Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1984Delhi783
Prakash Narain, J.(1) This petition under Article 226 of tja.e Constitution of India is concerned with the validity, ten- ability and legality of an order dated August, 6, 1983, passed by the Central Government under Section 15 of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, hereinafter referred to as the Act, in respect of the Rayon Unit of the first petitioner. (2) The first petitioner is a public incited company incorporated and registered under the Companies Act, 1913. The second petitioner is a shareholder of the first petitioner. Respondents I to 7 are the Union of India and persons appointed by the Central Government by its impugned order dated August 6. 1983 for the purpose of investigation postulated by the said order. Respondent No. 8 is the State of Uttar Pradesh.(3) The first petitioner has, inter alia, a cotton textile mill at Kanpur and a mill for manufacture of rayon filament yarn, also at Kanpur. The cotton mill has been in existence from 1931 and it reported ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [1985]58CompCas729(Guj); (1983)1GLR445
Mehta, J. 1. These three company applications arise out of the proceedings taking over the Manekchowk and Ahmedabad Mfg. Co. Ltd. (In winding-up) (hereinafter referred to as 'the company'). By two company applications, namely, Company Application Nos. 28 of 1981 and 82 of 1982, the Union of India and by company Application No. 101 of 1982 the shareholder and the creditors of the company the petitioners herein (hereinafter referred to as 'the sponsors of the scheme') have taken out summons for directions. The Union of India has sought a direction that permission under s. 18FA(1) of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), to take over the textile unit of the company be granted for the purposes of handing over the said unit to the Gujarat State and for appointment of the Gujarat State Textile Corporation as authorised persons. The sponsors of the scheme have by Company Petition No. 36 of 1980 sought the sanction of the court under s. 3...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1968Kant245; AIR1968Mys245; (1968)1MysLJ395
ORDER(1) On 16-9-1963 the petitioner had made an application in accordance with Clause 5 of the Motor Cars (Distribution and Sale) Control order, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Cars Control Order), for purchase of a Fiat Car. As required by Cl.5 (2) of that Order, he had furnished a Bank guarantee for Rs. 2000/- to Respondent No. 2, who is the authorised dealer of Fiat Cars. Consequent upon the amendment of the Cars Control Order, by the notification dated 29-6-1965, the petitioner was asked to make a cash deposit of Rupees 2000/- in a Post Office and to pledge the Post Office Savings Bank Pass Book with Respondent No. 2 in lieu of the Bank guarantee furnished earlier.(2) Feeling aggrieved by this requirement to deposit cash, the petitioner has filed this petition under art. 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of amended Sub-clause (2) of Clause 5 of the Cars Control Order.(3) The Cars Control Order was made by the Central Government on 1-5-1959 in exercise of the po...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1991All259
ORDERA.P. Misra, J.1. The petitioner has sought for quashing the order dt. 11th May, 1990 (Annexure 16 to the petition), passed by the Director of the Bureau of Indian Standards, Lucknow directing the petitioner to send the industrial licence or a letter of indent from the Central Government and permission from Directorate of Vanaspati according approval to manufacture of Vanaspati by it within fourteen days, otherwise the application for the grant of licence will be treated as closed without any further correspondence, and further to direct the respondent to complete the processing of the application of the petitioner for the grant of licence to use the standards mark forthwith.2. The petitioner is a public limited company and has established a manufacturing unit for the manufacture of Vanaspati ghee. The said unit has been granted provi-siona! registration certificate by the Director of Industries, U.P. as a small scale unit. On 20th Jan., 1989, and 19th Jan., 1990, the petitioner al...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1970SC1453; (1969)2SCC166; [1970]1SCR479
V. Ramaswami, J.1. In these petitions which have been filed under Article 32 of the Constitution a common question is presented for determination, namely, whether the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 (Act No. 45 of 1968) is Constitutionally valid.2. The Gold (Control) Act, (hereinafter called the impugned Act) was passed by Parliament and received assent of the President on September 1, 1968. The impugned Act begins with the following preamble, namely, 'an Act to provide in the economic and financial interests of the community, for the control of the production, manufacture, supply, distribution, use and possession of, and business in, gold, ornaments and articles of gold and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.' Section 2 contains a number of definitions. Section 2(b) defines an 'article' to mean anything (other than ornament), in a finished form made of, manufactured from or containing, gold, and including (i) any gold coin, (ii) broken pieces of an article, but not includi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC985; JT2007(2)SC243; (2007)2LLJ549SC; 2007(2)SCALE328; (2007)3SCC73; 2007(3)SLJ20(SC); 2007AIRSCW752;
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Appellant calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Guwahati High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. The writ appeal was directed against the common judgment and order dated 7.5.2002 passed by learned Single Judge wherein the writ petition filed by the respondent No. 2 i.e. Management of Assam Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. (in short the 'AIDC') was allowed while dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. Both the writ petitions were directed against the Award of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Assam, at Guwahati (hereinafter referred to as the 'Labour Court'). The appellant claims to be the Union of employees of M/s Industrial Papers (Assam) Ltd. (in short the 'IPAL'). Learned Single Judge held that there is a clear cut finding in the Award to the effect that workmen were not employees of AIDC, and therefore, the question of giving them benefit as was done by the Labour Court did ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1972Delhi483
Hardayal Hardy, C.J.(1) This judgment will dispose of two petitions viz.. Civil Writ No. 17 of 1972 and Civil Writ No. 63 of 1972 under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner in the first writ is Shri Vijay Kumar Mundbra of Calcutta who claims to be a registered share-holder, and director of the Osmanshahi Mills Limited situate in Nanded, State of Maharashtra, hereafter referred to as the company, while the petitioner in civil writ No. 63 is a partnership firm which claims to be a creditor of the said company. (2) The common question in both the cases is whether respondents 1 to 3 were bound to hear the petitioners before an order dated the 29th December, 1971, under Section 18AA of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 as amended, could be passed whereby the respondent No. 1 could authorise the taking over of the management of the whole of the industrial undertaking viz. the textile mill owned by the said company. (3) The company has been in existence since se...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [1976]46CompCas59(Guj)
D.A. Desai, J.1. One Shri Rajendrakumar Maneklal has filed this petition under section 391(1) of the Companies Act, 1956, praying for an order sanctioning the scheme of compromise and arrangement between Hathising . (in liquidation) (hereinafter referred to as 'the company') and its members and creditors. 2. The company was incorporated on 14th July, 1897, under the Indian Companies Act, 1887. At the relevant time, its original authorised capital was Rs. 5,25,000, consisting of 525 equity shares of Rs. 1,000 each. Its issued, subscribed and paid up capital was Rs. 4,45,000 consisting of 445 equity shares of Rs. 1,000 each. Subsequently, by amendment and alteration of the capital clause of the memorandum of association, the issued, subscribed and paid up capital was Rs. 2,22,500. In all, 890 shares each of Rs. 250 fully paid were subscribed. The main object for which the company was incorporated was spinning of cotton yarn. In course of time, it had an installed capacity of 14,000 spind...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1961Guj73; (1961)GLR117
Bhagwati, J.1. This petition raises an interesting question regarding the power of the Central Government to assume management or control of an industrial undertaking. The question turns on the interpretation of Section 18-A of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, to which we shall hereafter refer in this judgment as the 'Act'. It is a question of considerable importance and having regard to the full and detailed arguments which have been presented before us on this question on both sides, it is necessary to set out the facts in some fullness.2. The first petitioner has an undertaking known as 'Hathising Mills' situated in Ahmeda-bad and the first petitioner carries on inter alia the business of spinning cotton yam in the said undertaking. The second petitioner is the proprietor of the firm of M/S. Maneklal Mansukhbhai and Company who arc the Managing Agents of the first petitioner. The second petitioner is also an ex officio Director of the first petitioner and along...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2003(2)Raj1161; [2003]130STC186(Raj); 2002(5)WLN363
1.These three writ petitions raise a common question about the interpretation of term 'expansion' and the conditions to be fulfilled by the applicants thereunder for seeking benefits under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Incentive Scheme, 1987 or the Rajasthan Sales Tax New Incentive Scheme, 1989.2. All the three applicants-respondents in the aforesaid petitions had applied for the sanction for issuing eligibility certificate before the State Level Screening Committee in respect of their expansions carried on by them in the respective existing industrial units engaged in the manufacture of yarn.3. M/s. H.E.G. Ltd. has applied for the benefit under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Deferment Scheme, 1987 (Deferment Scheme 1987) whereas M/s. Reliance Chemotax Industries Ltd., has sought the benefit under the Rajasthan Sales Tax New Deferment Scheme, 1989 (for short, 'New Deferment Scheme'), M/s. Super Syncotex (India) Ltd., has sought the benefit under the Rajasthan Sales Tax New Incentive Scheme, 1989 (f...
Tag this Judgment!