Advanced Search Results

Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Land Acquisition

debtor, such as undischarged insolvents and persons who have been removed as directors under Section 164 of the Companies Act, 2013 (for not filing financial statements or annual returns for any continuous period of 3 financial years, for example). … non-rational, not done or acting according to reason or judgment, depending on the will alone.‘‖ (emphasis in original) 101. It will be noticed that a Constitution Bench of this Court in Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) (P) Ltd.

Rakesh Bhanot versus M/S. Gurdas Agro Pvt. Ltd

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Land Acquisition

Reported in : [2025]4S.C.R.573

includes a company as defined under Section 2(20) of 592 [2025] 4 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports the Companies Act, 2013, and a Limited Liability Partnership. However, there is a subtle difference in the protection available to the Directors … M/s. Gurdas Agro Pvt. Ltd. (vii) Once the application under Section 94 or 95 IBC has been admitted, Section 101 IBC states that “the debtor shall not transfer, alienate, encumber, or dispose of any of his assets of

M/S Sunair Hotels Ltd. Vs.state & Anr.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Education

petitions. These developments are (i) The dismissal of the appeal preferred by VLS under Section 10F of the Companies Act against the order of the Company Law Board (CLB) on 23.04.2012, and; (ii) the dismissal of the Special … dated 30.07.2015 Criminal Appeals were preferred before the Supreme Court by VLS, vide Criminal Appeal Nos. 99/2016, 100/2016, 101/2016, 102-104/2016, which were disposed of vide judgment dated 05.02.2016. The Supreme Court referred to the earlier order of

Vipul Gupta vs.state & Anr.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Education

petitions. These developments are (i) The dismissal of the appeal preferred by VLS under Section 10F of the Companies Act against the order of the Company Law Board (CLB) on 23.04.2012, and; (ii) the dismissal of the Special … dated 30.07.2015 Criminal Appeals were preferred before the Supreme Court by VLS, vide Criminal Appeal Nos. 99/2016, 100/2016, 101/2016, 102-104/2016, which were disposed of vide judgment dated 05.02.2016. The Supreme Court referred to the earlier order of

S P Gupta vs.state & Anr.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Education

petitions. These developments are (i) The dismissal of the appeal preferred by VLS under Section 10F of the Companies Act against the order of the Company Law Board (CLB) on 23.04.2012, and; (ii) the dismissal of the Special … dated 30.07.2015 Criminal Appeals were preferred before the Supreme Court by VLS, vide Criminal Appeal Nos. 99/2016, 100/2016, 101/2016, 102-104/2016, which were disposed of vide judgment dated 05.02.2016. The Supreme Court referred to the earlier order of

M.Vijayagopal, vs Brd Securities Ltd.,

Court : Kerala

P17 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED OUT THE VIOLATIONS OF SECTION 101 AND 136 OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013. EXHIBIT P18 COPY OF THE NOTARIZED AFFIDAVIT DATEDFORMER DIRECTOR OF BRD FINANCE LTD., SUBSTANTIATING THE IRREGULARITIES OR VIOLATION

Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors. Etc.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Land Acquisition

Reported in : (2020) 8 SCC129; [2020] 3 SCR 1

of 2013.360. It was submitted that Section 101 provides for return of unutilized land under the Act of 2013. Section 101 provides that in case land is not utilized for five years from the date of taking over the

Devas Multimedia Private Limited Vs. Antrix Corporation Limited

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Land Acquisition

was issued by the 86 Central Government in exercise of the power conferred by Section 143(11) of the Companies Act, 2013. Section 143(12) obliges the Auditor to report to the Central Government, if he has reason to believe that an … also provided a clue about the mandatory nature of the requirement to advertise. In the aforesaid decision, Rule 101 which provides for the substitution of a creditor or contributory in the place of the original petitioner, upon

Sri P Manjunatha Reddy vs Bangalore Mysore Infrastucture Corridor Area

Court : Karnataka

1ST FLOOR, MAHARSHI ARAVIND BHAVAN, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.4. NANDI INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDORENTERPRISES LTD., A COMPANY REGD UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956, HAVING ITS REGD OFFICE AT NO.1, MIDFORD HOUSE, MIDFORD GARDEN, OFF. MAHATMA GANDI ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. REP. … AND INCONSISTENT WITH THE PROVISIONS OF RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION & TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION & RESETTLEMENT ACT, 2013 (ACT NO.30 OF 2013) BY VIRTUE OF ARTICLE 254 OF THE CONSTITUTION AND ETC.IN W.P.No.2641/2021 BETWEEN SRI. A. … BY ITS SECRETARY2. STATE OF KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 101 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY3. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU-560 … 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DELCARE THAT SECTION 3(1) OF CHAPTER-II AND SECTIONS 28 TO 31 OF CHAPTER-VII OFKARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL

State Bank of India Vs. V. Ramakrishnan

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Land Acquisition

Reconstruction. Now that the said Act has been repealed, and the fact that several later enactments, including the Companies Act, 2013 had omitted a provision akin to Section 22, would show that the enactment of Section 14 of the … the personal guarantor. Shri Singh, in particular, relied heavily upon the difference in language between Section 14 and Section 101. According to the learned senior counsel, Section 14, in all its sub-sections, speaks only of the corporate debtor.