|
|
Database updates
Judgments
M.V. Janardhan Reddy vs Vijaya Bank and Another
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 02 May 2008]
Whether action of Recovery Officer in confirming sale was contrary to law when Company proceedings were pending before Company Judge and Company was ordered to be wound up and when Official Liquidator appointed to take charge of the assets of the Company was not taken in confidence and when he was not associated with the auction of assets and properties of the Company in liquidation? - Held, in view of condition imposed by the Company Court, Recovery Officer did not have the power to confirm sale - An order passed by an officer having no authority of law has no effect; it neither creates any right in favour of a party for whom such order is made nor imposes any obligation on the opposite party against whom it was passed - If the Recovery Officer could not have confirmed the sale, obviously all actions taken in pursuance of confirmation of sale, such as, issuance of sale certificate, registration of documents, etc., would be of no consequence - Since the Company was in liquidation and Official Liquidator was in charge of the assets of the Company, he ought to have been associated with the auction proceedings, which was not done thus the auction sale was liable to be set aside - Appeal partly allowed.
|
In Re : Global Securities Limited vs
[CHAIRMAN, SECURITIES EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA, 30 Apr 2008]
The Judgment was delivered by : BIJU. S (ADJUDICATING OFFICER)1. Securities and Exchange Board of India (hereinafter referred to as "SEBI") has initiated adjudication proceedings against SMC Global Securities Limited (hereinafter referred to as "the
|
Cor, St. Michael's T.T.I vs V.N. Karpaga Mary and Others
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 24 Apr 2008]
Appeal to challenge order quashing order of termination holding that appointment was made in a lawful manner and the teachers were found to have the requisite qualifications as prescribed at the time of such appointment, a revision in qualification so as to be applied retrospectively - Question which was raised before the Division Bench was limited to the question of payment of the back wages to the respondent and as to whether the State was liable or appellant institution - Appellant contended that petitioner institution being not a State within the meaning of art. 12 of the Constitution of India, writ petition was not maintainable and as the order of termination of the respondent was not mala fide, the High Court should have held that she was not entitled to back wages and no legal right vested in her in obtaining the relief of reinstatement - Held, if she was a regular teacher, the question of termination of her services relying on or on the basis of the purported GOMs did not arise as the same had not been given retrospective effect; State never said that in terms of the said GOMs, the services of the employees who had validly been appointed, should be terminated - High Court had the jurisdiction to set aside the order of termination - Once the order of termination was set aside, the logical corollary therefor should ordinarily ensue, subject of course to denial of the benefit either in totality or in part - Interest of justice will be subserved if the quantum of back wages is confined to 75% for the total period the respondent remained out of service - Appeal partly allowed.
|
In Re : Kausar India Limited vs
[CHAIRMAN, SECURITIES EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA, 21 Apr 2008]
The Order of the Court was as follows :M/s Kausar India Limited, the applicant herein was found to have not complied with Regulation 7 (3) of the SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations 1997 (hereinafter "Takeover
|
(1) Indo International Limited, Represented By Its Director, Umraomal Lodha, Chennai; (2) Rave Global Limited, Represented By Its Director, Rajesh Lodha, Chennai; (3) Ram Abatar Jain; (4) Umraomal Lodha; (5) Ashu Lodha vs (1) Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Chennai; (2) Special Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Government of India, New Delhi; (3) Registrar, Appellate Tribunal For Foreign Exchange Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi
[MADRAS HIGH COURT, 17 Apr 2008]
Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 - Whether the court is supposed to refer each and every ground and document, if not specifically raised by counsel for the party nor relies upon at the time of hearing of the case? - Held, if different grounds are raised in a case and large number of documents are filed along with the petition, at the time of hearing if the counsel for such party do not raise such a ground or do not rely on one or other documents, the Court is not obliged to look into each and every ground mentioned in the petition and to each and every document to give a finding on such ground and documents, though not argued at the time of hearing - Petitions dismissed.
|
(1) Rajendra Kumar Gupta; (2) Ashok Kumar Gupta vs State of Tamil Nadu, Represented By Inspector of Police, Ccb Team III, Egmore, Chennai
[MADRAS HIGH COURT, 15 Apr 2008]
Petition for quashing of criminal proceedings initiated under complaint u/ss. 465, 468 and 471 r/w 120B of IPC - De facto complainant and his other brother had not attended the Board meetings after the memorandum of understanding was entered into - Dispute revolved around the division of business in terms of the memorandum of understanding - Held, in view of s. 283(g) of the Companies Act, 1956, there is nothing wrong in filing the returns to the Registrar of Companies that the de facto complainant and his other brother ceased to be the Directors of the Company - Such action may invite civil consequences and not criminal prosecution; such a civil nature of dispute will have to be litigated only before the civil court - No one's signature was forged by these petitioners and no iota of material was placed to lay a foundation for allegation made by the de facto complainant as against these petitioners - When allegations do not have any basis, investigation of the case based on bald version found in the complaint would definitely cause irretrievable damage to reputation of the petitioners - Action of the petitioners in terms of the memorandum of understanding does not amount to forgery of documents or fabrication of records or commission of offence of cheating - Petition allowed.
|
(1) Sahyadri Solvex Private Limited, Represented By Its Managing Director, G.C.Shivakumar; (2) G.C.Shivakumar vs State Bank of India, Bangalore City Branch, Bangalore
[MADRAS HIGH COURT, 04 Apr 2008]
Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 - Revision petitions under art. 227 to challenge order dismissing petition filed to review dismissal order passed in applications filed to dismiss suit on ground of pendency of reference before BIFR and appeal - Petitioner had made reference u/s. 15 (1) of SICA to the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction on the ground that it had become sick industrial company which reference was dismissed as reference not maintainable and appeal u/s. 25 against order also dismissed - Suit was filed by bank for recovery of amount which petitioner had taken as loan - Held, reference u/s 15 was not maintainable, which was affirmed in appeal by AAIFR and thus the petitioner company was not entitled to any protection u/s 22 - Suit having already filed after the dismissal, at best the suit could not have been proceeded with further till disposal of the appeal by AAIFR; suit dit did not proceed during the pendency of the appeal and it is only after the rejection of appeal by AAIFR, the suit was heard and decreed - Petitions dismissed.
|
In Re : Girdharilal Agrawal vs
[CHAIRMAN, SECURITIES EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA, 31 Mar 2008]
The Judgment was delivered by : D. S. REDDY (ADJUDICATING OFFICER)1. SEBI, vide order dated April 12, 2007, initiated adjudication proceedings against Shri Girdharilal Agrawal (hereinafter referred to as noticee) for the alleged violation of
|
(1) Sales Tax Practitioners' Association of Maharashtra and Tushar P. Joshi; (2) Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa; (3) Bombay Small Scale Industries Association and Raksh Pal Abrol, President, The Bombay Small Scale Industries Association; (4) Maharashtra State Tax Practitioner Associations Federation, A Society Registered Under The Provisions of The Indian Societies Act Through Its President, Shri. Tukaram Baburao Shinde vs (1) State of Maharashtra Through Revenue Secretary, Ministry of Finance; (2) State of Maharashtra Through The Department of Finance and The Commissioner of Sales Tax
[BOMBAY HIGH COURT, 28 Mar 2008]
The Judgment was delivered by : F. I. REBELLO1. All these petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment as the main challenge in all the petitions is to the constitutional validity of Section 61(1) and the explanation thereto, of the
|
Cement Workers Karamchari Sangh vs Jaipur Udyog Limited and Others
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 24 Mar 2008]
Corporate - AAIFR order had dismissed the appeal filed by M/s.Jaipur Udyog Ltd., respondent No.1, and affirmed the order of its winding up passed by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction Bench-II - Whether the High Court was justified in taking the view that the order passed by the AAIFR was in breach of the principles of natural justice and for that reason remitting the proceeding to it? - Held, AAIFR can hardly be blamed for proceeding with the hearing of the appeal - Order that was produced before the AAIFR did not indicate that the proceeding of the appeal before it was stayed - The parties (creditors of the company) were strongly opposed to any adjournment - AAIFR was within its rights to disallow the prayer for adjournment on behalf of JUL and to ask its counsel to make submissions on merits - Directions issued.
|
J.K.Industries Limited, Represented By Its Assistant Area Manager, Madurai vs Babu, Proprietor, Babu Tyres, Dindigul
[MADRAS HIGH COURT, 24 Mar 2008]
Appeal to challenge order setting aside conviction and sentence passed in criminal complaint lodged u/ss. 138 r/w 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Order set aside conviction and sentence on ground that complainant had no locus standi to file the complaint - Respondent contended that board of directors of complainant had appointed Regional Manager to look after its affairs and Regional Manager had no locus standi to appoint Assistant Area Manager to institute present proceeding and therefore, complaint itself had been filed erroneously - Held, from close reading of Rule 174(3) of Memorandum and Articles of Association delegation powers completely vests with Directors and they can appoint any person to perform any act; Directors of complainant have not delegated any power to Assistant Area Manager to institute present proceeding; only Regional Manger has delegated necessary power to Assistant Area Manager to institute present proceeding - Agent cannot delegate his powers or duties to another, in whole or in part, without the express authority of the principal or authority derived from the statute - Regional Manager is the delegate of the Board of Directors and he is nothing but a delegate and he cannot delegate his power or duty in favour of the Assistant Area Manager - Present complaint has not been properly filed - Appeal dismissed.
|
M.S.D.C. Radharamanan vs M.S.D. Chandrasekara Raja and Another
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 14 Mar 2008]
Companies Act, 1956, ss. 397, 398 - Alleged several acts of oppression on the part of appellant - High Court held that there was no act of mala fide or oppression on the part of the appellant, opined that there exists a deadlock in the affairs of the company and directed the appellant to purchase 2, 84, 000 shares held by the first respondent at a value to be determined by a chartered valuer - Appeal against - Held, ss. 397 and 398 empower the Company Law Board to remove oppression and mismanagement - If the consequences of refusal to exercise jurisdiction would lead to a total chaos or mismanagement of the company, would still the Company Law Board be powerless to pass appropriate orders is the question - Both the Company Law Board as also the High Court has no doubt that the acrimony between the parties is resulting in mismanagement of the conduct of affairs of the company - A conclusion as regards the dead lock in the affairs of the company cannot be faulted with - Appeal dismissed.
|
Guruvinder Kaur, Guru International, Metropolitan Co-Operative Housing Canal, Kolkatta vs (1) Surya Agencies, Represented By Power of Attorney, V.Sasikumar, Vellore; (2) Sanova International, Represented By Power of Attorney, V.Sasikumar, Vellore
[MADRAS HIGH COURT, 14 Mar 2008]
The Order of the Court was as follows :1. These petitions are filed seeking to quash the criminal proceedings in C.C.Nos49 and 50 of 2007 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate I, Walajah.2. The petitioner is the accused in those cases filed
|
Karnataka State Financial Corporation vs N. Narasimahaiah and Others
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 13 Mar 2008]
State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 - Interpretation of s. 29 vis-'-vis s. 31 - High Court held that appellant corporation could not proceed against the property of the surety, mortgaged/ hypothecated in its favour, under s. 29 - Right of property, although no longer a fundamental right, is still a constitutional right. It is also human right - In absence of any provision either expressly or by necessary implication, depriving a person therefrom, the court shall not construe a provision leaning in favour of such deprivation - Appeals dismissed.
|
Heat Shrink Technologies Limited, Mumbai vs IIT Capital Services Limited, Mumbai
[BOMBAY HIGH COURT, 13 Mar 2008]
Companies Act, 1956 - Appeals to challenge order allowing petition filed for winding up of Company on ground that Company was unable to pay its debt - Appellants contended that since reference was pending before BIFR, Company Court had no jurisdiction to pass winding up order as proceedings before Company Court would be deemed to have been stayed in view of s. 22 of Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 and Judge ought to have directed department concerned while relying upon online communication from BIFR whether any BIFR reference was pending before the BIFR or not - Held, Company Petition was admitted by the order of the Company Court dated 1st July, 2005 and the petition remained pending before the Company Court for a considerable time and final order of winding up against Company was passed on 13th September, 2007 and there is not a whisper in entire appeal as to what Company was doing for all this period - If appellant company desired that proceedings before Company Court should be stayed because of pendency of proceedings before BIFR or AAIFR it was obviously obligation of appellant company to bring due material on record before Company Judge which it miserably failed to discharge - Appellant company in fact has abused the process of law not only before the Company Court but even before BIFR/AAIFR - Appeals disposed of.
|
Retired Employees Association vs Government of Andhra Pradesh, Represented By Principle. Secretary, Women's Development Child Welfare and Labour (Lab.I) Department, Hyderabad and 4 Others
[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT, 13 Mar 2008]
The Order of the Court was as follows :The dispute which the petitioner Association seeks a reference, to the Industrial Tribunal for its adjudication, is their demand for extension of pensionary benefits to their members, all of whom retired from
|
K.C. Kumar vs (1) Bharat Overseas Bank Limited, By Its Chairman, Chennai; (2) Assistant General Manager (Personnel), Bharat Overseas Bank Limited, Chennai; (3) Indian Overseas Bank, Represented By Its General Manager (Personnel), Administration Department, Chennai
[MADRAS HIGH COURT, 12 Mar 2008]
The Order of the Court was as follows :1. Heard the arguments of Mr. D. Hari Paranthaman, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and S. Ravindran, learned counsel appearing for M/s. T.S. Gopalan & Co., for the respondents and have perused the
|
Arrow Syntex Private Limited and Others vs Aaifr and Others
[DELHI HIGH COURT, 11 Mar 2008]
Whether Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction was legally justified in declining to recognize change in management of respondent No.3 on ground that said change was contrary to provisions of Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 having been introduced by sick company without permission of Board? - Held, BIFR was justified in ignoring arrangement sought to be introduced without its approval which arrangement has, at any rate, proved more problematic than useful to parties - If ultimate object of proceedings before BIFR was to revive company and draw it out of financial difficulties that it had landed in, the said object could not be achieved by thrusting upon it arrangement which has, from the very inception, landed in rough waters - Petition dismissed with costs.
|
Schematic Engineering Company, Proprietrix Vidya Mohan, Chennai vs Pure Chemical and Solvents Private Limited, Represented By R.Rajesh Kanna, Chennai
[MADRAS HIGH COURT, 11 Mar 2008]
The Order of the Court was as follows :1. These criminal original petitions are filed seeking to quash the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.2606 of 2007 and C.C.No.2607 of 2007 pending on the file of the learned XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore,
|
Force Motors Limited, Pune vs Shrikrishna Shivram Tungar and Another
[BOMBAY HIGH COURT, 11 Mar 2008]
The Order of the Court was as follows :1. This Petition is directed against the Part-II Award passed by the IIIrd Labour Court at Pune in Reference(IDA)No. 150/1985 on 23-12-1996 and as per the said Award the Respondent workman was directed to be
|
Nikhil Nanda vs Ruchi India Limited and Another
[DELHI HIGH COURT, 10 Mar 2008]
Application under O. 39, rr. 1 and 2 r/w s. 151 CPC for issuance of direction to defendants for not parting with possession or selling or creating any third party interest till disposal of suit filed for issuance of injunction against defendants and for direction to plaintiff to honour agreement to sell - Held, there was no agreement to sell between plaintiff and defendant No.1; only receipt was executed by defendant No.2 in favour of plaintiff and in receipt, it is mentioned that agreement to sell and other documents shall be executed later on, within 60 days - Agreement to sell is prima facie invalid document as by this document defendant No.2 claimed to be absolute owner of the property, while he is not the owner of property and he had no right to enter into agreement to sell; only defendant' No.1 company had a right to sell the property in question, therefore, no injunction can be granted against defendant No.1 company - Property of company could be sold only with permission of Board of Directors through Board Resolution and not otherwise - Documents filed by plaintiff do not inspire confidence as defendant has placed on record photocopy of agreement showing that only Rs.1 crore were paid to defendant No.1 whereas document in possession of plaintiff shows that Rs.2 crore were paid and there is overwriting on date of cheque - Application dismissed.
|
Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Cirlce -I (1), Chennai vs Apollo Hospitals Enterprises Limited, Represented By S.K.Venkataraman, Company Secretary-Cum Chief Financial Officer, Chennai
[MADRAS HIGH COURT, 10 Mar 2008]
The Judgment was delivered by : HON'BLE JUSTICE ELIPE DHARMA RAO1. This Writ Appeal is directed against the order passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.4991 of 2006 dated 8.6.2006.2. The respondent herein is running hospitals in
|
Spencers Group Aerated Water Factory Employees Union, Represented By Its General Secretary, Chennai vs (1) H.Anraj, Managing Director, Viswadarshan Distributors Private Limited, Chennai; (2) Collector of Chennai, Kancheepuram; (3) Tahsildar, Kanchipuram Taluk; (4) G.Dayanand; (5) K.N.Krishnamurthy
[MADRAS HIGH COURT, 10 Mar 2008]
The Order of the Court was as follows :1. This contempt petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to punish the first respondent for wilfully and deliberately disobeying the order of this Court, dated 21.12.1998, made in
|
(1) State of Tamil Nadu, Represented By Its Secretary To Government, Home Department, Chennai; (2) Director General of Police, Crime Branch, Egmore, Chennai; (3) Commissioner of Police, Chennai; (4) Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Egmore, Chennai vs (1) Goldquest International Private Limited, Represented By Its Authorised Signatory Wilfred Royce Lane, Chennai; (2) Secretary, Union of India, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi; (3) Secretary, Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Food and Distribution, New Delhi; (4) Sarumathy Chandrasekaran
[MADRAS HIGH COURT, 07 Mar 2008]
The Judgment was delivered by : HON'BLE JUSTICE S. R. SINGHARAVELU1. The writ appeal is directed against the order dated 19.04.2005 of the learned single Judge in W.P.No.26874 of 2003, allowing the writ petition and quashing the F.I.R. No.307/2003
|
Management of Hindustan Lever Limited, Represented By The Branch Manager, Madras vs (1) Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Madurai; (2) M.V.Raghuvir
[MADRAS HIGH COURT, 06 Mar 2008]
The Judgment was delivered by : HON'BLE JUSTICE ELIPE DHARMA RAO1. The writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 22.06.2000 made in W.P.No.4168 of 1992, which was filed seeking a writ of Certiorari, to call for the
|
|