Since long the public sector banks and financial institutions (hereinafter collectively referred to as ‘the Bank’ or ‘the Banks’) have unilaterally and arbitrarily developed a practice to execute personal guarantee agreements with the guarantors to secure the debts of a company. This view is supported by the judgement of hon’ble Supreme Court in Karnataka State Financial Corporation vs N. Narasimahaiah & Ors. {2008 AIR 1797, 2008 (5) SCC 176, 2008 (4) JT 183; Date of Judgment: 13/03/2008}, wherein the court has observed as follows (in para 18)
The objective of creating an insurance repository is to provide policyholders a facility to keep insurance policies in electronic form and to undertake changes, modifications and revisions in the insurance policy with speed and accuracy in order to bring about efficiency, transparency and cost reduction in the issuance and maintenance of insurance policies.
Expenditure incurred by the company on account of stamp duty and registration fee for the issue of bonus shares is allowable expenditure. The Supreme Court has reiterated its view as already expressed in 1964 in CIT Vs. Dalmia Investment Co Ltd (1964) 52 ITR 567 (SC). However, the Gujrat High Court in Ahmedabad Mfg. & Calico Pvt Ltd Vs. CIT (1986) 162 ITR 800 (Guj) in 1986 and in other cases up to 1994 has taken a contrary view. Further, the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd Vs. CIT (1988) 174 ITR 689 (AP) and (1990) 184 ITR 70 (AP) in 1988 and up to 1990 has also taken a contrary view. It is unfortunate that Hon’ble Gujrat High Court and Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court have clearly violated the mandate of Article 141 of the Constitution; the concept is discussed in detail later on hereinafter.
The yardstick would be to judge as to whether allegation in the adjudication proceeding as well as proceeding for prosecution is identical and the exoneration of the person concerned in the adjudication proceeding is on merits. In case it is found on merit that there is no contravention of the provisions of the Act in the adjudication proceeding, the trial of the person concerned shall be an abuse of the process of the court.”
ARTICLE 142 of the Constitution of India DO NOT CONSTITUTE A BINDING PRECEDENT. Even therein, the scope and ambit of this Court’s jurisdiction under Article 142 vis-`-vis existence of the statue and statutory rules and the constitutional mandate contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India had not been taken into consideration.
Recently, hon’ble Supreme Court in RAJENDRA PRASAD GUPTA V. PRAKASH CHANDRA MISHRA & ORS. {(2011) 2 SCC 705; Civil Appeal No(s). 984 of 2006-Decided on 12-01-2011} has held as follows (in para 2). Rules of procedure are handmaids of justice. Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure gives inherent powers to the court to do justice. That provision has to be interpreted to mean that every procedure is permitted to the court for doing justice unless expressly prohibited, and not that every procedure is prohibited unless expressly permitted.
The aspect of whether the provision of Section 33 is directory or mandatory WAS NOT CONSIDERED BY THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF M. ANASUYA DEVI’S CASE (supra), and in fact, SECTION 33 OF THE STAMP ACT HAS NOT EVEN BEEN ADVERTED TO in the said judgment. The Supreme Court in the case of N. Bhargavan Pillai Vs. State of Kerala 2004 (13) SCC 217 has laid down that when any judgment, even of a Supreme Court, does not advert to a direct provision of law then, the JUDGMENT IS TO BE TREATED AS HAVING BEEN RENDERED PER INCURIAM.” (capitals mine)
A.P. (DIR Series) Circular No. 55 – It has been decided to enhance the FII investment limit in listed non-convertible debentures / bonds, with a residual maturity of five years and above, and issued by Indian companies in the infrastructure sector, where ‘infrastructure’ is defined in terms of the extant ECB guidelines, by an additional limit of USD 20 billion taking this limit from USD 5 billion to USD 25 billion (with this the total limit available to FIIs for investment in listed non convertible debentures / bonds would be USD 40 billion with a sub limit of USD 25 billion for investment in listed non-convertible debentures / bonds issued by corporates in the infrastructure sector). Further, such investment by FIIs in listed non-convertible debentures / bonds would have a minimum lock-in period of three years. However, FIIs are allowed to trade amongst themselves during the lock-in period. It has also been decided to allow SEBI registered FIIs to invest in unlisted non-convertible debentures / bonds issued by corporates in the infrastructure sector, provided that such investment is as per the aforementioned terms and conditions.
(i) It is evident that EVERY INSTRUMENT shall be chargeable with duty, which is EXECUTED in India. (ii) The terms & conditions on “Airline ticket” or “Courier consignment receipt” etc are accepted orally by the buyer, rather there is IMPLIED ACCEPTANCE.iii) Therefore, “Airline ticket” or “Courier consignment receipt” etc are not EXECUTED INSTRUMENTS by both the parties, hence not chargeable with duty.
Presently, an AD category – I bank is required to obtain unconditional, irrevocable standby Letter of Credit (LC) or guarantee from an international bank, for an advance remittance exceeding US $ 1,00,000 or its equivalent, for imports of goods into India. With effect from 29 April 2011, RBI has enhanced the aforesaid limit to US $ 2,00,000.
