|
|
Database updates
Judgments
(1) Sachchidanand (Sachchey); (2) Jagdish Narain Shukla; (3) Anand Vikram, Advocate vs (1) State of Uttar Pradesh and others; (2) Union of India and others
[ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT, 15 Nov 2011]
|
(1) Pan Asia Advisors Limited International Corporate Finance Minster, London, United Kingdom; (2) Arun Panchariya, Dubai, UAE vs Securities and Exchange Board of India, Mumbai
[SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 09 Nov 2011]
|
Kalpena Plastiks Limited, Kolkata vs Bombay Stock Exchange Limited, Mumbai
[SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 09 Nov 2011]
|
Employees Provident Fund Commissioner vs O. L. of Esskay Pharmaceuticals Limited
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 08 Nov 2011]
Corporate - Labour & Industrial Law - Practice & Procedure - Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 s. 11 - Companies Act, 1956 s. 529A - Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 - Provident Fund Due - Penalty - Validity - Respondent was pharmaceuticals company registered under the 1956 Act - Appellant-commissioner passed two orders u/s. 7A of the 1952 Act and held that respondent was liable to pay due to Employee Provident Fund (EPF) - Inspite of demand notice by appellant, respondent paid half of the due amount - Appellant passed an order u/s. 8F of the 1952 Act to the bankers of respondent and issued a sale notice for attachment of respondent's property - Appellant approached Official Liquidator for payment of amount determined u/s. 7A of the 1952 Act, but latter did not responded - Appellant filed company application for issue of direction to Official Liquidator to pay the amount under the 1952 Act, which was dismissed by Company Judge - Appellant filed an appeal before DB challenging order of Company Judge that amount due from appellant was first charge on the assets of respondents and was payable on priority to all other dues - DB dismissed appeal and held, Company Judge did not commit any error by dismissing the application filed by appellant - Hence, instant appeal - Whether priority given to the dues payable by respondent u/s. 11 of the 1952 Act was subject to s. 529A of the 1956 Act, on terms of which respondent's dues and debts due to appellants were required to be paid on priority to all other debts - Held, s. 529-A of the 1956 Act contained non obstante clause but in construing the provisions thereof, it was necessary to determine the purport and object for which the same was enacted - It was only to bring workmen's dues pari passu with secured creditors, that s. 529-A was enacted - Further, it should not lead to the conclusion that concept of inter se priorities amongst secured creditors had thereby been intended to be given a total go-by - The words 'all other debts' used in s. 11(2) of 1952 Act should necessarily include debts due to secured creditors like banks, financial institutions etc. - Thus, effect of amendment made on the 1956 Act was only to expand scope of the dues of workmen and place them at par with the debts due to secured creditors and there was no reason to interpret this amendment as giving priority to the debts due to secured creditor over dues of provident fund payable by an employer - Further, after the amount due from an employer under the 1952 Act was paid, other dues of workers should be treated at par with the debts due to secured creditors and payment thereof will be regulated u/s. 529(1) r/w ss. 529(3), 529A and 530 of the 1956 Act - Interpretation of s. 11 of the 1952 Act and ss. 529, 529A and 530 of the 1956 Act, judgment of DB, which turned on interpretation of s. 94 of the 1948 Act and ss. 529A and 530 of the 1956 Act on which reliance was placed by Company Judge and DB while dismissing applications filed by appellant, cannot be treated as laying down the correct law - Impugned order of Company Judge was set aside - Appeals allowed.
|
(1) V. T. Somasundaram, Chennai; (2) Trichy Distilleries and Chemicals Limited, Chennai vs (1) Madras Stock Exchange Limited, Chennai; (2) Securities and Exchange Board of India, Mumbai
[SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 04 Nov 2011]
|
In Re : Datasoft Application Software (India) Limited, In Respect of Ruchiraj Shares and Stock Brokers Private Limited vs
[SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA, 03 Nov 2011]
|
Aditya Birla Finance Limited, Indian Rayon Compound, Veraval, Gujarat vs (1) Securities and Exchange Board of India, Mumbai; (2) Mentor Capital Limited (Previously known as Pacific Corporate Services Limited), Mumbai
[SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 02 Nov 2011]
|
(1) Hindustan Dorr Oliver Limited; (2) Prabhakar Ram, Chairman; (3) E. Sudhir Reddy, Vice Chairman; (4) E. Sunil Reddy, Managing Director; (5) Shri S. C. Sekaran, Executive Director; (6) R. Balarami Reddy, Non-Executive Director; (7) K. H. K. Prasad, Independent Director; (8) T. N. Chaturvedi, Independent Director; (9) S. K. Tamotia, Independent Director; (10) Pragya Sahal, Compliance Officer, Mumbai vs Securities and Exchange Board of India, Mumbai
[SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 19 Oct 2011]
|
(1) Umashankar S/o Late Durgaprasad Saraf, through his legal heirs; (2) Mohinidevi W/o Umashankar Saraf; (3) Manoj S/o Umashankar Saraf; (4) Yogesh S/o Umashankar Saraf, New Delhi; (5) Aruna D/o Umashankar Saraf; (6) Sunaina Rajiv Gupta; (7) Narayandas S/o. Late Durgaprasad Saraf; (8) Sushiladevi W/o. Omprakash Parasram Puriya; (9) Ramkisan S/o Late Durgaprasad Saraf; (10) Murlidhar S/o Late Durgaprasad Saraf; (11) Premlatadevi Mor; (12) Vinodkumar S/o Late Vitthaldas Saraf; (13) Vinitkumar S/o. Late Vitthaldas Saraf; (14) Veenadevi W/o Ashokkumar Kanodia vs Official Liquidator of Rai Bahadur Shreeram Durgaprasad Company Limited
[BOMBAY HIGH COURT, 19 Oct 2011]
|
Kajal Shah, Palanpur vs Securities and Exchange Board of India, Mumbai
[SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 19 Oct 2011]
|
Mentor Capital Limited, Having its Registered Office, Mumbai vs Securities and Exchange Board of India, Mumbai
[SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 18 Oct 2011]
Securities Exchange Board of India - Securities Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 - Appellant were restrained from accessing the securities market and were also prohibited from buying, selling or dealing in securities by the ad-interim ex-parte order - On appeal, order was confirmed by Securities and Exchange Board of India (Board) - Hence, instant appeal - Investigations in the matter were still in progress and the Board found that the scrip of five companies had been manipulated and that a large number of entities were involved in the manipulation - Held, since the investigations were still pending, it may not be appropriate to examine the merits of the contentions - In this view of the matter, Board directed to conclude the investigations expeditiously - Appeal disposed of.
|
Daya Ram Verma and others vs Securities and Exchange Board of India
[DELHI HIGH COURT, 18 Oct 2011]
|
Sunil S. Dangi, Surat vs Securities and Exchange Board of India, Mumbai
[SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 14 Oct 2011]
Securities Exchange Board of India - Securities Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 - Appellant were restrained from accessing the securities market and were also prohibited from buying, selling or dealing in securities by the ad-interim ex-parte order - On appeal, order was confirmed by Securities and Exchange Board of India (Board) - Hence, instant appeal - Investigations in the matter were still in progress and the Board found that the scrip of five companies had been manipulated and that a large number of entities were involved in the manipulation - Held, since the investigations were still pending, it may not be appropriate to examine the merits of the contentions - In this view of the matter, Board directed to conclude the investigations expeditiously - Appeal disposed of.
|
P. R. Shah, Shares and Stock Broker (Private) Limited vs B. H. H. Securities (Private) Limited and others
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 14 Oct 2011]
Capital Market - Arbitration & ADR - Practice & Procedure - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, s. 34 - Appellant Stock Broker approached 1st respondent Stock Broker to get the carry forward transaction (sauda) of certain number of shares transferred with the 1st respondent on behalf of the 2nd respondent which was outstanding with the appellant - 1st respondent transferred shares to its account through a negotiated deal whereby it prepared, issued and delivered the contract and bill in favour of 2nd respondent for the payment of consideration - Appellant partly made the payment, however, it failed to make payment for the carry forward purchase of 15,000 shares - 1st respondent raised arbitration and Executive Director of 3rd respondent Exchange permitted the 1st respondent to file an arbitration claim against appellant and 2nd respondent - Arbitral Tribunal passed an award holding that 1st respondent was entitled to recover the due amount from appellant and 2nd respondent - Appellant filed application u/s. 34 of the Act before the HC challenging the arbitral award - Single Judge dismissed application - Appellant's intra-court appeal was dismissed by DB thereafter - (A) Whether the arbitration proceedings under Bye Law 282 of the 3rd respondent Exchange was sustainable since the 2nd respondent was a non-member of the Exchange - Held, 1st respondent had a claim for a sum jointly against 2nd respondent and the appellant - According to the 1st respondent, it entered into the transaction with 2nd respondent on the instructions of the appellant and on the understanding that the appellant would also be liable and in fact, the appellant accepting its liability, had also made a part-payment - It was not disputed that appellant and 2nd respondent were closely held family companies managed by the same person - In the instant case though the arbitration in respect of a non-member was under Bye-law 248 and arbitration in respect of the member was under Bye Law 282, as the Exchange had permitted a single arbitration against both, there could be no impediment for a single arbitration - As 1st respondent had a single claim against 2nd respondent and appellant and as there was provision for arbitration in regard to both of them, and as the Exchange had permitted a common arbitration, it was not possible to accept the contention of the appellant that there could not be a common arbitration against appellant and 2nd respondent - (B) Whether the Arbitral Tribunal ought to have held that there was no contract between 1st respondent and that the appellant and the claim of the 1st respondent against the appellant was based on fabricated documents - Held, a court did not sit in appeal over the award of an arbitral tribunal by re-assessing or re-appreciating the evidence - An award should be challenged only under the grounds mentioned in s. 34(2) of the Act - Arbitral Tribunal had examined the facts and held that both 2nd respondent and the appellant were liable - Findings of the majority in the Arbitral Tribunal was that the appellant did the transaction in the name of 2nd respondent and was therefore, liable along with the 2nd respondent - Therefore, in the absence of any ground u/s. 34(2) of the Act, it was not possible to re-examine the facts to find out whether a different decision could be arrived at - (C) Whether the Arbitral Tribunal had passed the award by making use of their personal knowledge in regard to the transactions and not on the material on record before them and therefore the award was vitiated - Held, an arbitral tribunal could certainly use their expert or technical knowledge or the general knowledge about the particular trade, in deciding a matter - In fact, that is why in many arbitrations, persons with technical knowledge, were appointed as they would be well-versed with the practices and customs in the respective fields - All that the arbitrators had referred was the market practice and that should not be considered as using some personal knowledge of facts of a transaction, to decide a dispute - No reason to interfere with the impugned HC judgment - Appeal dismissed.
|
Alka Diamond Industries Limited, Mumbai vs Securities and Exchange Board of India, Mumbai
[SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 14 Oct 2011]
Securities Exchange Board of India - Securities Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 - Appellant were restrained from accessing the capital market pending investigations - On appeal, order was confirmed by Securities and Exchange Board of India (Board) - Hence, instant appeal - Investigations have concluded and that the Board would now take further steps in accordance with law - Held, having regard to the role allegedly played by the appellant as disclosed in the impugned order and also taking note of the fact that the appellant remained out of the securities market for a considerable period of time, operation of the impugned order stayed qua the appellant - Appeal disposed of.
|
In Re : Sawaca Communication Limited, In Respect of Ramanlal D. Shah vs
[SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA, 13 Oct 2011]
|
Mehta Equities Ltd., Mumbai vs Adjudicating Officer, Securities and Exchange Board of India, Mumbai
[SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 13 Oct 2011]
|
In Re : Brijlaxmi Leasing and Finance Limited, In Respect of Sanchay Fincom Limited vs
[SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA, 13 Oct 2011]
|
Indu Nissan Oxo Chemical Industries Limited, Vadodara, Gujarat vs Securities and Exchange Board of India, Mumbai
[SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 10 Oct 2011]
|
(1) J. Sekar; (2) M. Ravindran; (3) Official Liquidator(High Court) Madras vs (1) R. Vijaya kumar; (2) M. Ravindran; (3) Official Liquidator(High Court) Madras; (4) R. Vijaya kumar
[MADRAS HIGH COURT, 30 Sep 2011]
|
Brij Bihari Lal Nirwani vs State of Haryana and another
[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT, 27 Sep 2011]
|
Axis Bank Limited (Debenture Trustee), Ahmedabad vs Securities and Exchange Board of India, Mumbai
[SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 26 Sep 2011]
|
Bhaskar Publication and Allied Industries Private Limited and others vs Kishori Devi Agarwai and others
[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT, 21 Sep 2011]
|
In Re : Increase in Voting Rights of Promoter Group of M/s Eon Electric Limited (Formerly known as Indo Asian Fuesegear Limited) vs
[SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA, 21 Sep 2011]
|
In Re : Top Telemedia Limited, In Respect of Rajesh N. Jhaveri vs
[SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA, 20 Sep 2011]
|
|