Nagrath Paints (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....terms. section 168 uses the word just compensation which, in our opinion, should be assigned a broad meaning. it cannot be lost sight of the fact that the private sector companies in place of introducing a pension scheme takes recourse to payment of contributory provident fund, gratuity and other perks to attract the people who are efficient and hard working. different offers made to an officer by the employer, same may be either for the benefit of the employee himself or for the benefit of the entire family if some facilities are being provided whereby the entire family stands to benefit, the same, must be held to be relevant for the purpose of computation of total income on the basis whereof the amount of compensation payable for the death of the kith and kin of the applicants is required to be determined. the amounts, therefore, which were required to be paid to the deceased by his employer by way of perks, should be included for computation of his monthly income as that would have been added to his monthly income by way of contribution to the family as contradistinguished to the ones which were for his benefit. from the said amount of income, the statutory amount of..........and loss account (wrongfully described in the impugned order as balance sheet) lead to the impugned order refusing total exemption of deposits under section 35f of the central excises and salt act, 1944 and reference has been made to another order by the same tribunal in respect of the petitioner company (annexure 11 to the writ petition) wherein the petitioner company was considered as sick unit and on that basis total exemption was granted though the claim therein was of an amount much larger than the amount involved herein.3. learned counsel for the respondents disputed the contention of the petitioner and said that partial exemption has been granted exercising discretionary power protecting the interest of the respondents and the said order is valid. the learned counsel for the respondents expressed apprehension that total exemption will cause serious prejudice to the interest of the respondents as the decision of the appeal will be then delayed by the petitioner and the respondents will be suffering total loss as assets will be disposed of.4. after considering the respective contentions of the parties, i find that the impugned order apparently proceeded on a mistake in.....

Judgment:

ORDER

A. Chakrabarti, J.

1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Shushil Harksali, learned Counsel for the respondents.

2. The petitioners contends that the impugned order is bad as it has not been passed taking into consideration profit and loss account of the company and wrongfully showing a profit although profit and loss account shows actually a net loss of substantial amount. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that such wrong reading of the profit and loss account (wrongfully described in the impugned order as balance sheet) lead to the impugned order refusing total exemption of deposits under Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and reference has been made to another order by the same Tribunal in respect of the petitioner company (Annexure 11 to the writ petition) wherein the petitioner company was considered as sick unit and on that basis total exemption was granted though the claim therein was of an amount much larger than the amount involved herein.

3. Learned Counsel for the respondents disputed the contention of the petitioner and said that partial exemption has been granted exercising discretionary power protecting the interest of the respondents and the said order is valid. The learned Counsel for the respondents expressed apprehension that total exemption will cause serious prejudice to the interest of the respondents as the decision of the appeal will be then delayed by the petitioner and the respondents will be suffering total loss as assets will be disposed of.

4. After considering the respective contentions of the parties, I find that the impugned order apparently proceeded on a mistake in reading of the records of the petitioner company. The balance sheet as also profit and loss account, as annexed to the writ petition, and not disputed by the respondents, do not show a profit though there was only gross profit but apparently a net loss has been shown in the account. The company also has been declared a sick unit and this has also not been disputed by the respondents. Therefore, there is no reason as to why the same principle is not to be applied as has been done in other case relating to the same petitioner which was dealt with by the same Tribunal as appears in Annexure 11 to the writ petition.

5. But there is no reason as to why the petitioner will be delaying the appeal and the learned Counsel for the petitioners fairly contended that the petitioners will not take unnecessarily adjournment in the matter of hearing of the appeal.

6. In view of the aforesaid, fallow the writ petition. The impugned order dated 3rd July, 1996 is modified to this extent that the petitioner company is granted total exemption and its appeal before the Tribunal will be heard and disposed of on merit within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. The petitioner company will not be granted unnecessary adjournment in any event. The stay order dated 3-9-19% is hereby vacated.