Court : Delhi
Reported in : II(2006)BC57; [2007]135CompCas86(Delhi); (2006)6CompLJ485(Del); 127(2006)DLT576; [2006]72SCL256(Delhi)
Mukul Mudgal, J.1. The Reserve Bank of India(in short the `RBI') under the powers conferred under Section 45MC(1)(d) of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934(hereinafter referred to as the `RBI Act') filed the winding up petition, CP.No.191/97 in this Court.2. The relevant portion of Section 45MC(1)(d) of the RBI Act reads as follows:-45MC. Power of Bank to file winding up petition.-(1) The Bank, on being satisfied that a non-banking financial companyd) the continuance of the non-banking financial company is detrimental to the public interest or to the interest of depositors of the company, may file an application for winding up of such non-banking financial company under the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956).3. Even though the original petition does not specify whether it was filed under Section 45MC(1)(d) of the RBI Act, during the hearing of the CA.1416/90 which was filed by the company convening the meeting of the creditors, the learned counsel for the applicant/RBI had submitted that ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
1. MFA No.3493/2008 is against the judgment and award in MVC No.34i 2/2001. MFA No.2070/2008 is against the judgment and award in MVC No. 1734/2001 and MFA No.5278/2008 is by the claimant in MVC No. 1734/2001. Both MVC Nos.3412/2001 and 1734/2001 clubbed together and common judgment was rendered on 11.12.2007 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Bangalore. Hence, these appeals are also clubbed together and taken up together for final disposal.2. Facts in MVC No. 1734/2001 are relevant and same is considered. Claimant was Traffic Inspector on the date of accident, he was on duty at about 1.30 p.m. on 2.2.2001 near Siddaiah Circle. Kasturba Road. Bangalore. Appellant iri MFA No.3493/2008 and MFA No.2070/2008 is the rider and owp.er of the scooter bearing No.KA.O 1 h.8197. According to the claimant, the rider of the said motor cycle without, following the traffic signal came in a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the claimant, as a result of which he fell ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Facts of this case remainds of this popular Tamil film song. This is a classic case as to how responsible people acted inhumanely, illegally while dealing with the service of their own “sick employee”. It is very disheartening to note that a driver affected by “Epilepsy” was discharged from service unfairly and in a manner unknown to law consequently throwing his family with two minors to indigent circumstances. 2. The case of the petitioners is that they are the legal heirs of one Muniyandi, who was employed as a driver by the second respondent Transport Corporation for more than 15 years. The said Muniyandi fell ill and took treatment as an inpatient in Government Rajaji Hospital at Madurai and died on 18.3.1995 while he was in service. Subsequently the petitioners submitted an application for payment of service benefits from the second respondent, who paid only gratuity and provident fund and refused to pay other benefits viz, “Group insurance” an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
1. This Writ Petition challenges the legality and correctness of the judgment and order dated 03/07/2006, passed by the President, Co-operative Tribunal, Goa at Panaji in Cooperative Appeal No.14/2003, thereby dismissing the appeal and upholding the judgment and order dated 07/03/2003, delivered by the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Society, Central Zone, Panaji. The effect of the dismissal of the Co-operative Appeal, has been that the application, filed by the petitioner before the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 as applicable to the State of Goa at the relevant time (hereinafter referred to as the MCS Act, for short), does not raise any dispute under Section 91 and is, therefore, not tenable before the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies. 2. The case of the petitioner- society before the Assistant Registrar was that a group of persons organized themselves for the purpose of forming a Co-...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Company Law Board CLB
Reported in : (2002)111CompCas808
1. By the present petition, the petitioners are seeking directions against Reliance Industries Limited (Respondent No. 1) to register the transfer of 12,500 shares (described in the Schedule being Annexure "D" to the above petition) in favour of the Petitioner No.1 a) The petitioner No.2 to 6 advanced through the petition No.1 to CRB Capital Markets Limited (Respondent No.2) the amounts aggregating to Rs. 24,75,000/-. All the said amounts were advanced by duly crossed account payee cheques drawn in favour of respondent No.2, complete details whereof are set out in Annexure "A" to the petition. The said cheques were encashed and the proceeds thereof received by Respondent No.2 The said amounts were to be repaid by Respondent No. 2 after a period of 3 months on the respective due dates as mentioned in Annexure 'A' to the petition. b) Towards repayment of the amount of Rs. 24,75,000/- so advanced, Respondent No.2 handed over to petitioner Nos.2 to 5, post dated cheques made out in their ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras
Reported in : (2003)86ITD373(Chennai)
As these two appeals preferrred by the Revenue against the appellate order dated 22-3-1995 of Commissioner (Appeals)-IV, Madras for the two successive assessment years 1991-92 and 1992-93 in the case of the assessee Mrs. Vanishree Karunakaran, Madras, consisted of common grounds of appeal, the same were clubbed together, heard together and are being disposed of by this common and consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity. The common grounds of appeal by the Revenue read as under: - 1. The Commissioner (Appeals) erred in holding that there was only a lull in the business of the assessee during the period under consideration and that the business must be considered to have been continued. 2. The Commissioner (Appeals) failed to note that AVK Industries had suspended its manufacturing activity as early as in 1989 and the expenditure claimed during the year under consideration was just the interest on bank loans outstanding. 3. The Commissioner (Appeals) has failed to giv...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
1. The assessee has filed both the appeals. They relate to assessment year 2001-02. While ITA No. 8854/ Mum./2004 is directed against the assessment of income, the other appeal, i.e., ITA No. 5641/Mum./2006 is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) confirming the penalty levied by the assessing officer under Section 271(l)(c) of the Income Tax Act as a result of the aforesaid assessment of income. We therefore find it convenient to dispose off both these appeals by a consolidated order. 1.1 The Id. Commissioner (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer (i) by not giving sufficient proper and effective opportunity of being heard to the appellant, and (ii) by failing to appreciate that the assessing officer had framed the assessment order without giving proper, effective and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 1.2 It is submitted that the appellate order requires to be held bad and illegal as the same is passed in violation o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1998KAR2553; 1998(6)KarLJ181; (1999)ILLJ19Kant
1. These appeals have arisen out of a common order dated 19-9-1995 of the learned Single Judge passed in Writ Petition Nos. 28462 and 28463 of 1993 coupled with Writ Petition Nos. 17698 and 17709 of 1995 dismissing all these petitions of the appellant-corporation. By the said petitions the common interim orders dated 24-5-1993 and 21-1-1995 made by respondent 3-Labour Court in Reference Nos. 377 of 1988 and 380 of 1988 were challenged by the appellant (hereinafter referred to as the 'corporation').2. The facts of the industrial dispute leading to the aforesaid references pending before the respondent-Labour Court are as stated under:The workman Sri G.C. Odusmath, who is respondent 1 ('R1' for short) and Sri C.M. Vidyananda, respondent 2 ('R2' for short) were appointed by the corporation as Junior Cotton Purchasers and they had been serving as such 'workmen' of the Corporation. In the year 1986 both were deputed to Bellary town in the State of Karnataka as Cotton Purchaser and Jr. Cotto...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2001ACJ1222; 1999(6)ALD439; 1999(6)ALT808
1. The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation filed this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 24-10-1991 in OP No.53 of 1990 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Guntur, granting an amount of Rs.75,600/- by way of compensation to the petitioners/respondents, who are dependents of the deceased Bum Ramu.2. The brief facts of the case arc that, on 30-12-1989 at about 9 a.m. while the deceased Burri Ramu and his friend were going on Luna AHK 2805 to Vijayawada, the driver of the RTC bus bearing No.AEZ 5368 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner with high speed coming from Vijayawada and dashed against the Luna of the deceased near Dolas Nagar on National High Way No.5 i.e., Guntur to Vijayawada road, due to which the deceased Burri Ramu sustained multiple injuries and died and his friend sustained injuries. The death of the deceased occurred on the spot. The SHO, Tadepalli P.S. registered a case in Cr.No.195 of 1989. It was stated in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2008(4)AWC3525(All); [2008(118)FLR916]; (2009)IILLJ169All
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard Sri Shakti Swarup Nigam, counsel for the petitioner and the standing counsel.2. The petitioners are engaged in the business of printing books. Petitioner No. 1 terminated services of 82 workmen whereas petitioner No. 2 terminated services of 16 workmen allegedly after holding disciplinary proceedings for the charges levelled against them. These workmen raised an industrial dispute which was referred to Industrial Tribunal I, Allahabad for adjudication where it was registered as adjudication case No. 91 of 1999. Parties filed their written statements etc. and the workmen also leg their evidence. Thereafter a date was fixed for evidence by the employers.3. At that stage, the employers moved an application being Paper No. 50 -A inter alia that the issues framed by the Tribunal are jurisdictional in nature and they go to the root of the matter, as such they may be decided first as preliminary issues. The issues framed by the Tribunal were:(a). Whether the enquiry ...
Tag this Judgment!