Alak Prokash JaIn Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Decided On : Sep-16-1971

Court : Kolkata

LAW: Section 10A, the Companies Act, Section 388C of the Act, Section 388B of the Act, Section 388C, Section 388B of the Act, Section 401, Article 226 of the Conftitution, Constitution, Act 17 of 1967, Chapter IV, the Companies Act, Article 32 of the Constitution, Article 226, the Case No. 1 of 1964, Section 2, Section 10A, the Companies Act, Section 3, Section 10, Article 226 of the Constitution, Section 388B(1, Section 388B(1, Section 388B(1, Section 388B(1, Section 388B(1, Section 237(b, Section 237(b, Section 237(b, Section 388B(1, Section 237, Section 388B, Section 237, Section 388B of the Act, Article 14 of the Constitution, Article 14. 23, Section 12(1, the Mines Act, Section 12(1, the Mines Act, Section 237(b, Section 388B of the Act, Section 388B, Section 388B of the Act, Section 237(b, Section 209 and Section 211, Section 388B of the Act, Section 388B of the Act, Section 388B of the Act, Section 388B of the Act, Section 388B of the Act, Section 388B of the Act, Article 14, Section 388B of the Act, Article 14, Section 237, Section 388B of the Act, Article 14 of the Constitution and, Article 226, Constitution, Article 226, Article 14 of the Constitution, Article 19(1)(f, Constitution, Article 304(b, Constitution, Article 14, Section 388B of the Act, Article 14, Article 226 of the Constitution, Section 388B, Section 388B of the Act the Central Government, Section 388B of the Act, Article 14, Section 167(8, Section 187A, Section 167(81, Section 167(8, Section 167(81, Section 167 of the Act, Section 388B of the Act, Article 14, Section 388B, Section 240, Section 388B of the Act, Section 398, Section 388B of the Act, Section 398, Section 398, Section 398, Section 237, Section 388E of the Act, Chapter IV-A of the Act, Section 388B, Section 388B of the Act, Section 388B of the Act, Section 388E, Article 14 of the Constitution, Section 388E of the Act, Article 14, Section 388E, Article 14, Article 19(1)(g, Constitution, Constitution, the First Amendment Act, Article 19(6, Constitution, Constitution, Constitution, Constitution, Section 388B of the Act, Section 10E of the Act, the Companies Act, the Companies Amendment Act, Section 388B(1, Section 388B of the Act, Section 637(1, Section 10E of the Act, Section 388B of the Act, Section 2, Section 49, Section 2(5, Section 49(1, the Defence Regulations, Section 10E of the Act, Section 10E, Section 8(1, the Bengal Excise Act, Section 388B of the Act, Rule 30, Rule 30, Rule 30, Regulation 51, the Defence Regulations, Section 388B of the Act, the Companies Act, Section 398, Chapter IV-A of the Act, Chapter IV-A, Article 226 of the Constitution

PERSON: B.C. Mitra, P.K. Ray, Benett Coleman, Benett Coleman, R.C. Cooper, R.C. Cooper, P.K. Ray, R.C. Cooper, nisi, S. Banerjee, Banerjee, Venkata Somaraju, Principal Munsif-Magistrate, Prabhakaran Nair v. State, Kavalappara Kottarathil Kochunni, Moopil Nair v. State of Madra, R.C. Deb, Deb, Schedule, Schedule, Benett Coleman, S. Banerjee, R.C. Deb, Deb, Hidayatullah J., Divinder Singh Dang, Frederick Guilder Julius, Cairns L.C., Padfield, Frederick Guilder Julius, P.K. Ray, Ram Krishna Dalmia, Ram Krishna Dalmia, Thathunni Moopil Nair v. State, Bhailal Bhai, Articles 301, S. Banerjee, Ram Krishna, S.R. Tendolkar, Basheshar Nath v. Commissioner, Manohar Lal Bhogilal Shah v. State, Davinder Singh Dang, Singh Dang, Nain J., Rama Jain, Alok Prokash Jain, Rama Jain, Rama Jain, Nain J., Nain J., Nain J., Nain J. 58, Deb, Saghir Ahmad v. State, Deb, Saghir Ahmad v. State, Deb, Deb, Deb, Deb, Deb, Sibnath Banerji, Deb, Hari Kishan Sharma, Hampson, Banerjee, Godavari S. Parulekar v. State, Sibnath Banerji, Banerjee, Huth v. Clarke, Coleridge C.J., Wills J., Banerjee, Town Clerk, Denning M.R., Denning M. R., Scott L.J., Morris, Coleridge, Deb, Deb

GPE: India, Bombay, Bombay, Bombay, Kerala, Bombay, Bombay, Clauses, Clauses, Clauses, India, Oxford, H.L., H.L., Oxford, H.L., Clause, India, Delhi, P.J., Hari, Mizo Hills, Deep Chand, King Emperor, A.I.R., C.A., C.A., C.A., China, Japan, King Emperor, A.I.R., Metropolitan Borough, C.A., Huth v., Bombay, Bombay, Bombay, Bombay, Bombay, India, Bombay, Bombay, Bombay, Bombay, Bombay

ORG: BenettColeman and Co. Ltd., the Union of India, Sections 388B, Shanti Prasad Jain, Fian Chand Jain, the Union of India, Co. Ltd., Tribunal, Tribunal, Co. Ltd., Tribunal, Tribunal, Tribunal, S.R. Bhakil, S.R. Bhakil, Tribunal, the Union of India, the Tribunal under Section 398, the Bombay High Court, Tribunal, Tribunal, Tribunal, the High Court, Tribunal, the High Court, Tribunal, the High Court, Tribunal, the High Court, the High Court, a High Court, the Andhra Pradesh High Court, Reliance, the Supreme Court, the High Court, the Bombay High Court, the High Court, the Bombay High Court, Tribunal, Tribunal, Tribunal, Tribunal, Tribunal, Tribunal, Tribunal, the ' High Court ', the High Court, Tribunal, the Bombay High Court, Tribunal, Tribunal, the High Court, Tribunal, Co. Ltd., Tribunal, the Central Government, Tribunal, the Central Government, the Central Government, Tribunal, Tribunal, the Supreme Court Barium Chemicals Ltd., Company Law Board, the Central Government', the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court, Rohtas Industries Ltd., S. D. Agarwal, Tribunal, Tribunal, Tribunal, the Central Government, S. Prakash Chopra, the Central Government, the Central Government, the Central Government, Tribunal, Tribunal, The Times of India, The Economic Times, the Central Government, the Central Government, the Central Government, Sections 388B, the Central Government, the Supreme Court, Kalipada Choudhury v. Union of India, the Supreme Court, the Central Government, the Central Government, the Supreme Court, Reliance, the House of Lords, Bishop, the House of Lords, Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, by'the Central Government, the Central Government, Tribunal, Tribunal, the Central Government, Tribunal, the Central Government, the Central Government, the Central Government, Sections 388B, the Supreme Court, Barium Chemicals', Rohtas Industries, the Central Government, the Central Government, the Central Government, the Companies Tribunal, the Central Government, Central Government, Shanti Prasad Jain, Shanti Prasad Jain, Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd., S.P. Jain, S.P. Jain, S.P. Jain, S.P. Jain, S.P. Jain, S.P. Jain, Bombay Vyapar Ltd.--a, Gian Chand Jain, Crosswords Pvt. Ltd., S.P. Jain, the Crosswords Pvt. Ltd., S.P. Jain, Bharat Union Agencies, Bharat Nidhi Ltd., S.P. Jain, Schedule VI, S.P. Jain, the Central Government, the Central Government, the Central Government, the Central Government, the Central Government, Sections 388B, the Central Government, the Central Government, Tribunal, the Central Government, the Central Government, the Supreme Court, Barium Chemicals Ltd., Company Law Board, the Central Government, the Central Government, the Supreme Court, Rohtas Industries Ltd., S.D. Agarwal, the Central Government, the Central Government, Reliance, the Supreme Court, Reliance, the High Court, the Punjab Forward Contract Tax Act, the State Legislature, the Bombay High Court, the Supreme Court, the Travancore-Cochin Land Tax Act, the Central Government, Reliance, the Supreme Court, Atiabari Tea Co. Ltd., State of Assam, the Assam Taxation, The High Court of Assam, the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court, State of, Tribunal, another High Court, Reliance, the Supreme Court, Mizo District Council, the Central Government, Central Government, the Supreme Court, S.G. Jaisinghani v. Union of India, the Central Government, the Central Government, the Central Government, the Central Government, the Supreme Court, Reliance, the Supreme Court, Reliance, the Supreme Court, the Sea Customs Act, the Central Government, the Central Government, the Central Government, Tribunal, the Central Government, the Central Government, the Central Government, the Central Government, the Central Government, the Central Government, the Companies Tribunal, the Central Government, the Central Government, the Bombay High Court, the Central Government, the Tribunal under Section 388B, the Union of India, S.P. Jain, the Companies Tribunal, Shanti Prasad Jain, the Central Government, the Bombay High Court, the Supreme Court, the Bombay High Court, the Bombay High Court, the Bombay High Court, the Bombay High Court, the Central Government, The Central Government, the Companies Tribunal, the Bombay High Court, the Central Government, the Central Government, the Companies Tribunal, the Bombay High Court, the Companies Tribunal, the Central Government, the Central Government, the Central Government, the Bombay High Court, the Bombay High Court, the Bombay High Court, the High Court, the Central Government, the High Court, the High Court, the High Court, the Central Government, the Bombay High Court, the Bombay High Court, the High Court, the Central Government, the Bombay High Court, Parliament, the Central Government, the High Court, Parliament, the Supreme Court, U.P., the U. P. Road Transport Act, the Supreme Court, the State Government, State Government, the State Government, the Supreme Court, U.P., the Supreme Court, U.P., the Central Government, the Board of Company Law Administration, Board, Board, the Central Government, the Central Government, Board, the Central Government, Board, Board, the Central Government, the Central Government, Board, The Central Government, the Central Government, the Central Government, the Company Law Board, the Central Government, the Central Government, the Company Law Board, the Central Government, the Company Law Board, the Central Government, the Central Government, Board, the Central Government, the Central Government, Barium Chemicals Ltd., Company Law Board, Reliance, the Judicial Committee, Judicial Committee, the Defence of India Act, Reliance, Blackpool Corporation v. Locker, the Central Government, the Company Law Board, The Central Government, Board, the Central Government, the Central Government, the Central Government, Board, the Supreme Court, Bombay Municipal Corporation, Dhondu Narayan Chowdhary, the Supreme Court, The Central Government, whatthe Supreme Court, Reliance, the Supreme Court, State of Punjab, the Supreme Court, the State Government, the State Government, the State Government, the Supreme Court, the State Government, Reliance, Bench, State, Ruttonjee & Co., the State Government, the Central Government, Board, Imperial Hydropathic Hotel Company, Reliance, Reliance, Bank of Hindustan, the Central Government, Reliance, the Supreme Court, the State Government, the Defence of India Rules, District Magistrates, the State Government, the Judicial Committee, the Supreme Court, the State Government, the Defence of India Act, Q.B., Lewisham v. Roberts, the Minister of Health, Blackpool Corporation v. Locker, Board, State, the Central Government, Reliance, Gordon Dadds & Co., Clarke, Q.B., the Defence (General) Regulations, Board, the Central Government, the Central Government, the Central Government, the Central Government, Board, The Central Government, the Companies Tribunal, the High Court, the Companies Tribunal, Tribunal, the High Court, Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd., the High Court, Tribunal, the High Court, the Bombay High Court, the Companies Tribunal under Section 388B and Section 388C of the Act, Calcutta, the High Court, Tribunal, the Bombay High Court, the High Court, Tribunal, the High Court, Tribunal, the High Court, the High Court, the Bombay High Court, the Companies Tribunal (Abolition) Act, the High Court, Tribunal, the High Court, the Bombay High Court, the Companies Tribunal, Sections 388B, Union of India, Tribunal, Tribunal, the Union of India, Tribunal, Tribunal, Tribunal, Tribunal, the Bombay High Court, the Bombay High Court, the Bombay High Court, the Bombay High Court, another High Court, the Bombay High Court, the Bombay High Court, another High Court, the Companies Tribunal, the High Court, P.B. Mukharji

DATE: September 13, 1964, September 17, 1964, September 17, 1964, 1956, September 13, 1964, September 8, 1964, October 12, 1964, October 29, 1964, July 12, 1965, July 13, 1965, August 13, 1965, August 25, 1965, August 11, 1965, 1964, 1964, three weeks, April 20, 1966, 1956, 1964, 1956, ' 11, April 13, 1963, September 13, 1964, that day, September 17, 1964, September 17, 1964, the day, September 13, 1964, April 13, 1963, September 13, 1964, April 11, 1963, September 3, 1965, 7, 14, 20, 21, September 17, 1963, October 7, 1963, 1952, 1952, 1968, April 11, 1963, January 1, 1955, January 1, 1965, November 3, 1963, 87 and 89, September, 1968, 21,94,620.69, 32, between 1957 and 1961, 35, 1948, August 9, 1955, the year, the year ended December 31, 1954, October 5, 1955, October 28, 1955, December 31, 1954, 36, 37, 1951, 42, 1955, 1957, 44, 1434, 46, 1878, December 4, 1965, 80-81, December 4, 1964, 49, August 28, 1969, about 52 working days, 52, seven years, September 2, 1969, 54, earlier., 55, April 11, 1963, September 17, 1964, the day, September 2, 1969, August 28, 1969, August 28, 1969, 5 years, 5 years, August 28, 1969, 5 years, 1951, 1951, 1951, 1956, 1963, February 1, 1964, 1945, 1939, 1883, 1886, 1962, 1945, 1949, 1956, 70, 71, 1967, 1964, 1964, 1964, two weeks

CARDINAL: 2, 2, 388E, two, 3., Two, 4, three, One, one, 5., 6, 8, 1, 1970)ILLJ522Ker, 9, 1, 1, 1, 10, 17, 3, 3, 1, 2, 12, 1, 5, 1, 37, 31, 5, 13, 14, 1, two, 15, 1967]1SCR898, 309, 16, 1969]3SCR108, 17, two, one, one, 1, 18, 19, one, 6 to 8, 20, 5, 32, 82, 87, 21, 22, two, one, two, 1963)ILLJ303SC, 1880, 214, 222, 24, one, 1880, 214, 25, two, 26, 388E, 28, two, 29, 30, three, two, 12, 31, 4,80,995.34, two, 84,000, 33, 2,58,640, 1,06,108.06, 34, 2,20,802, 6,000, 14,876, 1,000, 57,600, 26,63,710, 30, 38, 39, one, 40, 235, 237(b, 45, 41, 1962]2SCR169, 1961]3SCR77, 43, 1961]1SCR809, 45, 1967]65ITR34(SC, 1959]1SCR279, 1959]35ITR190(SC, 1971CriLJ1157, 8 and 81, 47, one, 48, 8(a, 11, 50, 51, 1, 2, 3, as many as 52, 56, one, 57, 3, one, 60, two, 1955]1SCR707, 6, 1955]1SCR707, two, 62, 2, 2, 2A, 6, 6, 63, 1967]1SCR898, 156, two, 5, 1, 1948, 1, 6, 64, 6, 1965]2SCR929, one, one, 23, 1, 31, 1873, 9, two, 66, 156, 1890, 25, 67, 2, 1948, 1, 1945, 2, 1890, 68., 69, one, 17, 1, 1, 1, 72, 73, twenty, 75

ORDINAL: first, second, first, second, first, first, first, first, first, second, third, first, first, first, Secondly, first, second, third, Thirdly, firstly, first, first, third, Secondly, first, first, second, 4th, First, second, firstly, firstly, first

PRODUCT: Act, 388E, LordBishop, 388E, Calcutta, Calcutta, Calcutta, Calcutta, Calcutta

LOC: Madras, Central Governmentin

NORP: inter-State, Maharashtra, Maharashtra, Rules

EVENT: Regulation 51(1, Regulation 51(5

WORK_OF_ART: Regulation