HDFC Bank breaches limit on RIL's loans; Rajan didn't imply world facing new Great Depression: RBI
HDFC Bank breaches limit on RIL's loans; Rajan didn't imply world facing new Great Depression: RBI
AAP logo designer quits, serves notice to Kejriwal on copyright'Intellectual Property will help move economy forward'
GOODS AND SERVICE TAX REPORTS (GSTR) HIGHLIGHTS
F Order of single judge at pre-deposit stage will not act as res judicata on merits : Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. v. Dy. CCE p. 1
F Authorities not empowered to dispense with show-cause notice on presumption that no prejudice would be caused to assessee : Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. v. Dy. CCE p. 1
F Where return of goods genuine transaction and return intimated to Department, Appellate Tribunal justified in setting aside order of confiscation, imposition of fine and penalty : CCE v. Vidhya Packaging Industries P. Ltd. (All) p. 26
F Determination of annual production capacity : Competent authority to determine application of rule 5 of 1997 Rules in light of Supreme Court's decision : CCE v. Kanishk Steel Industries Ltd. (Mad) p. 28
F EXIM Policy enabling Customs authorities to exercise powers for confiscation or to impose fine and penalty without prejudice to action under 1962 Act, finding of Appellate Tribunal that no penalty leviable, erroneous : Commissioner of Customs v. Pattu Exports P. Ltd. (Mad) p. 38
F Assessee producing statutory document in proof of bona fide default, matter to be reconsidered by adjudicating authority : Commissioner of Customs v. Pattu Exports P. Ltd. (Mad) p. 38
F High Court not to review factual findings based on evidence but only to correct order where based on irrelevant and incorrect construction of facts based on misappreciation of law or non-application of mind : M. P. Goenka v. Commissioner of Customs (Delhi) p. 62
F Acquittal in criminal proceedings cannot ipso facto to result in setting aside of order of confiscation : K. V. Rajagopal (Deceased) v. Commissioner of Customs (Mad) p. 73
F Sludge and pulper waste emerging during manufacture of paper not waste and scrap of paper or paperboard and not excisable goods : Magnum Ventures Ltd. v. CCE (Trib.-Delhi) p. 50
F Where Department establishing illegal import and link of goods with importers, retraction of confessional statement need not be dealt with : M. P. Goenka v. Commissioner of Customs (Trib.-Delhi) p. 57
F Rules :
Cenvat Credit (Second Amendment) Rules, 2015 p. 1
Cenvat Credit (Third Amendment) Rules, 2015 p. 2
Chewing Tobacco and Unmanufactured Tobacco Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Amendment Rules, 2015 p. 2
Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) (Amendment) Rules, 2015 p. 5
F Notifications :
Customs Act, 1962 : Notification under section 25(1) : Effective rates of basic duties for specified goods : Amendments p. 11
Exemption to specified goods imported for defence and internal security force : Amendments p. 9
Exemption to specified goods imported into India : Amendments p. 13
Notification under section 50 : Shipping Bill (Electronic Declaration) Regulations, 2011 : Amendments p. 8
Customs Tariff Act, 1975 : Notification under section 3(3) : Levy of additional duty : Amendments p. 13
Notification under section 9A(1) and (5) : Anti-dumping duty on import of sodium citrate from China p. 15
| COMPANY LAW INSTITUTE OF INDIA PVT. LTD. No. 2, Vaithyaram Street, T.Nagar, Chennai - 600017. Phone: (044) 24350752 - 55 Fax: (044) 24322015 info@cliofindia.com |
Chief Justice Shri. Mahesh Mittal Kumar takes over charge as CLB, Chairman
Chief Justice Shri. Mahesh Mittal Kumar takes over charge as Chairman, Company Law Board on June 5, 2015: CLB
Click here to read more.
Cos. (Share Capital & Debentures) Second Amendment Rules, 2015 published in Official Gazette
Companies (Share Capital and Debentures) Second Amendment Rules, 2015 published in Official Gazette; Mandatory seal of company on share certificates done away with.
Click here to read more.
Cos. (Registration of Charges) Amendment Rules, 2015 published in Official Gazette
Companies (Registration of Charges) Amendment Rules, 2015 published in Official Gazette; Mandatory requirement of affixation of company's seal for verification of instrument consisting of property situated outside India is made optional.
Click here to read more.
Cos. (Declaration & Payment of Dividend) Second Amendment Rules, 2015 published in Official Gazette
Companies (Declaration & Payment of Dividend) Second Amendment Rules, 2015 published in Official Gazette, whereby a company which has not set off the carried over losses and depreciation not provided in previous year against company's current year profit, can declare dividend
Click here to read more.
CLB, Chennai Bench to hear all matters pertaining to Andhra Pradesh & Telangana
Bench Officers, CLB, Chennai Bench directed to move all matters (including urgent mentioning) pertaining to State of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana before CLB, Chennai Bench for hearing: CLB
Click here to read more.
Cabinet approves proposal for converting Solar Energy Corporation into Sec. 3 Co.
Union Cabinet approves proposal for permitting Solar Energy Corporation of India ('SECI') to apply to the Registrar of Companies for converting it into Section 3 Co. under Companies Act, 2013 and renaming it as Renewable Energy Corporation of India ('RECI'); Govt. explains objective behind move, says SECI will become self-sustaining & self-generating organization, will engage itself in owning solar power plants generating & selling power and in other segments of solar sector activities and will take up development of all segments of renewable energy; States that the Govt. has decided to enlarge the scope of the SECI's activities for providing comprehensive and optimized solution for generation of renewable energy integrating various renewable energy sources: PIB
Click here to read more.
Govt approves 16 FDI proposals worth over Rs. 6750 cr
Based on FIPB's recommendation, the Govt. approves 16 FDI proposals amounting to Rs. 6750.86 crore approximately, involving applicants from pharma, telecom, real estate, print media, telecom & broadcasting sectors.
Click here to read more.
Share trading through screen-based mechanism no defence for concerted action, imposes penalty
SEBI imposes a penalty of Rs 5.73 cr on 14 entities ('noticees', including individuals & HUFs) for their fraudulent & manipulative trading in 4 scrips on 4 different trading date in cash segment affecting scrips' closing price in moments, thereby violating SEBI (Prevention of Fraudulent & Unfair Trade Practices) Regulation; Observes that noticees' trading activity was concerted, as they belonged to same family & trading strategy was common in all four scrips, i.e., trading in closing hours, placing orders above last traded price, thereby impacting the closing price in cash segments and subsequently exercising call options in derivative segment; Rejects noticees' contention that sale of shares took place through screen based mechanism of stock exchange wherein it was not possible to know the counter party broker / client, holds that "a trade can be executed on the screen and still be manipulative in nature"; Further rejects noticees' contention that they were financially independent and had traded independently, observes that though direct evidence may not be available, inter se transfer of shares resulting in no change of beneficial ownership reveals that there was meeting of minds; Relies on SAT rulings in Nirmal Bang Securities (P) Ltd. vs SEBI and Ketan Parekh Vs. SEBI:SEBI
The ruling was delivered by Shri. A. Sunil Kumar.
HUF, though not director, deemed "person-acting-in-concert", liable for Takeover Code compliance
SAT upholds SEBI order imposing Rs 8 lakhs penalty on persons-acting-in-concert ('PAC') for not making disclosures about acquisition of shares of target co. above the threshold limit; Rejects appellant's contention that since it was an HUF, it wasn't a director of the acquirer co., thus, it could not be held as PAC, and no penalty could be levied on it; Holds that since the director (who was the karta of HUF) in his individual capacity decided to acquire shares of target co. in the name of HUF and in his capacity as a director decided along with other directors.. "it is evident that there was a common intention between the parties to acquire the shares of the target company...", thus, it was a deemed PAC; Referring to Regulation 2(1)(q)(2) of SAST Regulations, 2011, holds that where shares of target co. are acquired by company, its directors and person associated with their director, they would squarely fall within category of 'deemed persons acting in concert', thus HUF was deemed PAC; Rejects appellant's contention that no penalty was imposable as no unfair advantage had accrued to it and no loss was caused to investors on account of non disclosure, holds that, "liability to pay penalty for failure to make disclosure is not dependent on the question as to whether or not unfair advantage has accrued or loss is caused to the investors or not.":SAT
The ruling was delivered by Justice J.P. Devadhar and Shri. Jog Singh.
Advocate Dakshesh Vyas argued on behalf of the appellants, while Advocates Kumar Desai and Manish Acharya argued on behalf of the respondent.
__._,_.___
No comments:
Post a Comment