Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-15-1989
Reported in : [1991]72CompCas5(Delhi)
..... , without the permission of the court. 30. mr. nayyar has contended that when a company goes into liquidation, then, the said (the state corporations act, 1951) becomes a general law and the act (companies act, 1956) becomes the special law which alone is applicable to the present case. he has placed reliance upon the judgment in life insurance corporation of india. v. asia udyog (p.) ltd. : [1984]145itr520(delhi) . he has further argued that section 29 of the said act is applicable only when the directors of the company are in charge of and have control over the assets of the company, but when the assets of the company ..... which may be found there are not intended to be expositions of the whole law, but governed and qualified by the particular facts of the case in which such expressions are to be found. learned counsel for the applicant relied upon this judgment to show that the decision in m.k. ranganathan : [1955]2scr374 does not cover the facts of the present case. however, the judgment in this case is not applicable, because the judgment of the supreme court is very express. 43. in first national bank ltd. v. om prakash sharma , the facts are different from the facts of the present case, because in this case, during the pendency of the winding up proceedings, the company .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jan-13-1989
Reported in : 1990ACJ192; (1989)4SCC730
ORDER1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. It is an unfortunate case where the police collected poor people and took them to the Police Station for doing some work. They were asked to work without labour charges. On demand they were beaten and it appears that one of them Ram Swaroop succumbed to the injuries and the body has also been disposed of. Petition No. 2 Patasi, as alleged, was also stripped of her clothes and was thrashed in the Police Station. The other Eight persons namely (1) Dandwa (2) Ram Prasad (3) Jaipal (4) Mahavir (5) Kannu (6) Munsjia (7) Hukka and (8) Pratap were also beaten up rather then they should have been paid for the work they did at the Police Station.3. We are happy and we record our appreciation that Mr. A.S. Khan, Deputy Commissioner of Police in his Affidavit has frankly accepted the atrocity committed by the police officers and it also appears some action has been taken and Station House Officer has been arrested. The matter is being investigated ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jan-16-1989
Reported in : II(1989)ACC141
V.A. Mohta, J.1. This judgment shall dispose of first Appeal Nos. 103/1979, 104/1979, 105/1979, 106/1979 and 107/1979 under the Motor Vehicles Act against the Award passed by the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Amravati dismissing the claims for compensation arising out of an accident as a result of beadon collision between Ambassador Car No. MHX 5765 and the Motor Truck No. UTW-4241 at 11 am. on 161-1977 on Amravati-Morshi Road.2. All the 6 occupants of the Car namely (1) Dinkar Bhaurao Hingmire (2) Laxman s/o Annaji Tamboli (3) Ku. Shanta d/o Annaji Tamboli (4) Smt. Sunandabai w/o Annaji Tamboli (5) Smt, Sulbha w/o Namdeo Tamboli and (6) Ramkrishna Sukdoji Khetal, the driver died. The males who were occupying the front side died instantaneously and the females afterwards, but all in an unconscious condition. The truck was owned by Kuldeepsingh Sardar singh Punjabi, (respondent No. 1) and driven in the regular course of employment either by Rajbahadur Singh Punjabi or Gurudayal Singh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jan-18-1989
Reported in : [1990]68CompCas145(Delhi)
1. I have heard arguments for deciding the application. The plaintiff, who is one of the directors of the defendant-company, has filed this suit seeking a decree for a declaration to the effect that the defendant-respondent has no power to reject and/or refuse the appointment of Mr. Brij Anand as an alternate director to the plaintiff and in the alternative a decree for a declaration that the rejection of Mr. Brij Anand as an alternate director to the plaintiff is wholly illegal, invalid, arbitrary and for a declaration that the resolution passed by the board of directors of the respondent in October, 1988 in this respect is illegal and invalid and a relief of mandatory injunction in sought requiring the respondent to appoint Mr. Brij Anand as alternate director to the plaintiff. Along with the suit, the plaintiff had moved an application under order XXXIX rules 1 and 1 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking an interim injunction restraining the respondent from im...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jan-18-1989
Reported in : [1989]66CompCas363(Delhi); 1989(16)DRJ273
P.K. Bahri, J.(1) Have heard arguments for deciding the application. The plaintiff, who is one of the directors of the defendant/company, has filed this suit seeking decree for declaration to the effect that the defendant- respondent has no power to reject and/or refuse the appointment of Mr. Brij. Anand as an alternate director to the plaintiff and in the alternative a decree for declaration that the rejection of Mr. Brij Anand as an alternate director to the plaintiff is wholly, invalid, arbitrary and for declaration that the resolution passed by the Board of Directors of the respondent in October, 1988 in this respect is illegal and invalid and a relief of mandatory injunction is sought requiring the respondent to appoint Mr. Brij Anand alternate director to the plaintiff. Along with the suit the plaintiff bad moved an application under Order Xxxix Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking interim injunction restraining the respondent from implementing...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-19-1989
Reported in : (1989)76CTR(Mad)97; [1989]176ITR321(Mad)
Ratnam, J.1. The assessee is a registered firm. In relation to the assessment years 1973-74 to 1975-76, the assessee claimed deduction in respect of the provision made for retrenchment compensation in sums of Rs. 18,561, Rs. 9,318 and Rs. 19,142, respectively. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the claim so made by the assessee and on further appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, it was held that there was no certainty of Payment with regard to retrenchment compensation as in the case of gratuity payment and that there was also no method of working out the basis of quantification of the prospective retrenchment compensation if and when it was required to be paid and, therefore, the claim for deducting the provision for retrenchment compensation from the profits and gains cannot be countenanced. In the appeals preferred by the assessee before the Tribunal, the disallowance was upheld on the ground that there was no ascertained liability and the possibility of such a liability a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jan-23-1989
Reported in : (1989)80CTR(P& H)238; [1989]179ITR44(P& H)
S.S. Sodhi, J. 1. The assessee-firm required funds for carrying on its business. To provide these funds, its two partners, R.N. Wasan and A.N. Wasan, took loans against their individual insurance policies from the Life Insurance Corporation of India. The loans so taken were thereafter credited in the accounts of these two partners. The interest payable on these loans was subsequently paid by the assessee-firm directly to the Life Insurance Corporation, the amount so paid being Rs. 9,540. The question then arose as to whether this amount paid as interest fell outside the ambit of Section 40(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. According to the Income-tax Officer, this amounted to interest paid to the partners which could not be allowed in view of Section 40(b) of the Act. This was confirmed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in appeal, The Tribunal, however, held that the provisions of Section 40(b) of the Act were not attracted and that the disa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-25-1989
Reported in : 1989(20)ECC109; ILR1989KAR920
Hiremath, J1. Respondent is the manufacturer of industrial varnishes whose product is liable to excise duty under the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944. The Central Government however issued a notification No. 116/74 dated 21-7-1974 acting under Rule 8 of Central Excise Rules 1944, exempting such goods from excise duty provided that the value of the total production does not exceed Rs. 2,00,000/-. The respondent was not aware of such notification till about the month of April 1978 when it was brought to their notice by a certain official of the Central Excise Department. Therefore, as usual it paid the duty on the goods manufactured during 1974-75 and 1975-76. For these two years the total excise duty paid came to Rs. 10,194-93ps. As the respondent has been paying excise duty in accordance with provisions of Section 79B of the Central Excise Rules the fact that the respondent is not liable to pay any excise duty could be made out only at the end of March 1976 at which time the total pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-09-1989
Reported in : AIR1989Delhi315a; ILR1989Delhi255
P.N. Nag, J. (1) The petitioners in the present writ petition seek issuance of a writ of mandamus against the respondent directing it to desist from denying or discontinuing the supply of all kinds of lubricants to the petitioner No. I and from ousting, black-listing, coercing or pressurising them from the business of dealing with all kinds of lubricants supplied: by the respondent to them and to continue to supply of all kinds of lubricants to the petitioner No. I firm as was done in the past and for the maintenance of status quo as existed on 27th May, 1983 and for payment of necessary damages for the period from 28th May, 1983, till the date of the filing of the writ petition or till the decision of the writ petition. (2) The relevant facts set out in the pleadings briefly are that the petitioner No. I, M/s Mahabir Auto Stores (hereinafter referred to as 'the firm') is a partnership firm duly registered with the Registrar of Firms at Delhi having its office/shop at C-69, Shivaji Par...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Feb-09-1989
Reported in : AIR1989Ker223
ORDERK. Sreedharan, J. 1. Petitioners challenge the proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for acquisition of properties mentioned in Ext. P. 1 notification for expansion of Travancore Electro Chemicals Industries Limited, Chingavanam. The attack is on two counts. First one is that declaration issued Under Section 6 of the Act was after the expiry of one year from the date of publication of Ext. P1 notification Under Section 4(1) of the Act and hence it is invalid. The second ground is that the acquisition for expansion of the existing unit of a company is hit by Section 44-B of the Act and hence liable to be quashed. I shall proceed to deal with these contentions in detail. 2. Ext. P1 notification Under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued in the Gazette dt. 17-2-1987. It was published in Deepika daily on 17-2-1987 and in Malayala Manorama daily on 21-2-1987. Section 6 declaration was issued on 7-8-1988. Second proviso to Sectio...
Tag this Judgment!