Source : Business Standard:M J Antony / New Delhi February 14, 2011, 0:55 IST
The Supreme Court (SC) stated last week a borrower and his guarantors who have been served with a notice under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act has a remedy under the Act and should not rush to the high court. In this case, Kanaiyalal vs State of Maharashtra, State Bank of India advanced loans against mortgage of certain property. The loan was declared as non-performing asset and the bank proceeded to take over the mortgaged property. The guarantors moved the Bombay high court against the bank’s move. It rejected the petition stating they had tried to avail of the remedy earlier by moving the debt recovery tribunal The excise commissioner appealed to the SC. It quashed the tribunal’s order.
Permanently fixed furniture too subject to excise
The SC ruled last week central excise duty can be levied on furniture permanently fixed to the walls or ground. It set aside the decision of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, which took a contrary view in the case, Commissioner vs Mehta & Co. This Mumbai company was engaged in interior decoration of luxury hotels. It entered into turn-key contracts with its clients and furniture was part of the work contract. When the revenue authorities demanded excise duty, it protested the woodwork was carried out in the premises of the hotels and they were permanent fixtures. They cannot be removed without causing damage to the goods or cannibalisation. When the contention was rejected, the firm moved the tribunal, which accepted its argument.
A director of a company should not be dragged to a criminal court when documents prove he was not responsible for issuing cheques which were dishonoured, the SC stated last week. The Calcutta high court had asked a former director of Rifa Healthcare (India) who had resigned from the company to stand trial for the issuance of 18 cheques. He showed from documents he had left the company and therefore the case against him should be quashed. But the high court insisted it was his duty to show the trial court he had indeed quit the company. Therefore, he should face the trial first. He appealed to the SC against the order. The SC set aside the ruling in the case, Harshendra Kumar vs Rebatilata Kole, stating it was evident from the records of the company and the registrar of the companies he had left the firm at the time of issuing the cheques.
Appeal over violation of rules on storing imported good
The SC last week dismissed the appeal of M/s SBEC Sugar Ltd against the Bombay HC order allowing the customs authorities to charge dues for keeping imported goods in the warehouse beyond the permitted time. The firm had imported capital goods for its unit. The goods were kept in the warehouse under bond. After the expiry of the period, the firm applied for extension of the facility. Meanwhile, the government enlarged the Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme to cover agro-based industries. The sugar firm availed of this facility and claimed exemption. The authorities rejected the request. The importer moved the high court, and later appealed to the SC, without success. The SC judgment clarified the benefit of exemption granted under the export promotion scheme would not be available to the firm.
Petition on trademark dismissed
The Madras high court last week rejected the petition of Crompton Greaves Ltd seeking a trade mark injunction against Salzer Electronics Ltd in a dispute over the use of the logo CG. Salzer, an Indian company, was a third party manufacturer for Crompton Greaves of electrical goods. Later, Salzer manufactured similar goods for a British firm, Europa Component & Equipment plc with trademark MCG. The latter trade mark is owned by a European company called Motor Control and Industrial Switch Gear.
Salzer sent its goods with MCG mark to UK. The high court stated that since the goods were sent to UK on Europa’s orders, with a mark registered there and to be sold abroad, there was no cause for injunction. Moreover, the mark was not visible on the face of the goods unless the outer casing was removed.
Posts
