Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [2008]144CompCas236(Cal)
Patherya, J.1. This is an application for sanctioning a scheme of arrangement between Tata Tea Ltd. ('transferor company') and Amalgamated Plantation P. Ltd. ('transferee company') and their respective shareholders.Petitioners' case:2. The case of the applicants is that pursuant to advertisements the meeting of the shareholders was held. At the said meeting the scheme was approved by the requisite majority without any modification. The said will appear from the chairperson's report of the transferor and transferee companies.3. Twenty-seven advertisements were published and from the explanatory statement it will appear that documents were open for inspection including the quarterly financial results as on June 30, 2006, September 30, 2006 and December 31, 2006, of the transferor company.4. As the shareholders have approved the scheme of amalgamation without any modification and as held in A.W. Figgis and Co. P. Ltd. In re [1980] 50 Comp Cas 95 (Cal), the shareholders are the best judge ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1995]215ITR249(Cal)
Suhas Chandra Sen, J. 1. The Tribunal has referred the following two questions of law to this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to deduction under Section 80HH of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for its new freight container unit without setting off past losses of the said unit 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in not upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) to the effect that relief under Section 80HH of the Income-tax Act, 1961, should be determined with reference to the working of the new unit only without reference to the profits of other units not eligible for deduction under this section ?' 2. The assessment year involved is 1983-84 for which the relevant accounting year is the financial year 1982-83.3. The facts as narrated by the Tribunal in the stateme...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1986]60CompCas920(Cal)
Asha Mukal Pal, J.1. This is an application by one Gopal Das Gujarati for an order of injunction restraining the defendants, namely, the Titagarh Paper Mills Co Ltd., Kanak Ghosh, working for gain at 95, Park Street, Calcutta, and others including Sri Betrabet, Deputy General Manager, Development and Planning, and N. I. Gangaram, Deputy General Manager, working for gain at the Industrial Development Bank of India along with others from proceeding with or acting in terms of the notice dated August 24, 1983, calling the annual general meeting on September 30, 1983, and also from holding the annnal general meeting on the said date. Appointment of administrator and/or special officer has also been sought for over the Titagarh Paper Mills Co. Ltd., defendant No. 1.2. The petitioner's case is that at all material times, he was and still is a shareholder of the Titagarh Paper Mills and he is holding 32,179 fully paid-up ordinary shares of Rs. 10 each in the capital of the Titagarh Paper Mills...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 1979CENCUS359D,1984(15)ELT337(Cal)
Chittatosh Mookerjee, J.1. The appellants companies arc manufacturers of the jute products like jute twine, yarn, sacking, carpet backing etc. The appellants have further claimed that portions of jute twine and jute yarn manufactured by them are used for producing finished products, namely, jute textiles. In other words, portions of jute twine and jute yarn are their intermediate products for captive consumption.2. Jute Textile Industries is one of the industries specified in the First Schedule of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951. But the specifications relating to jute industry in the First Schedule of the said Act have been from time to time amended/substituted. The Act LXX1 of 1956 substituted the First Schedule of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 with effect from 1st of March, 1957. The Heading No. 23 of the First Schedule is as follows :-'Textiles (including those dyed, printed or otherwise processed);(1) * * * *(2) made wholly or in part ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Sanjib Banerjee, J. 1. The writ petitioners question a decision of April 7, 2009 by the grievance redressal committee of the respondent private bank declaring the petitioner company to be a willful defaulter within the meaning of a Reserve Bank of India master circular dated July 1, 2008. There are several levels on which the challenge has been launched. The petitioners allege that the master circular is unconstitutional and, in any event, the grievance redressal mechanism contemplated there under is a meaningless, facile exercise. They say that even if the master circular is upheld in its entirety, the relevant committee of the bank may still be found to have acted without jurisdiction since the master circular applies to lender-borrower transactions between a bank and another; and, the nature of the agreement which is the subject matter of the proceedings did not involve a lender-borrower relationship between the bank and the petitioner company. The petitioners also allege violation ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR2005Cal28,[2005]125CompCas708(Cal)
ORDERAmitava Lala, J.1. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This application has arisen out of an order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal (D.R.T.) followed by an appellate order passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (D.R.A.T.). Although the parties argued at length in the merit but at the end of the argument Mr. Ajoy Krishna Chatterjee, Learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the respondent Bank, raised a point about the scope' and ambit of the Article 227 of the Constitution of India in this respect. Possibly he wanted to see no stone unturned. Even then I am not inclined to give incidental value to such part of the argument because it may ultimately touch the foundation of the jurisdiction of the Court. Articles 226 and 227 are plenary powers of the High Court under the Constitution of India. Such plenary power of the High Court is exhaustive in nature. The same cannot be curtailed. Even then the Writ Court in its wisdom tries to avoid t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1987]61CompCas227(Cal)
Dipak Kumar Sen, J.1. Debendra Nath Bhattacharya, since deceased, and Deb Kanta Roy were the promoters of Gluco Series P. Ltd. (hereafter referred to as 'the company') which was incorporated on November 11, 1959. At the incorporation of the company, Debendra subscribed for 1,000 shares and Deb Kanta subscribed for 200 shares of Rs. 100 each.2. The main object of the company is to manufacture and sell glucose of various types.3. The articles of association of the company provide, inter alia, as follows:'Article 7....the company shall be entitled to treat the registered holder of any share as the absolute owner thereof and accordingly shall not, except as ordered by a court of competent jurisdiction or as by statute required, be bound to recognise any benami, equitable or other claim to/or interest in such share on the part of any other person.Article 29.--Number of directors shall not be less than two and more than seven until otherwise determined by general meeting.Article 30.--The fir...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 1998(60)ECC48
Samaresh Banerjea, J.1. Common questions of law and fact being involved in both the writ petitions, the same have been heard analogously and will be governed by the same judgment.2. One of the questions which has come up for consideration in the instant writ proceedings, is, whether Section 40(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act of 1973 (hereinafter referred to as FERA) and Section 34(2) of FERA are ultra vires the Constitution of India and is illegal, invalid and null and void.3. Each of the writ petitioner has also challenged in the writ petition summons issued against each of them under Section 40(1) one of FERA by the appropriate authority on merits.4. In the writ petition No. 2580 of 1996, it is the case of the petitioner Ms. Amgana Sengupta, daughter of Justice Ajit Kumar Sengupta, a former Judge of this Hon'ble Court and the Allahabad High Court, and who has obtained a Bachelor's Degree in law from London University and Master's Degree in law from Cambridge University and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (2001)2CALLT539(HC)
A.K. Mathur, C.J.1. The brief facts which are necessary for disposal of the instant appeal are that a winding up petition under sections 433. 434 and 439 of the Companies Act. 1956 was filed by ICICI Limited Company (hereinafter referred to as ICICI) for winding up of M/S Maxlux Glass Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as Company). The Company was incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 as a private Company limited by shares. The authorised share capital of the Company is Rs. 100, 100,000.00 divided into 10,000.000 share of Rs. 10/- each. The issued and subscribed capital of the Company is Rs. 70,130,360.00 made up of equity shares of Rs. 10/- each fully paid up. The Company carries on business of manufacturing of different kind of glass article. The Company was indebted to the petitioner in the sum of Rs.4,75,03.044/- as on 15th August. 1999 on account of money lent and advanced by the petitioner and not repaid by the Company. The petitioner claimed interest...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Form not J.(2) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Original Side Present: The Honble Justice Ashim Kumar Banerjee And The Honble Justice Dr. Mrinal Kanti Chaudhuri A.P.O.No.180 of 2012 C.S.No.299 of 2007 ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY (INDIA) LTD.versus EXCEL DEALCOMM PVT.LTD.& ORS.For the Appellant : Mr.S.P.Sarkar, Senior Advocate Mr.Anupam Das Adhikari, Advocate Ms.Suruchi Agarwal, Advocate For the Respondent No.1 : Mr.Utpal Bose, Advocate Mr.Rudraman Bhattacharya, Advocate Mr.Kuldeep Mullick, Advocate Mr.Pratik Ghosh, Advocate For the Respondent No.4 : Mr.Abhrajit Mitra, Advocate Mr.Chayan Gupta, Advocate Mr.Abhijit Sarkar, Advocate Heard on : February 20, 25 and 26, 2013. Judgment on : March 8, 2013. ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE.J.BACKDROP : Uniworth Apparel Limited was a company registered in Maharashtra under the Companies Act, 1956. It had an industrial unit at Thane (Navi Mumbai) in the District of Maharashtra. The Uniworth availed credit facilities from ICICI Bank...
Tag this Judgment!