Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1985]57CompCas241(Bom)
Madhava Reddy, C.J.1. The questions that arise for consideration in this writ petition filed by Escorts Ltd. and its shareholder and managing director are quite unique and important. The decision thereon may affect not only the petitioner-company but the entire corporate sector and the public financial institutions. Naturally, this writ petition has attracted considerable public attention both lay and legal. Quite a few facts are required to notice to appreciate the issue canvassed in this case. Though inferences sought to be down and the conclusions sought to be pressed by the parties form the facts leading to the filing of this writ petition differ, the facts themselves in the ultimate analysis are not very much in dispute.2. Till 1980, among the non-residents, only individuals of Indian nationality origin were given the facility to invest in Indian Industries; not the companies. The Government of India was eager to attract larger foreign remittances into India. In a report of the Wo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [2002]109CompCas18(Bom)
H.L. Gokhale, J.1. The notices of motion in Suit No. 3910 of 1997 seek to challenge the legality and validity of substantial acquisitions of shares by defendants Nos. 1 to 11 in defendant No. 12-company allegedly in violation of the provisions of the SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 1994, and pray for the annulment thereof, particularly in the context of the breaches of regulations 9 and 10 which require a public announcement of the intention to acquire substantial shares in certain circumstances. Defendants Nos. 1 to 11 on the other hand, dispute the right of third parties like the plaintiffs to challenge such acquisitions, the rights of plaintiffs claimed to be based in common law and/or statute and as to whether the voting rights flowing from such shares can be injuncted by filing a suit in the context of the relevant provisions of the Companies Act. Consequently, the questions pertaining to balance of convenience and appropriate orders to be passe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
M.S. Sanklecha, J. 1. This Full Bench has been constituted on a reference made on 23rd April, 2015 by a Division Bench of this Court in Amritlakshmi Machine Works and Others v/s. The Commissioner of Customs (Import) (303 ELP 161). This reference has arisen when the Division Bench in Amritlakshmi Machine Works (supra) was considering four appeals (two by the partnership firm and two by its managing partner) under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 (the Act) from a common order dated 7th May 2012 of the Customs, Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal). All the four appeals raised the following substantial question of law: Whether the Tribunal has erred in imposing simultaneous penalties on both partners and partnership firm? This reference arose as in the view of the Division Bench in Amritlakshmi Machine Works (supra) there was a cleavage of opinion on the above issue between the decisions of two Division Benches of this Court. In Texoplast Industries v/s. Additional Commiss...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
1. Those two appeals were heard by the Special Bench as directed by the Hon'ble President, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The events leading up to the reference may be briefly noticed.2. The appeal of the assessee M/s. Mid East Portfolio Management Ltd. before the Tribunal involved several issues, one of which was whether the assessee was entitled to the depreciation amounting to Rs. 97.50 lakhs on the air-pollution equipments purchased from Rajasthan State Electricity Board, (hereinafter referred to as "RSEB") and leased backed to it. In the course of the hearing of the appeal, the Bench felt that in view of the complexity of the issue and its general importance the question should be considered and decided by a larger Bench. In the course of the arguments, several orders of various Benches of the Tribunal were cited on behalf of the assessee where the view had been taken that depreciation was allowable. On behalf of the Department, the main contention was that the documentation had ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2003)87ITD537(Mum.)
1. These two appeals were heard by the Special Bench as directed by the Hon'ble President, Tribunal. The events leading up to the reference may be briefly noticed.2. The appeal of the assessee M/s Mid East Portfolio Management Ltd. before the Tribunal involved several issues, one of which was whether the assessee was entitled to the depreciation amounting to Rs. 97.50 lakhs on the air-pollution equipments purchased from Rajasthan State Electricity Board, (hereinafter referred to as "RSEB") and leased backed to it. In the course of the hearing of the appeal, the Bench felt that in view of the complexity of the issue and its general importance the question should be considered and decided by a larger Bench. In the course of the arguments, several orders of various Benches of the Tribunal were cited on behalf of the assessee where the view had been taken that depreciation was allowable, On behalf of the Department, the main contention was that the documentation had been so created as to ...
Tag this Judgment!