.....judge was wrong to conclude nzpil did not have a good claim against mr chen snr for breach of the fiduciary duty he owed the company as a de facto director. mr he argues that mr chen snr breached the fiduciary duty he owed nzpil by diverting corporate opportunities from nzpil to himself or to entities associated with him. [17] in addition to supporting the associate judges reasoning, the respondents seek to support the judgment under appeal on the following additional grounds: (a) mr chen snr was not a director of nzpil; (b) the relief sought in the proposed derivative action is either: (i) relief that the appellant seeks personally; (ii) based on the cjv between the appellant and mr chen snr to which the company was not a party; or (iii) relief that has no legal basis or which this court has no jurisdiction to grant; and (c) the claims in the proposed derivative action would be more appropriately dealt with by a liquidator of the company; and (d) it would not be appropriate for the appellant to control the derivative action on behalf of the company. [18] the point identified at (a) raises a preliminary issue. the points at (b) are relevant to the issue of the strength of.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....doctrine applied.[2] that was because a claim by mrs barber against ms cottle that was dismissed by mallon j in 2008,[3] arose from the same facts and was based on the same actions of ms cottle as those founding the present claim. mrs barber applied to this court for an extension of time within which to appeal against the judgment of mallon j in october 2009, some 18 months outside the relevant appeal period. this court refused to grant the extension of time.[4] [3] williams j found that the marangairoa trust, of which mr reid is a trustee, was a privy of mrs barber and cooper rapley lawyers were privies of ms cottle. for that reason, the resolution of mrs barbers claim against ms cottle in the judgment of mallon j created a res judicata in relation to the claim made in the present proceedings. to the extent any new claim was made, the limitation act 1950 applied to prevent the claim from being made. [4] the notice of appeal against the decision of williams j was filed on 14 june 2011, within the relevant appeal period. under r 43, as it stood at the time, an application for the allocation of a hearing had to be made, and the case on appeal had to be filed, by 13 december.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....is on medication. counsel submits that a supportive family environment would be more beneficial to him than prison. reliance is also placed on the fact that mr maligi was on em bail prior to trial without incident. [7] the crown opposes bail being granted. discussion [8] the test to be applied is set out in s 14 of the bail act 2000. under s 14(1), the court is not to grant bail unless satisfied on the balance of probabilities that it would be in the interests of justice in the particular case to do so. section 14(2) provides that the onus is on the appellant to show cause why bail should be granted. [9] as noted in ellis v r, admission to bail pending an appeal is unusual and only to be granted in exceptional circumstances.[2] the concern is for the overall interests of justice, the starting point being that the appellant has been found guilty and sentenced. [10] section 14(3) provides that when considering the interests of justice, the court may take into account the apparent strength of the grounds of appeal, the length of the sentence, the likely time that will pass before the appeal is heard, the personal circumstances of the appellant and their family and any other.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....custody. 7(i). mr. jorgay namka, learned advocate, representing the appellant, chose not to argue on the findings of the fast track court on the facts of the case and limited his submissions only to the nature of the offence against which the appellant was convicted. (ii) relying upon the decision of tika ram chettri vs. state of sikkim : 2010 cri.l.j. 4025 (sikkim) he submitted that the facts and circumstances of the case did not call for the appellant being convicted under sections 376/511 ipc but ought to have been under section 354 ipc, i.e., outraging the modesty of a woman. he heavily relied upon the evidence of p.w.5, n/k kul bahadur sunar to state that there was nothing in his evidence to indicate that the girl was half naked with her lower part of her garment removed and, that when the police encountered them, the appellant and the victim were sitting separately inside the vehicle. in support of his submission he referred to the following evidence of p.w.5, laying emphasis on the underlined portions:- œ¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦.¦.. inside the said vehicle, the accused and a girl were found. i noticed the girl wearing a dress appearing like a medi (half frock).....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....dated 6.5.1995, the tahsildar issued a patta, however, when the matter was brought to the notice of the second respondent, the second respondent by order dated 16.9.1997, set aside the order passed by the third respondent.4. in the meanwhile, the appeal filed by the said nagarajan was dismissed by a judgment and decree dated 25.7.2008 and the said judgment and decree became final. thereafter, the petitioner moved an application to the tamil nadu electricity board, seeking three phase line for his property. but the petitioner was denied the electricity service connection, since, the patta in respect of the property stood in the name of chinnapillaiammal. in view of that, the petitioner moved an application under the right to information act and he received a reply on 15.7.2010 enclosing the copy of the impugned order dated 20.5.2010, in which the petitioner came to know that the second respondent has unilaterally cancelled the patta of the petitioner in respect of s.no.273/1a without any notice to the petitioner's joint patta. challenging the same, this writ petition has been filed.5. learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further urged before this court that the second.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....are the questions of law raised by the assessee seeking admission of the tax case (appeal) for the assessment year 2009-10:- 1.whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the tribunal was right in holding that the assessing officer can refuse to do a best judgment assessment, even though the assessee himself has admitted that his accounts are not full and complete?.2. whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the tribunal was right in holding that books cannot be rejected and best judgment assessment cannot be done in a case where the accounts have been audited under section 44ab?.3. whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the tribunal ought to have taken into account the full and true disclosure made before the settlement commission regarding inflation of stock for earlier and subsequent years to decide the issue?.2. the assessee is a firm engaged in the business of whole-sale and retail distribution of auto spares and accessories of two and three wheelers. the assessee returned the income of rs.1,14,600/- and it is stated that the assessee had list of sundry creditors, which were numbering more than 1000. the assessee was called upon to get.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....company has made out a prima facie case that the respondent is unable to pay its debts and the ingredients of section 433 (e) of the companies act is attracted. 3. learned counsel appearing for the respondent mill relied upon an order passed by a learned single judge of this court and also the letter of m/s.canara bank dated 19.3.14. the gist of the letter from m/s.canara bank reads as follows :- we refer to the notice dated 18-03-2014 received from the income tax dept., coimbatore demanding payment of rs.84.81 lacs from our bank on account of non-payment of tax dues from your company. a copy of the notice has already been forwarded/sent to you and we enclose herewith a copy for your ready reference. we request you to take immediate steps for payment of the dues/vacate the attachment order. in the absence of the above, we will be constrained to comply with the directions of the income tax authorities. please do the needful, at the earliest. 4. the plea of the learned counsel before the learned single judge is that its account is frozen and, therefore, the respondent mill is not able to pay. however, on a perusal of the letter of canara bank, this court finds that the same.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....director of matriculation school, chennai, thereby confirming the order of termination of the petitioner by the administrative committee. 2.few facts, which are relevant for consideration herein are as follows: the petitioner was appointed as teacher in the second respondent school. she was by order dated 8.3.1999 terminated from service by the officer in-charge of the school. the school management undertook to withdraw the order of termination, on the representation made by the petitioner to the firs.respondent. while so, the second respondent correspondent issued the petitioner a charge memo dated 27.12.1999 containing 11 charges. the petitioner submitted her explanation. having not satisfied with the explanation, the management conducted enquiry and the enquiry was fixed on 4.2.2000 and following the enquiry, enquiry report was submitted by the enquiry officer, holding the charges 1 to 3, 6, 9 and 10 as proved. the same was followed by second show cause notice dated 6.3.2000 to the petitioner as to why her service could not be terminated forthwith. the petitioner submitted her reply to the show cause notice. the same was followed by the termination order dated 20.3.2000.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....cause notice citing the following: (i) failure to disclose that the applicant is a trans gender and appearing under women quota concealing this fact. (ii) failure to take part in final exam and pass. (iii) unauthorised absence from______ to_______. 9. based on the same, the principal, police recruit school, vellore by his proceedings in na.ka.no.d3/2638/2011 dated 28.12.2011 requested the superintendent of police, karur district, who is the appointing authority, to take further action. the superintendent of police, karur district, by his proceedings in na.ka.no.a4/14591/2012 dated 11.07.2012 issued a show cause notice calling upon the petitioner to explain as to why she should not be terminated from service. the petitioner duly submitted her explanation also. ultimately, the superintendent of police, karur, by his proceedings in na.ka.no.14591/2012 dated 08.04.2013 , terminated the petitioner from service on the aforesaid grounds. challenging the same the petitioner is before this court with this writ petition.10. this writ petition came up for admission on 08.01.2014 on which date, the learned government advocate took notice for the respondents. the matter was adjourned.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....respondent / plaintiff, seeking partition of the properties belonged to the firm is not maintainable and liable to be rejected.6. it is an admitted fact that the petitioners 3 and 4 are wife and son respectively of the second petitioner / second defendant. the first respondent / plaintiff has stated in the plaint that due to the pressure given by the second petitioner / d2, the plaintiff and the defendants 5 and 6 were forced to retire from the firm, though the partnership business was very lucrative. the first respondent / plaintiff has further stated that the plaintiff and the defendants 5 and 6 were owning 80% of the shares of the business of the first defendant firm.7. it is not in dispute that a memorandum of understanding (mou) was entered into between the plaintiff, the defendants 2, 5 and 6 on 10.08.2006 as partners, setting out the terms and conditions with regard to certain properties being transferred in the name of the plaintiff and defendants 5 and 6, in view of the retirement of the plaintiff and defendants 5 and 6 from the firm and the second petitioner / second defendant and other partners executed a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff on 23.08.2006 in respect.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT