Search by Keywords x
Indlaw Home                                                                                          contact us contact us | home help
 Welcome Guest | Jul 31 2014


Search By Databases

Subject Modules

State Modules

Legal Focus




Latest Updates
Search by Databases
Indlaw Resources
Indlaw Channels

Indlaw Policy Updates

Corporate  [See updates for other policy groups]

Legal News

RBI cancels registration certificate of Sri Sri Hire Purchase and Finance Limited (17 Jul 2014)
The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has cancelled the certificate of registration of Sri Sri Hire Purchase and Finance Limited barring it from doing business as non-banking financial institutions
RBI fixed reference rate at 60.1903 (16 Jul 2014)
The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) today fixed the Rupee reference rate at 60.1903 against the Dollar, down by 02.92 paise over the previous rate of 60.2195.
RBI injects Rs 20,388 cr in banking system via repos (15 Jul 2014)
The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has injected Rs 20,388 crore in the banking system via 1-day repo today.
Glenmark Generics gets USFDA nod for Fluocinonide cream (15 Jul 2014)
Pharma Major, Glenmark Pharmaceuticals said that its US subsidiary Glenmark Generics, has been granted final approval from the United States Food and Drug Administration (USFDA) for its abbreviated new drug application (ANDA) for Fluocinonide Cream USP 0.1 percent, the generic version of Vanos Cream by Medicis.
Bengal receives fresh investment proposals worth Rs 1,600 crore (13 Jul 2014)
After the announcement by Singapore's Changhi group on July 11 to raise stake in the Bengal project, the industrialisation process in the state received fresh investment proposals worth Rs 1,600 crore.
RBI injects Rs 6,193 crore in banking system via repos (11 Jul 2014)
The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has injected Rs 6,193 crore in the banking system via 3-days repo today.
Upendra Kamath appointed as MD&CEO of TMB (10 Jul 2014)
City headquartered Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Limited (TMB) has appointed H S Upendra Kamath as MD & CEO for three years term.
ECIL launches heavy duty security products (09 Jul 2014)
City-based Electronics Corporation of India Limited (ECIL), a Public Sector Enterprises under the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE),today launched indigenously developed heavy duty security gadgets' Road Blocker' and 'Tyre Killer'.
Naveen announces operation of WTC,lays foundation of CTZ (08 Jul 2014)
Odisha Chief Minister Naveen Patnaik today laid the foundation stone of the Convention cum Trade Zone and announced the commencement of operation of World Trade Center in the state capital.
Realism, not populism to mark Gowda, Jaitley Budgets (07 Jul 2014)
Realism coupled with a resolve to live up to people’s expectations and no quarter given to populism will mark the Railway Budget and the Union Budget of the BJP-led NDA government.


(1) In Re: Nasa Finlease Private Limited; (2) In Re: Singh and Ghosh Trading Private Limited vs.   [GUJARAT HIGH COURT, 21 Jul 2014]

In Re: Pino Bisazza Glass Private Limited vs.   [GUJARAT HIGH COURT, 21 Jul 2014]

In Re : (1) Vijay Autoparts Private Limited Represented by its Whole Time Director, Nayakankuppam Venkataramani, Chennai; (2) Ushas Autogears Private Limited, Represented by its Whole Time Director, Nayakankuppam Venkataramani, Chennai; (3) Mercury Precision Products Private Limited, Represented by its Whole Time Director, Nayakankuppam Venkataramani, Chennai vs.   [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 17 Jul 2014]

In Re : Tooba Buildtech Private Limited and another vs.   [DELHI HIGH COURT, 11 Jul 2014]

Dena Bank vs. Aaifr and others  [DELHI HIGH COURT, 08 Jul 2014]

In Re : Vodafone Spacetel Limited and another vs.   [DELHI HIGH COURT, 03 Jul 2014]

Jitendra Prasad Agarwal and others vs. Associated Tubewell (India) Limited and others  [DELHI HIGH COURT, 02 Jul 2014]
Corporate - Companies Act, 1956 , s. 403 - Misuse of companies funds - Appointment of Administrator - Legality - Respondent Company was incorporated as private limited company - Board of Directors of the Company approved deletion of word 'private' from name of the Company - Nominal capital of Company was Rs.25,00,000 divided into 25,000 equity shares of Rs.100 and paid-up capital was Rs.20,00,000 - Equity capital of Rs.5,00,000 was issued and subscribed by members of Modis' family and Agarwals' family in ratio of 60% and 40% - Petitioners held 2,800 fully paid up equity shares of Rs.100/- each in the company - Petitioner filed application and submitted that affairs of respondent company were being run for benefits of majority shareholders that's Y and her family members - Petitioners submitted that funds were misused by X and Y and to refund of money misused with 18% interest p.a. to company and other shareholders - Petitioners filed instant applications u/s. 403 of the Act seeking appointment of receiver/administrator to take over management of respondent Company and removal X from Board of Directors of the Company, and to debar X and Y from participating in management of Company - Whether it was appropriate to appoint administrator -

Held, there was no material that was placed on record that substantiates claim that X had any experience prior to his appointment as Additional Director of respondent company - Thus, it was ex facie obvious that Explanatory note for his appointment as Director was not correct and indicated misuse by respondent group of their position as majority shareholders - Prima facie appeared that contentions canvassed by petitioners were merited and X was appointed as Director not because of any financial acumen and experience as stated in explanatory note but to ensure that he could draw benefits from company - Branch office appeared to have been opened only for purpose to facilitate education of X - HC recorded statement of respondents that immovable property of company would not be sold or disposed of till the next date of hearing - Despite restrain orders from Court respondent company had sold the property - Explanation afforded by X who had carried out transaction on behalf of company as Director was that he was unaware of orders of the Court - Y resided in property owned by respondent company and it was thus apparent that benefit of properties of company were availed by Y and her family including her son X - Prima facie¸ established that resources of company was used for benefit of Y and her family and petitioners had apparently been excluded from affairs of the company - Accordingly, Court deemed that it was appropriate that administrator be appointed for overseeing affairs of the Company - Application disposed of.

GAC Shipping (India) Private Limited vs. Union of India Through Secretary Ministry of Commerce and another  [BOMBAY HIGH COURT, 01 Jul 2014]
Corporate - Indian Companies Act, 1956 - Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 - Customs Act, 1962 - Customs House Brokers - Cancellation of license - Sustainability - Writ Petition was by the petitioner which was a company registered under the 1956 Act engaged, interalia, in the business of forwarding and clearing of cargoes of various importers and exporters at Mumbai Port - Petitioner was established in the year 1983, had 26 offices across India and 340 employees who were engaged in the business activities - Petitioner claimed to have acted as Agent and under the sub regulations namely Regulations for reputed clients - Order dt. 9-6-2014/impugned order was passed by the Commissioner of Customs (General) Mumbai, who was second respondent before this HC - By the order, respondent No.2 had prohibited the petitioner from operating as customs house brokers within Mumbai Customs Zones I, II and III pending enquiry under regn.20 of Regulations - Whether respondent No.2 committed error in prohibiting the petitioner from operating as customs house brokers -

Held, HC was satisfied that the Regulations empowered the authorities to issue license, supervise and control the working of the Customs Brokers and equally ensure fulfillment and compliance with the terms and conditions on which the license was issued - That the Customs Broker was required to be licensed and could not, therefore, carry on the business otherwise, was clear from reading of Regn.3 of Regulations - Thereafter, there were stipulations and clauses which enable making of an application and its due consideration - Grant of license was covered by regn.7 of Regulations and thereafter the execution of bond, furnishing of security, period of validity of license, are dealt with by regns. 8 and 9 of Regulations - As per regn.10 of Regulations, the license was not transferable - Obligations of the Customs Broker were set out in regn.11of Regulations and it was his duty to advise his client to comply with the provisions of the 1956 Act and in case of non- compliance, he should bring the matter to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs, as the case might be. HC could not be unmindful of the fact that brokers who were licensed had a duty not only to their client but to the public and they had to act in such a way and manner that not only Regulations were not violated but the larger public interest was served - Regn. 23 conferred a discretionary power and which would enable the Commissioner of Customs of a particular Station to prohibit the Custom Broker from operating as Custom Broker or from working in one or more sections - That power was coupled with a duty and should be exercised only on the requisite satisfaction being reached - It could not be exercised merely because in the opinion of the Commissioner of Customs, the broker had pursued the case of the client/importer needlessly or endlessly - That was a matter which the Commissioner had to deal with independently and for which in a given case he could proceed not only against the importer/client but the broker as well - There were enough provisions in 1962 Act enabling the Commissioner to take care of evasion of duty and dealing with persons responsible for the same - There were also enough measures and which could be initiated so as to prevent such activities in future - However, when the proceedings against the importer in the case were pending and no final adjudication had taken place and the matter was as old as 3 years, then, HC did not see any justification for issuing a notice to the petitioner and proceeding against it in terms of regn.23 of Regulations - There was much substance in the contention of petitioner that the show cause notice had close proximity with the case or stand of the importer/client - From time to time the importer/client had succeeded in protecting its rights, namely, of import and the grant of Essentiality Certificate - Petitioner could be proceeded against together with the importer under independent powers conferred in the Commissioner by 1962 Act, and that was not disputed - That a show cause notice against the importer/client was issued and was pending adjudication, was further not disputed - That provisional orders enabling clearance of the Vessel and giving security for payment of duty was passed and all that was to the knowledge of the department - Further, the attempt of the importer/client in approaching the Assistant Commissioner of Customs to assess the Vessle not on permanent basis but temporary one and seeking amendment to the Bill of Entry, was also to the knowledge of the department - Those events were of the year December 2010 - Therefore, there was no explanation much less a justification for initiation of proceedings in the year 2014 against the petitioner and that too for prohibition from operation or working at the Mumbai Customs Station - Commissioner at Mumbai had taken up the issue with the Cochin Customs which was the parent Commissionerate and which had issued the license to the petitioner in terms of the Regulations - That Commissioner could have very well suspended the license if there was any requirement and necessity of doing so - Further that Commissioner could have also proceeded against the petitioner in terms of the Regulations for revoking the license - That despite, such a matter being taken up with the parent Commissionerate, the Customs Commissioner at Mumbai, thought it fit to invoke regn.23 of Regulations was something which was not clarified - There was, therefore, a clear haste and arbitrariness in proceeding against the petitioner - There was no reason to keep aside the adjudication proceedings and only proceed in terms of regn.23 of Regulations - For all these reasons and finding that the action was only based on the allegations in the show cause notice issued to the importer/client that HC was of the opinion that the impugned order could not be sustained - Power u/regn.23 of Regulations which was discretionary and coupled with a duty could not have been exercised in the given facts and circumstances - Petition allowed.

Naina Enterprises Private Limited vs. Registrar of Companies  [UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT, 25 Jun 2014]
Corporate - Companies Act, 1956, s. 560 - Restoration of name - Registrar of Companies - Petitioner's co. was incorporated under the Act - Registrar of Companies struck off the name of the petitioner's co. from the register after a due notice and publication in the Official Gazette as required u/s. 560(5) of the Act - Prior to it the due process of law as contemplated u/s. 560(1) to (3) had been duly followed - Hence, instant petition filed with a prayer to restore the name of the petitioner co. to the Register of Companies - Whether name of the petitioner co. be restored to the Register of Companies, as maintained by the Registrar of Companies -

Held, object of s. 560(6) of the Act was primarily to give a chance to co., its members and creditors to revive the co., whose names have been struck off by the Registrar of Companies, and this could be done within a period of twenty years - In the instant case, since the returns, balance-sheet, profit and loss account etc. have not been filed with the respondents-the Registrar of Companies, it was not in a position to judge the financial health of the co. over a period of seven years, and have passed order u/s. 560(5) of the Act - However, considering that no prejudice would be caused to anyone if the co. was restored in the Registrar of the Companies, and considering the interest of justice, the co. would be restored - Petition allowed.

Electrosteel Castings Limited vs. (1) Government of India; (2) State of Jharkhand  [JHARKHAND HIGH COURT, 24 Jun 2014]


NA (25 Jul 2014) (Notification)
Class of companies for purposes of second proviso to s. 203(1) of the Companies Act, 2013 notified - Notification dated 25-07-2014
NA (24 Jul 2014) (Notification)
Companies (Management and Administration) Second Amendment Rules, 2014 - Notification dated 24-07-2014
01/13/2013 (Part-I) CL-V (17 Jul 2014) (Notification)
Companies (Specification of definitions details) Amendment Rules, 2014 – Notification dated 17-07-2014
1/25/2013-CL-V (17 Jul 2014) (Notification)
Companies (Miscellaneous) Amendment Rules, 2014 – Notification dated 17-07-2014
S.O.1820(E) (09 Jul 2014) (Notification)
Companies (Removal of Difficulties) Fifth Order, 2014 – Order dated 09-07-2014
NA (30 Jun 2014) (Notification)
Companies (Prospectus and Allotment of Securities) Amendment Rules, 2014 : Notification dated. 30-6-2014
G.S.R. 415(E) (23 Jun 2014) (Notification)
Companies (Management and Administration) Amendment Rules, 2014 - Notification dated 23-06-2014
NA (18 Jun 2014) (Notification)
Companies (Share Capital and Debentures) Amendment Rules, 2014 - Notification dated 18-06-2014
NA (13 Jun 2014) (Notification)
Establish the office of Registrar of Companies at Hyderabad in the State of Telengana - Notification dated 13-06-2014
NA (13 Jun 2014) (Notification)
Establish the office of Official Liquidator at Hyderabad in the State of Telengana - Notification dated 13-06-2014

Search for Relevant Notifications


31 /2014 (19 Jul 2014) (Circular)
Extension of validity of reserved names – Circular dated 19-07-2014
UBD. CO. BPD. PCB. Cir. No. 4/16.74.000/2014-15 (15 Jul 2014) (Circular)
Data Format for Furnishing of Credit Information to Credit Information Companies and other Regulatory Measures Circular No. UBD. CO. BPD. PCB. Cir. No. 4/16.74.000/2014-15 – Circular dated 15-07-2014
DNBS(PD).CC.No 400/03.10.42/2014-15 (14 Jul 2014) (Circular)
Know Your Customer (KYC) Norms/Anti-Money Laundering (AML) Standards /Combating of Financing of Terrorism (CFT)/Obligation of NBFCs under Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002 Recognising E-Aadhaar as an 'Officially Valid Document' under PML Rules - Circular dated 14-07-2014
DNBS(PD).CC.No.399/03.10.42/2014-15 (14 Jul 2014) (Circular)
Levy of foreclosure charges/pre-payment penalty on Floating Rate Loans - Circular dated 14-07-2014
DNBS (PD).CC. No 398/03.10.42/2014-15 (10 Jul 2014) (Circular)
Know Your Customer (KYC) Norms/Anti-Money Laundering (AML) Standards/Combating of Financing of Terrorism (CFT)/Obligation of NBFCs under Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002- Clarification on proof of Address - Circular dated 10-07-2014
28 /2014 (09 Jul 2014) (Circular)
Clarification on form MGT-14 through STP mode - Circular dated 09-07-2014
DNBS(PD).CC.No. 392/03.02.001/2014-15 (01 Jul 2014) (Circular)
Master Circulars - Miscellaneous Instructions to all Non-Banking Financial Companies – Circular dated 01-07-2014
27 /2014 (30 Jun 2014) (Circular)
Clarification regarding filing of Form DPT4 under Companies Act, 2013 - Circular dated. 30-6-2014
26 /2014 (27 Jun 2014) (Circular)
Clarification with regard to use of the words "Commodity Exchange" in a company-reg. - Circular dated. 27-6-2014
25 /2014 (26 Jun 2014) (Circular)
Clarification on applicability of requirement for resident director - Circular dated 26-06-2014

Search for Relevant Circulars

 Copyright © 1997-2014 | Privacy Policy | Disclaimer