US SC rejects Rajat Gupta's appeal; Raju's plea rejected; CCI dismisses anti-competitive claim against Vatika |
US SC rejects Rajat Gupta's appeal; Raju's plea rejected; CCI dismisses anti-competitive claim against Vatika |
For subscriptions, please contact: sales@lawstreetindia.com |
Bank couldn't defer deduction of tax and wait for lower TDS certificate from depositor; held as assessee-in-default
April 21, 2015[2015] 56 taxmann.com 200 (Chandigarh - Trib.)
IT: Bank cannot simply defer deduction of tax at source on interest on deposits and keep on waiting for certificate under section 197 to be obtained by depositor; it is liable to deduct tax as per mandate of section 194A
Gives benefit of doubt over debentures non-conversion; HC order ambiguity to rescue |
SEBI gives benefit of doubt & disposes off charges levied against Monnet Ispat & Energy Ltd. ('Monnet') for failure to convert fully convertible debentures ('FCDs') into equity shares even after expiry of 18 months from allotment of securities, violating ICDR Regulations;Observes that non-conversion was due to lack of clarity on HC's amalgamation order [approval of amalgamation of Mount Everest Trading and Investment Ltd. ('MTIL') into noticee] that had made it obligatory on FCDs/ Warrant holders of MTIL to make an open offer before acquiring Monnet's shares, states that "Noticee had taken all bonafide steps for clarification from the stock exchanges and also from a legal jurist to enable it better understand the obligation put on the FCD/Warrant holders and go ahead with the conversion of the said FCDS/ warrants\"; Clarifying HC's order, states that as HC was under a belief that Takeover Regulations would get triggered upon conversion of said FCDs and allotment of shares, it had mentioned in its order that same had to be adhered to by warrant / FCD holders; Accepts noticee's submission that though open offer obligation was cast on FCDs/ warrant holders, but "Noticee being a listed company was bound by the rules and regulations of the Stock Exchanges and also with Clause 24(a) of the Listing Agreement as in-principle approval from the stock exchanges is mandatory at the time of issuance of fresh shares / securities"; SEBI holds that the obligation to make public announcement under Takeover Regulations was put on FCD holders / warrant holders and not on the Noticee:SEBI |
The Order was passed by D. Sura Reddy, General Manager and Adjudicating Officer, SEBI. |
LSI Note:Regulation 75 of ICDR regulations provides that tenure of the convertible securities of the issuer shall not exceed eighteen months from the date of their allotment. |
[LSI-447- SEBI-2015-(MUM)] Click here to read facts, analysis and the cop |
Asserts inherent power to deliver substantial justice; Modifies winding-up order, rejects Tata plea |
Division Bench of Calcutta HC allows application for modification of re-payment schedule in winding up order, rejecting Tata Capital's challenge to its maintainability; Tata Capital (creditor, who sought for applicant's winding up) contended that since winding up order was admitted by Single Judge and appeal regarding its admission was rejected by Division Bench, thus, winding up order had attained finality and could not be modified by instant application; Rejecting such contentions, HC ruled that "When the company paid installments to a substantial extent and prayed for some respite the Division Bench.. would be within its right to consider such prayer.. and the Court would not be so powerless to entertain such application"; Further noting that Order XX Rule 11(2) of CPC does not permit a Court to alter the decree after it is passed, holds that, "We, the Chartered High Court judges would derive power from the Letters Patent that would give inherent power to do substantial justice. The Code of Civil Procedure would also not stand in the way to do substantial justice and such inherent power is recognized by the Code under Section 151"; Also relies on Rule 9 Company Court Rules, 1959 that extends inherent power to the Company Court to pass any Order to do substantial Justice in the matter:Calcutta HC |
The ruling was delivered by division bench of Justice Ashim Kumar Banerjee and Justice Shiva Kant Prasad. Advocates Swatarup Banerjee and Sourav Sengupta argued on behalf of the applicant, while Senior Advocate Tilak Bose alongwith Advocates Manju Bhutoria and Souvik Chowdhury represented the respondent. |
[LSI-446-HC-2015-(CAL)] Click here to read facts, analysis and the copy of judgement. Click here to post your comment. For subscriptions, please contact: sales@lawstreetindia.com |
__._,_.___
No comments:
Post a Comment