
2. The necessity for regulatory measures against fraudulent Plantation Companies.
3. The role of the Central and State Governments in enacting appropriate legislation.
4. The Court's authority to issue directions under Article 226 of the Constitution.
5. The investigation and attachment of properties of the respondents.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. SEBI's Request for Court Intervention to Protect Investors:
The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) filed a petition seeking court directions to the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) to issue orders to commercial and co-operative banks to restrain the respondents from withdrawing money from their accounts. SEBI argued that until regulations under section 12(1)(b) of the SEBI Act are framed, such measures are necessary to protect investors from fraudulent schemes by Plantation Companies. The Court acknowledged the unusual nature of the petition, noting that typically, it is the function of SEBI or the Central Government to frame regulations.
2. The Necessity for Regulatory Measures Against Fraudulent Plantation Companies:
The Court recognized the urgent need for regulatory measures to prevent large-scale fraud by Plantation Companies offering disproportionately high returns. The absence of statutory regulations was highlighted, and the Court noted that while the Indian Penal Code, 1860 could address some frauds, comprehensive regulations were necessary. SEBI and the Additional Solicitor General committed to moving the Central Government to finalize the proposed regulations.
3. The Role of the Central and State Governments in Enacting Appropriate Legislation:
The Court emphasized that it is the responsibility of the Central and State Governments to enact legislation to protect investors from fraudulent schemes. The Court noted that despite the absence of specific legislation, the Indian Penal Code could address some fraudulent activities, but comprehensive regulatory measures were urgently required.
4. The Court's Authority to Issue Directions Under Article 226 of the Constitution:
The Court referred to its order dated June 16, 1998, stating that it could not be a silent spectator to the fraudulent activities of Plantation Companies. The Court cited the Delhi Development Authority v. Skipper Construction Co. (P.) Ltd. case, where the Supreme Court held that the corporate veil could be lifted to prevent fraud and illegalities. The Court asserted its authority under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue directions for public interest, including freezing bank accounts and attaching properties of the respondents.
5. The Investigation and Attachment of Properties of the Respondents:
The Court directed the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai, to appoint the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Economic Offences Wing, to investigate the respondent company's affairs. The RBI was instructed to appoint auditors to assist in the inquiry. The respondents were ordered to disclose their assets and bank accounts under oath. The Court also directed the attachment of properties belonging to the respondents to prevent the siphoning off of investors' money. The Deputy Commissioner of Police was tasked with preparing an inventory of the properties and submitting an interim report.
Conclusion:
The Court recognized the gravity of the situation involving fraudulent Plantation Companies and issued comprehensive directions to protect investors. The investigation revealed significant mismanagement and diversion of funds by the respondent company's directors. The Court hoped that the Central and State Governments would promptly enact appropriate regulations to prevent such frauds in the future. The matter was adjourned to November 23, 1998, for further proceedings.
-
1998 (10) TMI 366
Issues:
1. Central Excise duty demand and penalty imposition based on alleged non-payment and non-compliance.
2. Validity of statements recorded and subsequent retractions by individuals involved.
3. Evaluation of the retraction plea and its impact on the Commissioner's decision.
4. Assessment of the evidence presented and its credibility in determining the duty demand and penalty imposition.
Central Excise Duty Demand and Penalty Imposition:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal challenged the Order-in-Original demanding Central Excise duty of Rs. 74,844.20 and imposing a penalty of Rs. 50,000 on the appellant for allegedly manufacturing and removing Biris without payment of duty and without proper registration. The Commissioner's decision was based on statements obtained from the appellant and two individuals involved in supplying Biris. The appellant's defense argued that the statements were not voluntary and true, emphasizing that the individuals had retracted their statements by filing sworn affidavits claiming their signatures were taken on blank papers. Despite the retraction, the Departmental Representative cited a Supreme Court judgment to support the admissibility of the original statements, highlighting the belated nature of the retractions. The Commissioner's order was upheld concerning the duty demand, but the penalty was reduced to Rs. 10,000 by the Appellate Tribunal.
Validity of Statements and Subsequent Retractions:
The crux of the appeal revolved around the validity of the statements recorded from the appellant and the individuals supplying Biris. The appellant's contention that the statements were coerced and not genuine was supported by the individuals' retractions through sworn affidavits. However, the Departmental Representative argued that the belated retractions, occurring nearly two years after the original statements, lacked credibility. The Appellate Tribunal considered the timing of the retractions and the manner in which the statements were obtained, ultimately upholding the Commissioner's reliance on the original statements despite the retraction attempts.
Evaluation of Retraction Plea and Impact on Commissioner's Decision:
The Appellate Tribunal scrutinized the retraction plea made by the individuals supplying Biris and its impact on the Commissioner's decision. The delay in retracting the statements, coupled with the lack of prompt disclosure regarding the alleged coercion during the original statement recording, weakened the credibility of the retractions. The Tribunal emphasized that the individuals' failure to raise concerns about signing blank papers promptly undermined the validity of their later claims. Consequently, the Appellate Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision based on the original statements rather than the subsequent retractions.
Assessment of Evidence and Credibility in Duty Demand and Penalty Imposition:
In assessing the evidence presented, the Appellate Tribunal considered the circumstances surrounding the statements obtained from the appellant and the individuals supplying Biris. Despite the defense's argument that the statements were fabricated, the Tribunal found the original statements to be credible, given the lack of immediate objection or disclosure regarding coercion during their recording. The positioning of signatures on the statements and the absence of a compelling reason for officers to fabricate evidence against the appellant further supported the Tribunal's decision to uphold the duty demand while reducing the penalty imposed by the Commissioner.
---
-
1998 (10) TMI 365
Issues Involved:
1. Excisability and marketability of P.C. acid.
2. Alleged suppression of facts by the appellants.
3. Applicability of the extended period of limitation under Section 11A(1).
4. Breach of principles of natural justice.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Excisability and Marketability of P.C. Acid:
The appellants contended that P.C. acid was not excisable as it was used captively in a continuous integrated process and was not a marketable commodity. They argued that the Collector erroneously concluded that P.C. acid was stable and marketable based on undisclosed technical references, thus denying the appellants the opportunity to address the same. The Department countered that P.C. acid was a well-defined organic chemical with a definite molecular formula and weight, known in the market, and hence excisable. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Bhor Industries Ltd. v. CCE, which held that an article must be known in the market or capable of being sold to be considered "goods." The Tribunal found that P.C. acid was isolatable and had sufficient shelf life to be marketable, thus confirming its excisability.
2. Alleged Suppression of Facts:
The appellants claimed that there was no suppression or misstatement of facts regarding the intermediates. The show cause notices issued earlier did not allege suppression, and the classification list and price list were approved by the proper officer. The Department argued that the appellants did not fully explain the manufacturing process, which prevented the Department from concluding the stable condition of P.C. acid. The Tribunal noted that the classification list did not mention P.C. acid, and the write-up provided did not clarify its manufacture, leading to the conclusion that there was a suppression of facts.
3. Applicability of the Extended Period of Limitation:
The appellants argued that the demand was time-barred as it was made beyond the six-month period. The Department invoked the extended period under Section 11A(1) due to the alleged suppression of relevant facts. The Tribunal found that the appellants had not declared the production of P.C. acid in the classification list or elsewhere, justifying the use of the extended period of limitation.
4. Breach of Principles of Natural Justice:
The appellants contended that the reliance on undisclosed technical literature by the Collector amounted to a breach of natural justice. The Vice-President agreed, stating that the Collector should have disclosed the technical literature relied upon to allow the appellants to address it. However, the majority view did not find this argument sufficient to overturn the impugned order.
Separate Judgments:
- Member (J): Rejected the appeal, finding no legal or other infirmity in the impugned order.
- Vice-President: Proposed setting aside the impugned order and remanding the matter for de novo consideration, citing non-disclosure of technical literature and breach of natural justice.
- Third Member (T): Agreed with Member (J), rejecting the appeal and confirming the excisability and marketability of P.C. acid.
Conclusion:
In view of the majority opinion, the appeal was rejected, upholding the duty demand and penalties imposed on the appellants. The Tribunal confirmed that P.C. acid was excisable and marketable, and the extended period of limitation was applicable due to the suppression of facts by the appellants.
-
1998 (10) TMI 350
The appellate tribunal upheld the demand of central excise duty of Rs. 29,306.00 on M/s. Monic Beads Pvt. Ltd. for manufacturing glass beads from glass tubes. The penalty of Rs. 30,000/- was reduced to Rs. 5,000/- due to a bona fide belief by the appellants. The appeal was rejected, and cross-objections were disposed of accordingly.
........
|
9911796707
