Jayanti Shipping Company Acquisition Of Shares Act 1971 Section 3 Vesting Of Shares Of Company In Central Government And Compensation Therefor - Judgment Search Results

Jayanti Sharma Teja Vs. Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Fi ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: [1984]148ITR316(AP)

to him would be compensation declared for his shares in Jayanti Shipping Company which was never paid to him, that he as compensation towards the shares held by him in the shipping company consequent on its being nationalised was adjusted. Still a compensation towards the shares held by him in the shipping company consequent on its being nationalised was adjusted. Still a huge sum of , Rs. 3,72,94,000 awarded as compensation towards the shares held by him in the shipping company consequent on its clearance certificate as required under s. 230(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 5. Mr. P. Ramachandra Reddy, the learned counsel for The company was taken over in 1966-67 and nationalised during 1971-72 by the Government of India. During this time, there were by the Central Government in this behalf (hereinafter in this section referred to as the 'competent authority') a certificate stating that would be liable for legal action as provided under s. 32 of the Civil Procedure Code. 4. To this letter, Dr. follows : '230. (1) Subject to such exceptions as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in from such authority as may be appointed by the Central Government in this behalf (hereinafter in this section referred to as be secured, that efforts were made for recovery of the compensation payable to the petitioner consequent on the 'Jayanti' being nationalised occasion to insist on the clearance certificate. Sub-section (2) can, therefore, be effectively implemented by a notice given to the owner

M/S Jayanti Shipping Co. Ltd. Vs Dr. Dharma Teja and ors.

Court: Delhi

JAYANTI US $ 10 and other valuable consideration.MOUNT SHASTRA SHANKARA JAYANTI US $ 10 and other valuable consideration.HILTON GOVIND JAYANTI US to be funded with foreign assets of the defendants. The Shipping Development fund approved the proposal, on condition that the vessels also relies upon Ex. PW-1/55, account entries of the plaintiff company reflecting that the defendants had paid the unpaid share capital Shipping, Bombay conveyed the approval of the Indian Government for acquisition of the seven vessels. The plaintiff further sought permission from Board resolution dated 17.02.1962) minus ` 91,83,695.77/- (amount due on shares held as fully paid up) by reason of fraud practiced the trusted thereof."A similar provision exists under the English Limitation Act, 1980 Section 21(1)(b). The same was applied and the Court (India) Holding Ltd., AIR 1981 SC 1298. In such cases, Section 10 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 operates, for purposes 35,200 shares of face value ` 100/- each (total value 35,20,000) for a part payment of ` 1,82,000/-. Thus, an amount religious or charitable endowment shall be deemed to be property vested in trust for a specific purpose and the manager of from the Ministry of Transport & Communication (Department of Transport), Central Government through its letter dated 23.03.1962 (Ex. PW-1/4) and the of powers under section 3 of the said ordinance, the Government by a notification dated 10.06.1966 certain persons were appointed to to be answered in the plaintiffs favour. The suit is therefore, decreed for ` 1,39,64,197.98 with pendent lite and future interest

Dr. Jayanti Dharma Teja Vs. the State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1972CriLJ127

out of the funds belonging to a corporate body named Jayanti Shipping Company Limited of which the petitioner had been a the United States of America. The management of the aforesaid shipping company was, on 10th June. 1966, taken over by a United States of America. The management of the aforesaid shipping company was, on 10th June. 1966, taken over by a Board Government pursuant to an Ordinance which was replaced by an Act of Parliament No. 24 of 1966 On 30th of July, has already fixed arguments to commence from 7th of July 1971 and that they have submitted a list of 55 witnesses years or any woman or any sick or infirm person- Section 498 confers powers on the High Court and the court by an Act of Parliament No. 24 of 1966 On 30th of July, 1966, the Secretary of the Shipping Corporation lodged Delhi in April. 1971 and has been lodged in 'the Central Jail at Tihar as an undertrial prisoner and is being examination and treatment by specialists in the employ of the Government available at Delhi. I have no doubt, that they would Dr. has clearly explained the report in his statement. I, thereforee, find that the petitioner is unable to derive any help

ScIndia Steam Navigation Company Limited Vs. Sam Rustomji Lakdawala an ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (1994)96BOMLR976

this Court contending that consequent upon the enactment of the Shipping Development Fund Committee (Abolition) Act, 1986 ('Act', for short) and power to make it an 'authority'. Although registered as a Company under the Indian Companies Act, the second respondent is clearly the S.D.F.C, and affected its ability to finance new ship acquisitions. Although the S.D.F.C. had played its role as a development the case, a Corporation established by statute may have no shares or share holders, in which case it would be a such as the Companies Act, 1956 or the Societies Registration Act, 1860. Where a Corporation is wholly controlled by Government not Relying upon the provisions of the Act particularly those of Sections 10, 11, 12 and 14 it was submitted on behalf into the statute book and enforced with effect from April 3, 1987 - 'the appointed day' under the Act. From that Fund and S.D.F.C. and provide, among other things, for the vesting of the assets and liabilities thereof in the Government, transfer the benefit of the accumulated income would go to the Central and State Governments. Nobody will deny that an agent has of the situations earlier detailed. The power of the Central Government to appoint Receiver under Section 9 and directors and administrators to be Government Companies. In the same strain is the indemnity conferred by Section 18. This review, though skeletal, is sufficient of the respective cases of the parties, the principal question, therefore, that falls for our determination is as to whether the

T.S. Natcheappa Chetty Vs. the Irrawaddy Flotilia Company, Limited

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (1914)16BOMLR298

because, so far as the evidence stands, instead of the Shipping Company being charged with the knowledge that there was any The respondents in this case are the. Irra waddy Flotilla Company, and their vessels ply in the inland waters of Burma. obligation to them restrictive of their freedom or methods of action in conducting their own affairs. As against customers they afford was not a negotiable document in the sense of this section of the Statute. It was not a document of title. the question of fact really does not arise.14. Their Lordships therefore think that the point as to any contract in this

United Commercial Bank Vs. Jagatia Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd. and ors.

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)390

The non-petitioner Company was in constant touch with the Crystel Shipping Company, Bombay and despite all efforts, it could not locate No. 4. It is true that in that case, non-petitioner Company has not been made a party, but what ever may the questions raised are, as to whether the petitioner Bank acted against the terms of the letter of credit, or it is unable to pay its debt within the meaning of Section 434 of the Companies Act and, therefore, it is liable alia, with the following conditions:8.1 Valid for final settlement March 31, 1985,8.2 Negotiation until April 15, 1985,8.3 Available by draft at Feb., 1985 in favour of M/s Ringler As per the information given by M/s Ringler only 284.92 MT waste paper had executed a deed of surety on the back of the Indemnity Bond executed by the non-petitioner Company. On the basis of that the request of the non-petitioner Company was genuine and, therefore, on the basis of a counter-guarantee given by the non-petitioner

Thakur Shipping Co. Ltd., Bombay and anr. Vs. Food Corporation of Indi ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: AIR1983Mad105

should be followed. The first is in Union Carbide v. Jayanti Shipping (1970) 74 Cal WN 5, where a contrary view addition, there is also the admission of PW 10, the shipping manager of the respondent's clearing agent that the bags were for the shortage. As regards the second appellant's liability, the company was acting as the operating manager of the first appellant, as per S. 3 of the Indian Bill of Lading Act, 1856 the entries contained therein shall be conclusive evidence of the presumptive clauses mentioned in the later portion of the section. On the other hand, as already stated, this is a for Rs. 82,247.58 towards loss resulting from the slackness of 3000 bags after adjusting the weight of quantity recovered from ship as follows. Pursuant to an agreement entered into by the Government of India on behalf of the respondent, with the Government will not attract any liability for the appellants to pay compensation. The final submission was that the slackness and the resultant or non-co-operation by the master and crew of the vessel. Therefore the respondent cannot fasten the liability of survey charges on

Great Pacific Navigation (Holdings) Corporation Ltd. Vs. M. V. Tongli ...

Court: Mumbai

facts of that case. The ultimate case of Antonio Gramsci Shipping2 recognized and accepted the principle that both the puppet and company registry being the notification of the change of the company name from LSL to Halcyon and showing the appointment of labour by capital, acts involving "controlling interest" issues, mergers and acquisitions amongst group companies, relationship of agency and trust requiring investigation therefore, held to be the owners "as respects all the shares in the vessel". This is the concept of beneficial ownership by it was repelled under Section 4(4) of the Singapore Act equivalent to Section 3(4) of the UK Act. In Ohm any other statute. Mr. D'vitre rightly drew our attention to Section 71 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 though not applicable 1990 Ch. D. 433 2 1972 (2) AER 492 HL 3 Gower's Modern Company Law, 4 th Edition, Page 112. assets NRIs as well as overseas companies which had beneficial interest vested in NRIs were entitled to invest in shares of Indian could be disputed by the Respondents and how the factual information could have been incorporated into the extract showing the particulars stated to have belonged to the Socialist Republic of Vietnamese Government. They were on two different voyages. Recovery of claim arose interrelationship between three companies in a group again for claiming compensation upon compulsory purchase of the premises owned by its wholly as to identify the person who was guilty and liable therefor. In the facts of that case however the Court saw

M/S. Universal Marine and Another Vs. M/T Hartati and Another

Court: Mumbai

each other having a distinct identity. In foreign jurisdictions a Shipping Corporation of India ship might get arrested for a claim not the facts in the present case as the applicant company and the Respondent No. 2 company are not subsidiaries of brought Maritime Trader was beneficially owned as respects all the shares therein by MTO, the person who would be liable on Plaintiff in personam was the registered owner and if the action is brought against another vessel the Plaintiff has to show v. Ramesh Kumar and Co. Ltd. 2001 (2000) 1 CALLT 367 (H.C.). 11) We find that the submission of the appellant clear that the beneficial ownership of these two ships is vested in the same person or company and that, therefore, they ship of a ship belonging to Oil and Natural Gas Commission to enable the arrest of ship owned by one company As illustrated in M.V. Dong DO (Supra) in India various government companies are in existence who are independent of each other and distinct legal entity from its shareholders and other companies. Therefore, the mere fact that the two companies have common shareholders

M/s. Raj Shipping and Another Vs. The State of Maharashtra, Through th ...

Court: Mumbai

Leighton reserves the right to reject any supply if Raj Shipping fails to meet the delivery schedule or the supply is the Karnataka High Court in case of Great Eastern Shipping Company (supra) based on sales tax laws only has decided the substantial part of the transaction and from the stage of acquisition of these goods, paying for them, receiving an indent or as follows: ˜11. In the year 1967, through the Finance Act No. 2, the words beginning from word 'which to 1967' the territorial waters. Prior thereto, he has also relied upon section 8 of the MVAT Act but that in our opinion further received the copies of notices of recovery in Form 318 dated 17th April 2015 issued to its debtors, namely, M/s. resources of the exclusive economic zone of India shall also vest in the Union and be held for the purposes of Union. 70. Thirdly, the provisions of section 4 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 are relevant for considering the issue No. VAT 1505/CR-124/Taxation 1 dated the 1st April 2005, the Government of Maharashtra hereby with effect from 1st December 2006 notifies expressly provided under this Article. Raj Shipping shall receive as compensation that portion of the amount due on the work performed company, nor is the outlet owned by an oil company. Therefore, the products sold by the Petitioners, i.e. High Speed Diesel