Advanced Search Results

Lob Property Management Private Ltd vs State of Karnataka

Court : Karnataka

AND AT 7TH FLOOR, NITESH TIME SQUARE #8, M.G ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001 A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER COMPANIES ACT 2013 AND REPRESENTED BY HEREIN BY ITS SPECIAL OFFICER AND AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY SRI K B. SWAMY …PETITIONER (BY SRI. … the complainant claiming amount towards services that was rendered. By no stretch of imagination either the offence under Section 415 or under 425 of IPC could be made out against the petitioner. However, the Trial Court proceeded to

Sri Ganapathy Manickam vs State of Karnataka

Court : Karnataka

being its Directors but have also breached many statutory duties they owe towards the Complainant Company under the Companies Act, 2013 thereby jeopardizing the interests of the Complainant Company No.1 to a great extent when they were in fact … to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.”Section 420 of the IPC has its ingredients in Section 415 of the IPC to be met. Section 415 of the IPC reads as follows:“415. Cheating.-Whoever, by deceiving any

M.A.Ra Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Its Pu

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Subject : Education

a State. Reading Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act with Sections 159, 163 and 610(3) of the Companies Act, 1956, it was observed that the certified copy of the annual return was a public document. The ratio … HONBLE Dr. JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR Criminal Petition Nos.9611 of 2013 and batch 12-9-2014 M.A.Rawoof Petitioner/Accused State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its … offence punishable under Section 420 IPC, necessary ingredients to constitute the offence of cheating which is defined under Section 415 IPC are thus: (1) There should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person by deceiving him. (2)(a)

Madras Bar Association Vs. Union of India and Anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Company

writ petition, it so happened that the Parliament has passed new company law in the form of Indian Companies Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act, 2013') which replaces the earlier Act, 1956. In this Act, again substantive … specify in this behalf.” In the prayer clause, constitutional validity of Sections 415, 418, 424, 426, 431 and 434 have also been questioned. At the … defects in various provisions of Part 1B and Part 1C of the Act, 1956 and, in particular, in Sections 10FD(3)(f)(g)(h), 10FE, 10FF, 10FL(2), 10FR(3), 10FT. Declaring that those provisions as existed offended the basic Constitutional scheme of

A. Navinchandra Steels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Srei Equipment Finance Limited

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Land Acquisition

the effect of Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 (which is equivalent to Section 279 of the Companies Act, 2013) is that no suit or other legal proceeding can be initiated once there is admission of a winding … so, he comes into the winding up”. It is also summarised in Palmer’s Company Precedents Vol. II, page 415: “Sometimes the mortgagee sells, with or without the concurrence of the liquidator, in exercise of a power of

K.a.Saju vs State of Kerala

Court : Kerala

COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE STATEMENT FILED BY THE IST PETITIONER UNDER SECITON 393 OF THE COMPANIES ACT 1956 IN MCA NO 22/2013 CONNECTED WITH CP NOS 16,22,27 & 46 OF 2011 AND CP NOS 4,5,6,7,8,9 … and 2 to wriggle out of the liability which would showand satisfy the ingredients constituting the offence under Section 415 IPC. Hence, there cannot be any exercise of inherent power by this Court. Crl.M.C. is dismissed.Sd/- P.SOMARAJAN JUDGE

Thomas Daniel vs Enforcement Directorate

Court : Kerala

genuine, and the draft scheme for take- over and revival of the companies of the petitioner was produced as Exhibit R3(a).10. Contradicting the contentions addressed … or under the BUDS Act or even under the Kerala Protection of Interests of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act, 2013, are not scheduled offences, and hence the complaint registered under the PML Act is malafide. B.A. No.5921/22 -:10:-(xi) … amount tocheating under law. To constitute cheating, the deception must be done with a dishonest or fraudulent intent. Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with cheating. The offence of cheating is made up of two

Ramiah Sambandam vs the State of Karnataka by Cyber Crime Ps

Court : Karnataka

being its Directors but have also breached many statutory duties they owe towards the Complainant Company under the Companies Act, 2013 thereby jeopardizing the interests of the Complainant Company No.1 to a great extent when they were in fact … to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.”Section 420 of the IPC has its ingredients in Section 415 of the IPC to be met. Section 415 of the IPC reads as follows:“415. Cheating.-Whoever, by deceiving any

Ratnagiri Gas and Power Private Limited vs.konkan Lng Private Limited

Court : Delhi

Subject : Land Acquisition

under Sections 235 to 251 of the Companies Act, 1956 or under Sections 206 to 229 of the Companies Act, 2013 are pending against the applicant companies.11. The meetings of the Board of Directors of the Demerged Company held … CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL ORDER0710.2016 1. The present is a first motion application filed jointly, under Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) read with Rule 9

Naveen Jindal Vs. M/S Zee Media Corporation Ltd and Anr

Court : Delhi

Subject : Education

directing that anything displayed by the defendants on their channels regarding coal contracts to Navin Jindal Group of Companies shall include the response/explanation given by Navin Jindal Group of Companies. c. The plaintiff and his company filed … Rape allegation was also made on the journalist Tarun Tejpal in November 2013, legal action was taken. In June 2009 Shiney Ahuja was also charged … for offences under Section 66A of the IT Act read with Sections 415, 417, etc. IPC along with an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for … be falsely implicated. Money was sought with a promise to „go slow‟ on the vilification campaign. The said act of defendant No.1 is said to have led to the following legal actions:a. FIR No.240/2012 under Section 384,