Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Mar-14-2008
Reported in : AIR2008SC1738; 2008(5)ALLMR(SC)424; 2008BusLR403(SC); [2008]143CompCas97(SC); (2008)2CompLJ496(SC); 2008(3)SCALE650; (2008)6SCC750; [2008]83SCL451(SC); 2008(1)LC583(SC); 2008AIRSCW2402; 2008(2)Supreme502; 2008(4)KCCRSN299
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. M/s. Shree Bhaarathi Cotton Mills Private Limited is a company registered and incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 (For short, 'the Act'). Out of the 2,84,000 equity shares in the company of Rs. 10/- each, 2,83,999 shares are held by the first respondent and his son (appellant herein). The remaining one share is held by M/s. Visva Bharathi Textiles Private Limited, shares in which again is held equally by the first respondent and the appellant. Thus, for all intent and purport, all shares of the company are held by the appellant and the first respondent. 3. Whereas the first respondent is the Managing Director of the Company, the appellant is the Director thereof. Indisputably the parties are not on good terms. 4. Respondent No. 1 filed an application purported to be under Sections 397 and 398 of the Act alleging several acts of oppression on the part of appellant herein before the Company Law Board, Additional Principal Bench, Chennai. The said ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-13-2008
Reported in : 2008(3)ALLMR240; 2008(3)BomCR593; 2008(4)MhLj370
Swatanter Kumar, C.J.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard parties.1. Prelude Vijay Kumar Gupta, sole proprietor of M/s. Sanjay Transport Service, has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the legality, propriety and validity of the contract awarded to M/s. Lirin Roadlines Pvt. Ltd., respondent No. 2, vide Government Resolution No. WPP 2003/CR-177/YSS2 dated 1st September, 2006. This contract, according to the petitioner, has been awarded through private negotiations without inviting tenders and in an arbitrary manner. Such awarding of contract is unconstitutional, violative of principles of governance and contrary to the constitutional mandate contained in Article 299 of the Constitution of India. It denies fair competition amongst similarly placed persons who hold similar qualifications like respondent No. 2 for performing the function to lift water from the Government owned wells and distribute the same at a much higher amount than what...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Mar-13-2008
Reported in : 2008(3)MPHT103
A.P. Shrivastava, J.1. Appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 9th July, 2001 passed by the Special Judge (N.D.P.S.) and the Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior (M.P.) in Special Case No. 6/2000, by which he has been convicted under Section 8 read with Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the NDPS Act')1985 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and pay a fine of Rs. 1 lac; in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo imprisonment for two years.2. In brief, the story of the prosecution is that on 4.7.2000, Station House Officer D.S. Kushwah(P.W.8) P.S. Gwalior in the evening at Hazira Chowki got information that three persons on a Yamaha motorcycle bearing Regn. No. U.P.16-A-2932 are going from Jati Ki Line towards Morar and they are carrying opium beneath the seat of the vehicle. The information w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Mar-13-2008
Reported in : AIR2008SC1797; 2008(2)ALLMR(SC)827; [2008]143CompCas176(SC); [2008(3)JCR142(SC)]; JT2008(4)SC183; 2008(4)KarLJ56; (2008)5MLJ713(SC); 2008(4)SCALE473; (2008)5SCC176; 2008(3)CivilLJ896; 2008(3)AIRKarR280; 2008AIRSCW2480
S.B. Sinha, J.INTRODUCTION1. Interpretation of Section 29 vis-`a-vis Section 31 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 (for short 'the Act') is in question in these appeals which arise out of a judgment and order dated 26.03.2003 passed by a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Writ Petition Nos. 37209 & 37907 of 2000, 24452 of 2001, 13354 and 16614 of 2002.FACTUAL BACKDROP2. Respondents herein furnished sureties and/ or guarantees in respect of the loans taken by the industrial concerns (Respondent - Company) We may notice the fact of the matter from the case of AP Rocks Private Limited (Writ Petition No. 37209 and 30907 of 2000) before the High Court. AP Rocks Private Limited is an industrial concern. It approached the appellant - Corporation for grant of loan in the form of non-convertible debenture facility to the extent of 100 lakhs to meet its working capital requirements. 3. Respondents who were Directors of Company executed deeds of guarantee dated 15.05.1996 an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-13-2008
Reported in : [2008(117)FLR589]; (2008)IIILLJ280Bom
R.M. Savant, J.1. These petitions take exception to the Common judgment and Order dated April 26, 2006 passed by the learned Member, Industrial Court, Jalgaon, by which Complaint (ULP) No. 104 of 2002 to 120 of 2002 were dismissed. The said complaints were filed by about 17 workers of the respondent Company working at Jalgaon. Amongst these 17 workers, 7 have filed the above petitions.2. The respondent company had three units, one at Mundhawa, Pune, one at Satara and one at Jalgaon. The petitioners were working in various capacities since the year 1987 or thereabout in the Jalgaon Plant. On account of the Jalgaon plant becoming financially not viable, the respondent company intended to close down the said plant and issued a notice of closure on February 11, 2001. The petitioners by their letter dated March 11, 2001 immediately approached the respondent company and applied for V.R.S., which had been floated by the respondent company. The applications of the petitioners were accepted by ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
Decided on : Mar-12-2008
LORD HOPE OF CRAIGHEAD My Lords, 1. The issue in this case is whether the Commissioners can maintain a civil claim for damages under the tort of unlawful means conspiracy against a participant in a missing trader intra-community, or carousel, fraud. Two questions need to be considered. The first is whether it is open to the Commissioners to maintain a cause of action in damages at common law as a means of recovering VAT from a person who has not been made accountable or otherwise liable for that tax by Parliament. The second is whether, if so, it is an essential requirement of the tort of unlawful means conspiracy that the conduct which is said to amount to the unlawful means should give rise to a separate action in tort against at least one of the conspirators. 2. On the second issue the Court of Appeal considered itself bound by prior Court of Appeal authority to hold that the unlawful means had to be independently actionable: [2007] EWCA Civ 39, paras 78-79. Its decision to strike ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
Decided on : Mar-12-2008
LORD BINGHAM OF CORNHILL My Lords, 1. In these proceedings the appellant, Animal Defenders International, seeks a declaration under section 4 of the Human Rights Act 1998 that section 321(2) of the Communications Act 2003 is incompatible with article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights as given effect in this country by the 1998 Act. The section is said to be incompatible as imposing an unjustified restraint on the right to freedom of political expression. The Queen’s Bench Divisional Court (Auld LJ and Ouseley J) refused to make a declaration of incompatibility ([2006] EWHC 3069 (Admin), [2007] EMLR 158) but granted a leapfrog certificate under section 12(1) of the Administration of Justice Act 1969 and the House granted the appellant leave to appeal. 2. The appellant is a non-profit company whose aims include the suppression, by lawful means, of all forms of cruelty to animals, the alleviation of suffering and the conservation and protection of animals and their envir...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
Decided on : Mar-12-2008
LORD HOFFMANN My Lords, 1. I have had the advantage of reading in draft the speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Mance. For the reasons he gives, with which I agree, I too would allow this appeal. LORD SCOTT OF FOSCOTE My Lords, 2. I have had the advantage of reading in advance the opinion of my noble and learned friend Lord Mance. I agree with it and, for the reasons he gives, I too would allow this appeal. LORD WALKER OF GESTINGTHORPE My Lords, 3. I have had the advantage of reading in draft the speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Mance. I agree with it, and for the reasons which Lord Mance gives I would allow this appeal. LORD MANCE Introduction 4. This appeal raises points of construction on a Lloyd’s accountants’ professional indemnity policy which are of some difficulty, though no general importance. They relate to the scope and existence of cover afforded to the appellant, a “not for profit” umbrella corporation based in Illinois called Grant...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Mar-11-2008
Reported in : 2009(2)MPHT472
N.K. Mody, J. 1. Being aggrieved by judgment and decree dated 25-10-83 passed by Additional District Judge, Jhabua in Civil Suit No. 3-B/1981, whereby the suit filed by the appellants for compensation was dismissed, the present appeal has been filed.2. Short facts of the case are that the appellants who were minors filed a suit against the respondents for realization of a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- on 17-6-77 alleging that deceased Maltidevi Gidwani was the mother of the appellants and was working in the office of Animal Husbandry, Jhabua as Accountant. The salary of the deceased Maltidevi was Rs. 373/- per month. It was alleged that on 19-7-1976 Smt. Maltidevi Gidwani was hospitalized at District Hospital, Jhabua where she delivered a son Laxman. It was alleged that after the delivery Maltidevi was pressurized by respondent Nos. 5 to 7 for T.T. operation and upon her denying the deceased and her husband were threatened that the deceased and her husband shall be terminated from their job an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Decided on : Mar-10-2008
1. The insurer has preferred this appeal in terms of CI. 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna, and is aggrieved by the order dated 10-9-1999, passed in Misc. Appeal No. 517 of 1998 Ram Prasad Kushwaha v. Manoj Mandal and Ors., whereby the appeal at the instance of the owner of the vehicle (respondent Nos. 1 and 3 herein) has been allowed, and the insurer has been directed to pay the amount, of compensation to the claimants (respondent Nos. 5 and 6 herein) as per the direction In the judgment of the learned trial Court.2. Respondent NO. 2 herein (Manoj Mandal) was driving tractor No. BHJ 5889 (owned by respondent Nos. 1 and 3), and, on account of his rash and negligent driving dashed against lector No. BHJ 6036 driven by Nakul Yadav, aged about 21, years, who fell down in the adjoining ditch covered with water and died on the spot. Respondent No. 5 (Anil Kumar Yadav), and respondent No. 6 (Mosmat Sanju Devi), filed the application under Section 110 of the M...
Tag this Judgment!