9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (10) TMI 500X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , auction was confirmed and the petitioner had paid a sum of Rs. 17,48,182. It is the case of the petitioner that even though a substantial amount had been paid and the petitioner was prepared to pay the balance amount to take delivery, the respondent did not accept the same. At this stage, the respondent issued a show-cause notice wherein it was pointed out that the firm of M/s. Sri Mahalakshmi Flour Mills, Bangalore, had taken sandalwood on earlier occasion and was liable to pay a huge amount towards sales tax and penal interest and demurrage charges, and filed W. P. No. 2239 of 1994 and had obtained interim order subject to condition to the effect that the bank guarantee towards sales tax amount of Rs. 20,07,209 and Rs. 80,31,289 towards ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he effect that the confirmation issued is withheld until renewal of the bank guarantee or until disposal of the appeal case in the High Court. 5. Such order has been challenged by the petitioner, viz., on the ground that the petitioner which has been incorporated under the Companies Act is a distinct entity and merely because two directors are also partners in the firm, viz., M/s. Sri Mahalakshmi Flour Mills, both the entities cannot be treated as the same. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the decision reported in Aron Saloman v. A. Saloman Co. Ltd. [1897] AC 22 (HL). 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other hand, contended that even though in law, the company is a d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nion of India v. Anand Singh Bisht AIR 1997 SC 361; ( iii ) Delhi Development Authority v. Skipper Construction Co. (P.) Ltd. [1996] 4 SCC 622/[1997] 89 Comp. Cas. 362 (SC); ( iv ) Subra Mukherjee v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. [2000] 101 Comp. Cas. 257 (SC); ( v ) Calcutta Chromotype Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise [1998] 3 SCC 681. 9. In all these decisions the principle enunciated in Sri Meenakshi Mills Ltd. s case ( supra ) has been reiterated. 10. The principles enunciated in these decisions would be applicable to a particular factual position. In the present case, in the impugned order nothing has been indicated as to why the respondent considered the firm and the company to be the same legal entity. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a bald order has been passed. 12. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I think the interests of justice would be served by quashing the impugned order and directing the respondent to consider the matter afresh keeping in view the relevant circumstances. For the aforesaid purposes, an opportunity of hearing should be given to the petitioner. Since the question of date of incorpora-tion and details relating to memorandum of association and articles of association are matters within the special knowledge of the petitioner, the petitioner is directed to furnish all those particulars. Similarly, if any other query is raised by the respondent relating to details of incorporation of the petitioner-company, such details should also be f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
