Court : Delhi
$~37 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:23. 10.2019 + BAIL APPLN. 2693/2019 PREM KUMAR AGGARWAL ........ Petitioner Through Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Adv. With Ms. Ranjana Roy, Mr. P.K.Dubey,Mr. Arshdeep Singh, Mr.Hitesh Rai, Mr. Himanshu Gupta, Mr. Manish Jha and Mr. Avinash Bhatia, Advs. versus SERIOUS FRAUD INVESTIGATION OFFICE ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BRIJESH SETHI Through Ms. Maninder Acharya, ASG, Mr. Anurag Ahluwalia, CGSC with Mr. Abhigyan Siddhant and Mr. Viplav Acharya, Advs for R-1 with Mr. P.C. Maurya and Mr. Madhur Bajaj, SFIOs JUDGMENT BRIJESH SETHI,J (Oral) 1. Vide this order, I shall dispose of an application filed by the petitioner Prem Kumar Aggarwal seeking anticipatory bail in the Bail Appl No.2693/2019 Page 1 of 13 event of arrest in Complaint case No.770/2019, titled SFIO v. Bhushan steel Ltd. & Ors. Pending in the Court of Ms. Neelam Singh, Ld. ASJ/Special Judge (Companies Act), Dwarka Courts, New Delhi for offences under...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1966Mad247
ORDER(1) Application, by the Official Liquidators of the Hanuman Bank Ltd., Tanjore under Ss. 45-A and 45-B of the Banking Companies Act for permission to sue under O.1, R. 8, C.P.C., on behalf of all the creditors of Dewan Bahadur N. Swaminatha Iyer and his estate for a declaration that the release deed executed by Dewan Bahadur N. Swaminatha Iyer dated 27-7-1945 is void against the Hanuman Bank Ltd. (in liquidation) and all other creditors and for directing the respondents, who are the sons of the late Dewan Bahadur N. Swaminatha Iyer, to compensate the Hanuman Bank Ltd., (in liquidation) in respect of the losses caused by the acts of misfeasance and breach of trust committed by their father to the extent of Rs. 14,08,647, and for costs.(2) The Hanuman Bank Ltd., Tanjore was wound up on a creditor's petition dated 26-7-1947 by an order passed by this court on 5-11-1947. Messrs. Brahmayya and Co., have been appointed Official Liquidators by an order of this court dated 12-1-1948. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1970)72BOMLR679
Vimadalal, J.1. This matter has come up for public examination of (1) Hari das Mundhra, (2) Daulat Singhi, (8) Nandlal More, (4) Shivbux Mohatta and (5) Herbert Hill, directors of Shri Madhav Mills Ltd., which is hi liquidation (hereinafter referred to as 'the company'), under Section 478 of the Companies Act, 1956. The last-named director is abroad, but it was decided to proceed with the public examination of the other four directors who were present. Before the public examination of the said directors could be proceeded with, Mr. J.C. Bhatt who appeared on behalf of the said Mundhra (respondent No. 1 to the Misfeasance Summons) raised certain preliminary objections which were argued at great length, and the present Order relates to those preliminary objections. The facts necessary for the purpose of the present Order are that, on August 5, 1959, the company was ordered to be wound up. It may, at this stage, be mentioned that, according to the Official Liquidator, Haridas Mundhra was ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1995]83CompCas194(SC); JT1995(1)SC515; 1995(1)SCALE276; (1995)2SCC513; [1995]1SCR456
A.M. Ahmadi, C.J.1. This appeal arises from the order dated 8/9th June, 1994 of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court rendered in Appeal No. 684 of 1992 against an order dated 17th August, 1992 passed by the learned Single Judge making absolute the notice of motion No. 1593 of p 1992 taken out by the appellant-Rama Narang and the respondents Nos. 4 & 5, namely, Narang International Hotels Private Limited and Arvind Ghei. The two reliefs granted by the learned Single Judge were to restrain respondent Nos. 1 & 2 from (a) acting upon, implementing, circulating, or taking any steps in furtherance of any decision purported to have been taken at the Board meeting alleged to have been held on 13th July, 1992 F and from (b) obstructing or interfering with the petitioner's functioning as Chairman and Managing Director of the respondent-company. By the impugned judgment, the Division Bench partly allowed the appeal by setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge in respect of grant ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1994]79CompCas417(Kar); 1993(2)KarLJ230
A.B. Murgod, J.1. Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 2385 of 1992 is filed by the first defendant under Order 43, rule 1(r) of the Civil Procedure Code against the order dated November 11, 1992, passed in Original Suit No. 6835 of 1992, by the 15th Addition City Civil Judge, Bangalore, allowing the prayer for temporary injunction in I.A.I. under Order 39, rule 1 and 2 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 2386 of 1992 is filed by the first defendant under Order 45, rule 1(r) of the Civil Procedure Code against the order dated November 16, 1992, in Original Suit No. 6843 of 1992, on the file of the 15th Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, partly allowing the prayer for temporary injunction in I.A.I. under Order 39, rule 1 and 2 read with section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code. 3. Since the appeals involve common questions of facts and law, they are disposed of by the following common judgment. 4. The facts giving rise to these appeals a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE2023NSC746 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.2568 OF2013INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA (THROUGH STRESSED ASSETS STABILIZATION FUND CONSTITUTED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA) ..... APPELLANT VERSUS SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS AND OTHERS ..... RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT SANJIV KHANNA, J.This appeal by Industrial Development Bank of India1 takes exception to the judgment dated 26th August 2008 passed by the full bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Original Side Appeal No.1 of 20052, whereby it has been held that notwithstanding the winding up order dated 1st December 2003 in the case of M/s. Sri Vishnupriya Industries Limited3, and the provisions of Section 529A and 530 of the Companies Act, 19564, 1 For short, IDBI. 2 The Superintendent of Central Excise and Customs v. M/s. Sri Vishnupriya Industries Ltd. (in liqn.) and Others. 3 For short, the Company. 4 For short, Companies Act. Civil Appeal No.2568 of 2013 Page 1 of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
2024 INSC319REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.3851 OF2023INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY BOARD OF INDIA ...APPELLANT (S) VERSUS SATYANARAYAN BANKATLAL MALU & ORS. ...RESPONDENT (S) INDEX I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Paras 1 to 2 II. SUBMISSIONS Paras 3 to 17 III. CONSIDERATION OF STATUTORY PROVISIONS Paras 18 to 25 IV. CONSIDERATION OF PRECEDENTS Paras 26 to 40 V. CONCLUSION Paras 41 to 49 JUDGMENT B.R. GAVAI, J.I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND1 This appeal challenges the judgement and order dated 14th February 2022, passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No.2592 of 2021, thereby allowing the petition filed by Satyanarayan Bankatlal Malu and Ramesh Satyanarayan Malu, the Ex-Directors of M/s. 1 SBM Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Respondents) challenging the order dated 17th March 2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 58th Court in Special Case No.853 of 2020 (l...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1994]51ITD339(Mum)
ORDERPer T. V. K. Natarajachandran, AM - This is an appeal by the assessee which is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) XIV, Bombay, dated 25-1-1993, herein the assessee has impugned the order on several grounds.2. The first and foremost ground is that the CIT (A) erred on facts and in law in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in making adjustment to the book profits under section 115J of the a sum of Rs. 641.44 lakhs being the differential depreciation arising out of retrospective change in the method of charging depreciation. He has also erred in agreeing and observing that the change of method of depreciation was not bona fide, but was a design to avoid lawful payment of tax.3. Assessment is a widely held public limited company and is engaged in manufacturing activities of tyres in the brand name of Modistone. The assessment year involved is 1989-90 for which the accounting year ended on 31-3-89. It appears that the previous year consis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1959Ker388
ORDERRaman Nayar, J.1. So far as counter petitioners 13, 14 and 15 are concerned the Liquidator's report discloses a prima facie case of fraud by each one of them. Counter Petitioner 13 was first the General Manager and then the Secretary of the Banking Company in liquidation; and counter petitioners 14 and 15 were agents of the Alleppey office of the company at the time of the alleged fraud. They are all officers of the company and are in the circumstances liable to public examination under Section 478 of the Companies Act.2. Counter Petitioner 16, so far as the report says, was only the Cashier of the Alleppey office. If that be so he is not an officer of the Company, nor is he a promoter, director or auditor of the company. He is not therefore liable to public examination either under Section 478 of the Companies Actor under Section 45G of the Banking Companies Act.3. Of the remaining counter petitioners, counter petitioners 1 to 8 were directors of the company; and counter petition...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (C) No.421 OF2019Moser Baer Karamchari Union Thr. President Mahesh Chand Sharma Appellant(s) Versus Union of India and Ors. Respondent(s) WITH WRIT PETITION (C) No.777 OF2020Manoj Kumar Nagar Appellant(s) Versus Union of India Respondent(s) AND WRIT PETITION (C) No.712 OF2020Raj Kumar Verma Appellant(s) Versus Union of India Respondent(s) Writ Petition (C) No.421 of 2019 Page 1 of 74 JUDGMENT M.R. SHAH, J.Writ Petition (C) No.421 of 2019 1. By way of this writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, filed by the writ petitioner Moser Baer Karamchari Union have prayed for an appropriate writ, direction or order striking down Section 327(7) of the Companies Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 2013) as arbitrary and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is also prayed to issue an appropriate writ, direction or order in the nature of Mandamus so as to leave the stat...
Tag this Judgment!