Case laws at one place

M/S. Advance Television Network Ltd. Vs The Registrar of Companies (Delhi High Court - July 04, 2011)

Petition has been filed for voluntary winding up of the petitioner company submitting that it has not earned any income for the last ten years and there is no hope or prospect of the company doing any further business. It is held that only when the company is not in a position to pay its debt and finds its substratum gone, it is entitled to resort to winding up proceeding as provided by Section 433(a) of the Act.

Religare Securities Limited Vs Securities and Exchange Board of India (Securities Appellate Tribunal - June 16, 2011)

The purpose of carrying out inspection is not punitive and the object is to make the intermediary comply with the procedural requirements in regard to the maintenance of records. Every minor discrepancy/irregularity found during the course of inspection is not culpable and the object of the inspection could well be achieved by pointing out the irregularities/deficiencies to the intermediary at the time of inspection and making it compliant. This will depend on the nature of the irregularity noticed and if any serious lapse is found during the course of the inspection, the Board should not proceed against the delinquent.

California Pacific Trading Corporation Vs. Kitply Industries Ltd. (Gauhati High Court - May 02, 2011)

Application for winding up of Kitply Industries is sought by the petitioner California Pacific Trading Corporation on the alleged failure of Kitply to pay its debt. The debt is claimed to be due under a decree dated 12.4.2001 passed by a foreign court i.e. the District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina in the United States of America. The petitioner after obtaining the decree from the North Carolina Court, has neither resorted to execution proceeding in the USA nor in India but has chosen to file a winding up petition in India. Choice of this option appears to be an attempt, for enforcing a debt which is bona fide disputed by the respondent Company. As has been held by the Supreme Court in IBA Health (Supra), a Company Court is required to act with circumspection, care and caution and examine as to whether an attempt is made to pressurize the Company to pay a debt which is substantially disputed. Petition dismissed.

M/s. Vijay Textiles Ltd. Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India (Securities Appellate Tribunal - April 28, 2011)

It is held that there was no misleading announcement made by the company and its promoters and that the price of the scrip went up not because of the announcement regarding the export order but because of the other corporate announcements which are far more price sensitive. The promoters had been selling their stocks much before and after the dates of the two public announcements regarding the export order. There is no allegation levelled against the promoters that they did not make the necessary disclosures required under various securities laws and we have on record that such disclosures were made. In this view of the matter, we find no fault with the sales made by the promoters.

M/s. Vodafone Essar Limited and ors (Delhi High Court - March 29, 2011)

Four companies have moved this Court under Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 seeking sanction of the Scheme of Arrangement. Sanction is granted to the Scheme of Arrangement reserving the right of the Income Tax Authorities.

N & S & N Consultants Vs SRM Exploration Pvt. Ltd. (Delhi High Court - March 04, 2011)

The petition has been filed under Section 433(e) r/w Section 434 of the Companies Act, 1956 for winding up of the respondent-company. Following the recent SC decisin IBA Health (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. INFO-DRIVE Systems SDN. BHD. that if there is no dispute as to the company’s liability, the solvency of the company would not constitute a stand alone ground for setting aside a notice under Section 434 (1)(a) of the Companies Act, meaning thereby, if a debt is undisputedly owing, then it has to be paid, it is held that respondent owes a debt to the petitioner which it has defaulted in paying.

SESA Industries Ltd. Vs Krishna H. Bajaj & Ors. (Supreme Court - February 07, 2011)

The Supreme Court allowed a scheme of amalgamation of Sesa Goa Limited (SGL) and Sesa Industries Ltd (SIL). The court made it clear that the scheme of amalgamation will not come in the way of any civil or criminal proceedings arising pursuant to the action under Companies Act or filed by minority shareholders who had challenged the amalgamation.

Mansukh Stock Brokers Limited, New Delhi Vs Securities and Exchange Board of India (Securities Appellate Tribunal - January 10, 2011)

Trading between the brokers had been executed in more than 200 circles. The anonymous trading system does not permit circular trading. Therefore charges levelled against the appellant stand established.

Ajmera Associates Pvt. Ltd. vs Securities Exchange Board of India (Securities Appellate Tribunal - December 13, 2010)

Large number of circles in the execution of trades cannot be a matter of coincidence and among large number of brokers without the knowledge of broker. Even though the broker takes shelter under the anonymity of the system but the trading pattern shows their intention of fraudulent and unfair trade practices.

Dr. Arvind Kumar B Shah (HUF) Vs SEBI (Securities Appellate Tribunal - November 19, 2010)

If the funds are required to meet the expansion activities and the objective of acquisition of shares is to provide financial assistance then the exemption under Regulation 3(l) of the takeover code should be granted.

Dusyant N Dalal Vs SEBI (Securities Appellate Tribunal - November 12, 2010)

In the absence of any provision in the Act th Board can direct payment of interest on disgorged amount. The principles based upon justice, equity and good conscience authorise the Board to grant appropriate interest.

Ammonia Supplies Corpn. P. Ltd Vs Registrar Of Companies (Delhi High Court - November 09, 2010)

The company has to be treated as an active company after the winding up order has been stayed.

Alchemist Limited - Transferor Company With Alchemist Foods Limited - Transferee Company (Delhi High Court - November 01, 2010)

This petition for second motion for demerger of its “Food Division” and merger with its subsidiary is allowed as no objection has been received from the general public opposing the scheme of demerger/arrangement.

Infini Agrotech Private Limited - Transferor Company With Mastana Foods Priavate Limited - Transferee Company (Delhi High Court - October 25, 2010)

Petitions for approval of the first motion for amalgamation are allowed and the need and requirement to have meeting of shareholders, secured and unsecured creditors of the transferor and transferee company is dispensed with.

Reliance Securities Ltd Vs Vivek Sharma (Delhi High Court - October 27, 2010)

System failure cannot be covered by Public Policy of India even though specific directions are given to the relevant authorities to keep the operational and system requirements intact. In view of the Circular of SEBI it was for the appellant to keep a system which would have an adequate system capacity for handling data transfer and to arrange for alternative means of communication in case of internet failure.

Hathisingh Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs BIFR (Gujarat High Court - September 30, 2010)

The appellant Company was ordered to be wound up by order dated 06.11.2009 as Company was not able to meet with its finical commitments with S.B.I., I.I.B.I. and its workmen and was not able to continue its manufacturing process. The appellant paid all its dues to its creditors and the creditors also do not oppose to the proposition of winding up to stand. In these circumstances, without making any observations on merits, the appeal is allowed and order of winding up is set aside.

Sundaram Finance Ltd. vs. SEBI (Securities Appellate Tribunal - September 16, 2010)

An "officer" means a person holding an appointment to an office which carries with it an authority to give directions to other employees. Any person who occupies the position of responsibility in a company will be an officer and this has been clarified by Department of Company Affairs as per its letter dated October 7, 1963.

Techno Shares & Stocks Ltd. vs. CIT (Supreme Court of India - September 09, 2010)

Right of membership is a "business or commercial right" is a licence or akin to licence in terms of Section 32(1)(ii) of the 1961 Act. Such a right vests in the Exchange only on default/demise in terms of the Rules and Bye-laws of BSE. This judgment should not be understood to mean that every business or commercial right would constitute a "licence" or a "franchise" in terms of S. 32(1)(ii) of the 1961 Act

GE India Technology Centre Private Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. (Supreme Court of India - September 09, 2010)

Tax at source is deductible only from "sums chargeable" under the provisions of the I.T. Act, i.e., chargeable under Sections 4, 5 and 9 of the I.T. Act.

Vodafone International Holdings B.V. vs. Union of India (Bombay High Court - September 08, 2010)

The purchase of shares of a foreign company by one non-resident from another non-resident attracts Indian tax if the object was to acquire the Indian assets held by the foreign company

Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. vs. Surendra Oil & Dal Mills (Refineries) & Ors. (Supreme Court - August 27, 2010)

The division bench was wrong in taking the view that in the facts of the case, the production of additional evidence was not permissible under Order 41, Rule 27. The additional documents produced by the appellant were liable to be taken on record as provided under Order 41, Rule 27(b).

M/S Tricon Business Pvt. Ltd. vs. The Adjudicating Officer (SAT - August 18, 2010)

The findings of Adjudicating Officer upheld and reduced penalty from 15 lacs to 3 lacs.

M/S National Textile Corporation Limited vs. Sh. Kunj Behari Lal (Delhi High Court - August 16, 2010)

Section 22 (1) of SICA does not cover a proceeding instituted by a landlord of a sick industrial company for the eviction of the company premises let out to it. Petition is most bogus and frivolous one and has been filed just to squander public money and to harass a common man who committed blunder by giving his property on rent to the mighty public undertaking.

T.C.Kaushik vs UOI & ors. (Delhi High Court - August 05, 2010)

Not reporting for duty without obtaining leave is treated as a misdemeanour and even when, for purposes of leave record, the leave is adjusted as per leave rules for the reason this is treated as an accounting exercise for purposes of completing the service record. The commonsense approach would be to see the nature of the medical infirmity projected and the competence of the person to treat the same and the contents of the medical certificate.

Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-II Commissionerate vs M/s. Tarpaulin International (Supreme Court - August 04, 2010)

Conversion of Tarpaulin into Tarpaulin made-ups would not amount to manufacture. The process of stitching and fixing eyelets would not amount to manufacturing process, since tarpaulin after stitching and eyeleting continues to be only cotton fabrics. The purpose of fixing eyelets is not to change the fabrics. Therefore, even if there is value addition the same is minimum. To attract duty there should be a manufacture to result in different Goods and the Goods sought to be subject to duty should be known in the market as such.

State of Karnataka & Ors. vs M L Kesari & Ors. (Supreme Court - August 03, 2010)

If the employees who have completed ten years service do not possess the educational qualifications prescribed for the post, at the time of their appointment, they may be considered for regularization in suitable lower posts.