Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1999]240ITR390(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. As to whether the person appointed as 'authorised controller' under Section 18A of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act can be regarded as a representative assessee under Section 160(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act and as to whether an assessment can be made on the authorised controller in respect of the industrial undertaking owned by a company which continues to exist, but in respect of which he has ceased to be the 'authorised controller' are the questions which arise for consideration in these references.2. The Tamil Nadu Textile Corporation Limited was appointed as 'authorised controller' of a company known as Cambodia Mills Ltd. with effect from October 22, 1969, it ceased to be the authorised controller from April 1, 1974, when all the assets of the company came to be vested in the Central Government and thereafter in the National Textile Corporation under the provisions of the Sick Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act, 1974.3. During the p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1985(2)BomCR1; 1984MhLJ1031
V.S. Kotwal, J.1. A three wheeler meant for earning income landed both the parties in difficulties. The two accused are being placed in the dock while the complainant, who is required to part with additional amount as also required almost to purchase litigation along with it. The petitioners herein are brothers, who are alleged to have indulged in venture in booking orders for registering scooters and three wheelers with Bajaj Auto Company under pseudo names with a modus operandi to get the vehicles under those different names and to sell those earning some profits by which, as per the prosecution, some documents came to be forged while they indulged in breach of impugned order under which there was prohibition from transferring the vehicles for a period of two years. One such three wheeler was booked by the petitioners in the name of Pravinchandra Natoria in the year 1967 with the said company. The complainant, who lost his service decided to autorickshaw plying and as such was on the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1963SC151; [1963]33CompCas745(SC); [1963]2SCR774
Mudholkar, J.1. The petitioners who have acquired over six acres of land by purchase for Rs. 4,50,000 in February, 1961, under five sale deeds and one lease deed claim to have done so for the purpose of establishing a paper mill in collaboration with Messrs. R.S. Madhoram and Sons, who had been granted a licence for the establishment of a paper plant in Ghaziabad in Uttar Pradesh. The aforesaid land is situate in the village, Meola Maharajpur, Tehsil Ballabhgarh, District Gurgaon, and abuts on the Mathura Road, and is only about 10 or 12 miles from New Delhi. Respondent No. 6. Air Conditioning Corporation (P.) Ltd., is a private limited concern and holds a licence from the Government of India for starting a factory for the manufacture of various ranges of refrigeration compressors and ancillary equipment. We may mention here that initially this project was allotted to the State of West Bengal but at the request of the State of Punjab its location was shifted to the State of Punjab. 2. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC772; [1991]187ITR478(SC); JT1990(4)SC430; 1990(2)SCALE756; 1992Supp(1)SCC150; [1990]Supp1SCR590; [1991]80STC138(SC)
ORDERS. Ranganathan, J.1. The Civil Appeal and S.L.P. 12054/87 are by the State of Madhya Pradesh (M.P.). The respondents in these two matters and the petitioners in the other five Special Leave Petitions are certain concerns in M.P. assessable to sales tax (hereinafter compendiously referred to as 'the assessees'). All these matters can be conveniently disposed of by a common judgment as they raise a common issue.2. The assessees' claim for exemption from sales tax for certain periods in question was accepted by the High Court in the case of G.S. Dhall & Flour Mills and, following it, in the case of Mohd. Ismail (a case where the exemption sought for was originally granted but subsequently revoked). However, subsequently, a Full Bench of the High Court, in the case of Jagadamba Industries, disapproved the view taken by the Division Bench in the G.S. Dhall & Flour Mills case and, following the Full Bench, the writ petitions filed by certain other assessees were dismissed by the High Co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC2670; 2008(2)AWC1863(SC); III(2008)BC22; [2008]143CompCas1(SC); JT2008(6)SC224; 2008(6)MhLj171; (2008)5MLJ1092(SC); (2008)151PLR446; 2008(6)SCALE117; (2008)5SCC274
Harjit Singh Bedi, J.1. This appeal by special leave arises out of the following facts.The Syndicate Bank, the appellant herein, sanctioned various credit limits to the respondent No. 1 company including an overdraft limit of Rs. 1,00,000/- and working capital term loan of Rs. 1,00,000/- on certain prescribed conditions. These loans were granted after cancellation of the earlier limits with a view to nurse respondent No. 1 which was a sick unit. In order to secure the advance, the Managing Director of respondent No. 1, that is respondent No. 2 and the other Directors executed several documents as securities and respondent No. 2 also mortgaged his property to the Bank as a collateral security. As the respondent No. 1 defaulted in the repayment of the loan, the Bank filed a suit for recovery (O.S. No. 732/1987) in the Trichur Civil Court seeking a decree for Rs. 1,19,832.63 with interest @ 12.5% per annum in the Term Loan Account and Rs. 2,09,120.75 in the Overdraft Account with interest...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(134)ECC290; 2008(160)LC290(SC)
ORDERAshok Bhan and V.S. Sirpurkar, JJ.1. This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the Judgment and Order, dated, 10th October, 2001 passed by the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, (in short 'Tribunal') New Delhi in Final Order No. 142/01-C, in Appeal No. E/369/96-C whereby the Respondent was held eligible to avail of the benefit of the small scale exemption notification. Brief facts of the case are as under:The Respondent M/s Surcoat Paints Pvt. Ltd. is engaged in the manufacture of paints and varnishes falling under Chapter 32 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Respondent was incorporated as a private limited company on 13th October, 1986 under the Companies Act. Respondent is a registered small scale industry holding permanent registration certificate issued by the General Manager, District Industries, Centre of Director of Industries, U.P. Respondent has been availing exemption of S.S.I. as envisaged under Notification No. 175/86...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : [1984]56CompCas311(Delhi)
ORDER S. O. 561(E). WHEREAS the industrial undertaking known as Messrs. J. K. Rayons owned by Messrs. J. K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Company Limited, Kanpur, is engaged in the Scheduled Industry, namely, the Textiles industry. AND WHEREAS, the Central Government is of the opinion that there has been a substantial fall in the volume of production and deteriorations in quality in respect of Viscose Filament Yarn manufactured in the said industries undertaking, for which having regard to the economic conditions prevailing, there is no justification. AND WHEREAS, the Central Government is further of the opinion that the said Industrial Undertaking is being managed in a manner highly detrimental to the Textile industry and the public interest ; NOW thereforeE, in exercise of the powers conferred by section 15 of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 (65 of 1951), the Central Government hereby appoints, for ]cause of labour trouble later in January, 1981. At the r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2002(3)ALLMR100; 2002(4)BomCR201; [2002]112CompCas480(Bom); 2002(2)MhLj911
D.G. Karnik, J.1. The petitioner is a non-banking finance Company carrying on business, inter alia, of giving on lease/hire different equipments. The respondent Company was incorporated on 26-6-1992 under the name of Mantri Housing and Constructions Limited. By passing the necessary resolutions in a General Meeting held on 26th May, 2000, the respondent Company changed it's name to Global Infrastructure and Technologies Limited and also amended objects clause of it's Memorandum of Association by adding two Clauses 1A and 1B as the main objects of the Company. A fresh certificate of Incorporation with the amended name was issued by the Registrar of Companies on 29th June, 2000.2. Initially, the respondent Company had only one main object of carrying on business of Real Estate including sale and purchase of the land, building and owning, buying, hiring, letting, maintaining and giving on tenancy or sub-tenancy buildings, tenements, blocks, flats, shops, godowns, dwelling houses etc. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1982(1)BomCR367
B. Lentin, J.1. The petitioners challenge the method of distribution of ad hoc cement in the State of Maharashtra as being contrary to the rule of law and probity in public life. Initially the petitioners has also challenged the vires of the Foreign Exchange Remittance Scheme. However, at the conclusion of the arguments, that challenge was not pressed. 2. The petitioner are social workers and consumers of cement. The 1st respondent is the State of Maharashtra. The 2nd respondent is the Chief Minister. The 3rd respondent is the Union of India. 3. It is the petitioners' case that as social workers and members of 'Samajwadi Manch', an organisation committed to seeing that sale and distribution of essential commodities is done in an equitable manner, they received several complaints from the public that cement was not available from the rationing offices either for building or repair work, that bona fide applications for cement were side-tracked and that cement was given in large quantitie...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2002(1)ALT397
ORDERE. Dharma Rao, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 8.5.2000 passed in I.A. No. 195 of 2000 in O.S. No. 19 of 1993 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bobbili, whereby the learned Senior Civil Judge dismissed the application filed under Order 14 Rule 2(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure praying to try the first issue as preliminary issue, as the said issue relate to the jurisdiction of the Court and also relates to the bar relating to the filing of the suits OS No. 48 of 1982 and 49/82 (Old OS Nos. 37 and 38 of 1987) filed under Secs. 7, 7-A(1), 7-A(6), 8(2), 8(8) and 15 of the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 and also Section 18 of the Industries (Development and Regulation)Act, 1951 2. The above suit was filed by the petitioner before the Vacation Civil Judge, Vizianagaram, as OS No. 19 of 1993 for declaration that the decree passed by the Subordinate Judge's Court, Bobbili, in OS Nos. 37 and 38 of 1987 are not binding upon him and sought...
Tag this Judgment!