Court : Chennai
(Prayer in both the O.Ps: Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking to call for the records, quash the private complaints in S.T.C.No.68 of 2012 and S.T.C.No.71 of 2012 respectively for offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate (Fast Track Court), Hosur.) Common Order 1. Whether a Public Charitable Trust is a juristic person and a company in terms of Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is the issue involved in these petitions. 2. The petitioners are the accused Nos.1 and 3 to 9 in S.T.C No.71 of 2012 as well as in S.T.C. No.68 of 2012 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate (Fast Track Court), Hosur. Seeking to quash the said cases, the petitioners have come up with these Criminal Original Petitions. The common respondent in these Criminal Original Petitions is the complainant in both the cases before the Trial Court. 3. Since common issues have been raised in both these ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~27 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on : May 14, 2015 + W.P.(C) 4600/2015 COVENTRY COIL-O-MATIC (HARYANA) LTD. ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Jayant Bhushan, Sr. Adv. with Mr. S S Behl, Mr. Sunil Goel, Mr. Rakesh Sinha, Mr. Ankur S. Kulkarni and Mr. Anand Srivastava, Advs. versus ALCHEMIST ASSET RECONSTRUCTIONS CO. LTD. & ORS ..... Respondent Through Mr. Amit Chadha, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Vaibhav Tyagi and Mr. Virender Negi, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. GAUBA MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT) % CAV469470/2015 Learned counsel for the Caveator has put in appearance. Caveat Nos. 469-470/2015 are accordingly discharged. W.P.(C) 4600/2015 & C.M. No.8318/2015 (stay) 1. The petitioner challenges the order of the DRAT dated 22.04.2015 by which it refused to entertain an application for suspension of proceedings WP(C) No.4600/2015 Page 1 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) in OA No.57/2008 on the ground that a scheme under S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : [2008(119)FLR1133]; (2009)IILLJ369MP; 2008(5)MPHT88
ORDERU.C. Maheshwari, J.1. This appeal is directed by the appellant Corporation under Section 82 of Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (in short 'the Act') being aggrieved by the order dated 27-3-2002 passed by the ESI-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Bhopal in Case No. 28/ESI/94 whereby quashing the notice/order bearing No. 1117, dated 16-9-1994 issued by the appellant against the respondent for recovery of damages Rs. 49,607/- imposed on account of failing in depositing the contribution with in prescribed period by the respondent, such 100% amount of damages is reduced to 25% with a direction to deposit the same within one month.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal in short are that the respondent being registered Private Ltd. Company is involved in transport business, filed an application under Section 75 of the Act in the Tribunal contending that in accordance the order of the appellant bearing No. 3295, dated 22-7-1987, directing to deposit the contribution Rs. 49623/- for the period o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [2000]100CompCas1(Mad)
Y. Venkatachalam, J. 1. Invoking article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-mills herein has filed the present writ petition seeking for a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records pertaining to G. O. Ms. No. 304, dated October 12, 1990, issued by the first respondent and the consequential G. 0. Ms. No. 97, dated February 25, 1991, and other consequential orders passed pursuant to the above proceedings including the order dated September 1, 1994, and September 21, 1994, of the Commercial Tax Officer, Singanallur Assistant Circle, Coimbatore, in Ref. No. 648/ 91A3 and Ref. No. 1657/87-A3, respectively in so far as they relate to conditions made in clause 5 regarding payment schedule of deferred sales tax for the years 1990-91, 1991-92 and 1992-93, and clauses 5 and 7 thereofrelating to the appointment of a nominee director to be nominated by the third respondent herein to be a director on the board of management of the first petitioner to the extent they are ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2010SC266
1. Leave granted. 2. This is an appeal for setting aside order dated 21.11.2008 passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court whereby it allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent, quashed the action taken by the appellant- Corporation under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 (for short, `the Act') for recovery of its dues and also directed review of all pending cases in which penal interest has been compounded. 3. On an application made by the respondent for grant of loan for setting up an industrial unit in District Gurdaspur (Punjab), the appellant- Corporation sanctioned a term loan of Rs.24.25 lacs. For securing repayment of the loan, the respondent mortgaged immovable properties in favour of the appellant-Corporation. As per the terms of agreement executed between the parties, the respondent was required to repay the loan together with interest on specified dates but it failed to adhere to the time schedule and a sum of Rs.2.70 lacs only was deposited t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
THE HONBLE Sr.JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN AND THE HONBLE Sr.JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY Writ Petition No.9275 of 2014 09-04-2015 M/S.SVPCL Limited,D. NO.11-13-173/11&12, Fathenagar, Hyderabad, Rep., by its Managing Director, K. Mallikarjuna Reddy, S/o Subba Reddy.---Petitioner The State Bank of India and another. Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sr.C.B.Rammohan Reddy Counsel for the respondents: Sr.B.S.Prasad Sr.B. Narayana Reddy, Asst.Solicitor General ?. Citations: 1) (1986) 1 SCC1002) (2015) 1 SCC2983) (2015) 1 SCC1664) AIR2012SC14405) 2011 GLH (3) 712 : (2012) GLR7906) (2008 9 JT3817) (2009) 4 SCC948) AIR2011Karnataka 183 9) LAWS (DLH)2014-4-92 10) 2005 (9) SCC12911) AIR1964SC20712) 2005 (2) SCC14513) AIR1952SC36914) AIR1957SC65715) (1993) 2 SCC14416) (1997) 89 Comp Cas 547 17) AIR2000SC1535(2000) 4 SCC40618) AIR2000SC264219) (2001) 3 SCC7120) (1977) 1 SCC75021) (1990) 4 SCC40622) (1966) 2 SCR12123) AIR1956SC61424) (2005) 2 SCC63825) (2004) 6 SCC3626) (2014) 5 SCC61027) Ju...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [2009]147CompCas387(Mad); [2007]76SCL280(Mad)
ORDERP. Jyothimani, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents.2. These writ petitions are filed praying for quashing the notice issued by the second respondent namely the Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Limited dated 30-6-2005 under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and praying for a declaration that i he action of the second and third respondents namely the Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Limited, Thirunelveli and the Federal Bank Limited, Tuticorin in resiling from their position after having approved the Draft Rehabilitation Scheme dated 18-1-2005 circulated by the first respondent and consequently to direct the first respondent namely Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR), New Delhi to sanction the Draft Rehabilitation Scheme (DRS) dated 18-1-2005 respectively.3. The case of the p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR2008Delhi192; [2009]149CompCas390(Delhi)
Mukul Mudgal, J.1. This writ petition involves the interpretation of Section 15(1), 2nd Proviso of Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as SICA), which reads as follows:15. Reference to Board.-- (1) When an industrial company has become a sick industrial company, the Board of Directors of the company, shall, within sixty days from the date of finalisation of the duly audited accounts of the company for the financial year as at the end of which the company has become a sick industrial company, make a reference to the Board for determination of the measures which shall be adopted with respect to the company:..Provided also that on or after the commencement of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 where a reference is pending before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction such reference shall abate if the secured creditors, represent...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : [2009]149CompCas402(Delhi)
Mukul Mudgal, J.1. This writ petition challenges the order dated 4th February 2002 passed by the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (hereinafter referred to as 'the AAIFR') wherein while dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner M/s. Madras Petrochem Ltd. and Anr. it was held that the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (hereinafter referred to as 'the BIFR') had made all efforts to secure the rehabilitation of the petitioner company and the scheme sanctioned in 1991 and 1996 had failed. It was concluded by the AAIFR that the petitioner is heavily indebted and there was no possibility of rehabilitating it. It was held that prolonged proceedings in SICA would no further serve any purpose and would serve the private interests of the guarantors. It is this order which is challenged in this writ petition. 2. Learned Counsel for the appellant has challenged the divesting of the jurisdiction of the BIFR and the AAIFR in these proceedings. The re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2002(1)ALD705; [2002]108CompCas406(AP); [2001(91)FLR731]
S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. This writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge declining to interfere with the order of attachment dated 5-7-2001 passed by the 3rd respondent under Sections 8-B and 8-G of the Employees Provident Fund Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short 'the EPF Act') as also the order appointing a receiver in respect of the appellant's business concern for proper management/running of the business in accordance with the rules.2. The appellant-petitioner is a sick Company within the meaning of Section 3(1)(o) of the Sick industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (for short 'SICA').FACTS:3. The admitted fact is that the appellant had committed default in remitting the amounts due under the Employees Provided Fund Scheme, 1952 to the tune of Rs. 1,63,775-55 during the period from November, 1992 to November, 2000 to the PF Account. Out of the said amount an amount of Rs. 72,96,915/- represents the employees' share of the Provident Fund co...
Tag this Judgment!