Advanced Search Results

Kamal Kumar Dutta and anr. Vs. Ruby General Hospital Ltd. and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Company

Acts : Companies Act, 1956 - Sections 10E, 10F, 53, 81(1A) 189, 193, 283(1), 397, 397(1), 398, 398(1), 399, 402 and 483; Companies (Amendment) Act, 1988; Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 - Sections 19(1); Companies (Second Amendment) Act, 2002; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Sections 4, 4(1), 100A, 104(1) and 104(2); ;Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) (Amendment) Act, 1976 - Sections 100A; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) (Amendment) Act, 2002 - Sections 100A; Companies (Amendment) Act, 1991

Reported in : [2006]134CompCas678(SC); (2006)5CompLJ511(SC); JT2006(7)SC333; 2006(7)SCALE668; [2006]70SCL222(SC)

:483. Appeals from orders.- Appeals from any order made or decision given before the commencement of the Companies(Second Amendment) Act, 2002, in the matter of the winding up of a company by the Court shall lie to the same … to as CLB).3. Brief facts which are necessary for disposal of these appeals are that an application under Sections 397 & 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) was filed … the relevant time. At the relevant time neither Section 100A nor Section 104(2) barred a letters patent appeal. The words used in Section 100A are

Mohd. Riyazur Rehman Siddiqui Vs. Deputy Director of Health Services

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Motor Vehicles

Acts : Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 110, 110C, 140, 163A, 165 to 174, 175 and 176; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) (Amendment) Act, 2002; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) (Amendment) Act, 1976; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) (Amendment) Act, 1999; Motor Vehicles Act, 1939; Companies Act, 1956 - Sections 10E, 10F, 397, 398 and 483; Government of India Act, 1915 - Sections 71, 107 and 108; Specific Relief Act - Sections 6 and 6(3); Contempt of Courts Act - Sections 19, 19(1) and 19(2); Limitation Act - Sections 4 to 24; Defence of India Act; General Clauses Act, 1897; Companies (Amendment) Act, 1988; Companies (Second Amendment) Act, 2002; Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 - Sections 127(1), 217, 217(1), 218D and 218D(1); Kerala High Court Act - Sections 5; Indian Succession Act - Sections

Reported in : 2009ACJ585; 2008(6)MhLj941

under:483. Appeals from orders - Appeals from any order made or decision given before the commencement of the Companies (Second Amendment) Act, 2002, in the matter of the winding up of a company by the Court shall lie to the same … the learned Single Judge of the High Court, no further appeal shall lie from such judgment and decree.11. Section 104 in no uncertain terms provides that an appeal shall lie from the orders stated in that Section and

P.S. Sathappan (Dead) by Lrs. Vs. Andhra Bank Ltd. and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Civil

Acts : Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 2(9), 3, 4, 4(1), 35A, 96 to 103, 104, 104(1), 104(2), 105, 105(2), 115, 117, 135, 217(1), 218D, 278 and 282 - Order 7, Rules 10 and 11 - Order 10, Rule 3 - Order 16, Rule 2 - Order 18, Rules 1, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15 and 16 - Order 20, Rules 1 and 8 - Order 21, Rules 72, 90 and 92 - Order 33, Rule 7 - Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 - Order 41, Rule 35 - Order 43, Rule 1 - Order 49, Rules 1, 2 and 3; Constitution of India - Articles 133, 136, 225, 329 and 372; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) (Amendment) Act, 1976; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) (Amendment) Act, 2002; ;Indian High Courts Act, 1861; Legislative Act; Government of India Act, 1935 - Sections 223; India (Adaptation of Existing Laws) Order, 1949; Independence Act, 1947 - Section

Reported in : AIR2004SC5152; 2004(5)CTC209; JT2004(8)SC464; (2005)1MLJ105(SC); RLW2005(1)SC19; 2004(8)SCALE601; (2004)11SCC672

in the Code by reason of Code of Civil Procedure amendment Act, 1976 or Code of Civil Procedure Amendment Act, 2002. In any event the provision of Section 100A of the Code being not retrospective in operation, the right … this Court while construing the provisions of Section 202 of the Indian Companies Act observed as follows : There was no doubt either that most … Patent of the Madras High Court would govern the forum for a second appeal therefrom; the only restriction being that such an order must be … S.B. Sinha, J. 1. Interpretation of Section 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, 'the Code') vis-a-vis Clause 15 of the Letters Patent of

U.P. Cement Vetanbhogi Sahkari RIn Samiti Ltd. Vs. Official Liquidator

Court : Allahabad

Subject : CivilCompany

Reported in : [2010]97SCL196(All)

provides as follows:Appeals from orders.- Appeals from any order made or decision given before the commencement of the Companies (Second Amendment) Act, 2002, in the matter of the winding up of a company by the Court shall lie to the same … in Section 104(1) and incorporated Section 4 in the CPC. Thus now a specific exclusion was provided. After 2002, Section 100A reads as follows:100A. No furtherappealin certain cases.- Notwithstanding anything contained in any Letters Patent for any High

Avtar NaraIn Behal Vs. Subhash Chander Behal

Court : Delhi

Subject : FamilyCivil

Acts : Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Sections 299; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) (Amendment) Act, 2002 - Sections 4; Delhi High Court Act, 1966 - Sections 4, 5(2), 10, 10(1) and 15; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) (Amendment) Act, 1976 - Sections 38; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) (Amendment) Act, 1999 - Sections 10; Arbitration Act, 1940 - Sections 39 and 39(1); Trade Marks Act, 1940 - Sections 76; Government of India Act, 1915; Guardians and Wards Act - Sections 25, 47 and 48; Motor Vehicles Act - Sections 140; Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 54; Companies Act, 1956 - Sections 10-E, 10-F, 397, 398 and 483; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 2(2), 4, 4(1), 35A, 47, 91, 92, 95, 96, 100A, 104, 104(1), 104(2), 115 and 622 - Order 39, Rule 1 - Order 43, Rule 1; Constitution of Ind

Reported in : 154(2008)DLT140

all categories of cases.7. Section 100A was again amended by Section 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002 (22 of 2002) which came into force with effect from 1.7.2002. At present, Section 100A reads as follows:100A. … High Court in a matter under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956. A preliminary objection was taken to the maintainability of the … in certain cases, against the decision of a single Judge in a Second Appeal. Such appeal, in effect, amounts to a third appeal. For the … two more provisions of the C.P.C. which have a bearing on the present case, viz. Section 4 and Section 104, which read as hereunder:4. Savings. - (1) In the absence of any specific provision to the contrary, nothing

Thiru. R. Gandhi President, Madras Bar Association Vs. Union of India ...

Court : Chennai

Subject : Company

Acts : Constitution of India - Articles 14, 19(1), 50, 226 and 323; Companies Act 1956 - 10FB, 10FD(2), 10FD (3), 10FD(3), 10FE, 10FF, 10FK(2), 10FO, 10FR(3), 10FX, 79(1), 79(3), 117B, 118(3), 144(4), 163(6), 167, 188(5), 196(4), 219 (4), 225(3), 284(4), 304 (2)(b), 307 (9) and 621A; Companies (Amendment) Act, 2002

Reported in : [2004]120CompCas510(Mad); (2004)2CompLJ274(Mad); 2004(2)CTC561; [2004]52SCL79(Mad)

country, has, in this petition, questioned the constitutional validity of the amendment effected to the Companies Act by Companies (Second Amendment) Act, 2002 whereby provision is made for setting up of a National Company Law Tribunal (Tribunal) as also a National … other matters, are transferred. 2. The jurisdiction of the High Court transferred to the Tribunal are those under Sections 100 to 104, 107, 203, 243, 318(3)(d), 391, 392, 394, 394A, 395, 424, 425, 426, 427, 433, 434(1)(b),

Lt Foods Ltd. Vs. Sachdeva and Sons Rice Mills Ltd. and ors.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Intellectual Property

are three wheat figures. The first wheat figure is in gold, the second is off-white, and third is in white.” It is submitted that despite … 1999, as per the recommendations of Law Commission, the provision for amendment of pleadings was altogether deleted by Amendment Act No.46 of 1999. The deletion of the provision led to widespread protests by different legal bodies and as … is also the registered proprietor of said trade mark since the year 2002. The appellant cannot be permitted to use trade mark “HERITAGE” for the … suit.9. Aggrieved by the order dated October 29, 2013 the appellant has filed the above captioned appeal under Section 104 CPC read with Order XLIII Rule 1 of CPC.10. During the hearing of the present appeal, the appellant

Shree Mahabaleswara Auto Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India, Repre ...

Court : Chennai

Subject : Company

Reported in : 2012(7)MLJ805

standard and hence the same need to be quashed. 20. It is to be pointed out that the Companies (Second Amendment) Act, 2002, which was to take effect from 1.4.2003 with reference to the National Company Law Tribunal had not been … the sixth respondent has also filed Company petition No.57 of 2007 before the Company Law Board, Chennai, invoking Sections 111, 235, 397, 398 and 402 of the Companies Act, arraying the petitioner company as Respondent No.1 and

Stoneridge Investment Partners, Llc Vs. Scientific-atlanta, Inc

Court : US Supreme Court

Subject : Land Acquisition

for uncertainty and disruption in a lawsuit could allow plaintiffs with weak claims to extort settlements from innocent companies. See, e.g., Blue Chip, supra, at 740-741. It would also expose to such risks a new class of … the cause of action at issue here, we give weight to Congress’ amendment to the Act restoring aiding and abetting liability in certain cases but … incorporate common-law fraud into federal law. See, e.g., SEC v. Zandford , 535 U. S. 813 , 820 (2002) (“[Section 10(b)] must not be construed so broadly as to convert every common-law fraud that happens to involve securities … does not extend to aiders and abettors. Because the conduct of a secondary actor must therefore satisfy each of the elements or preconditions for §10(b) … AOL Time Warner Inc. , 452 F. 3d 1040 (CA9 2006), with Regents of Univ. of Cal.

Bhenoy G. Dembla Vs. Prem Kutir (P) Ltd.

Court : Mumbai

Subject : CivilCompany

Acts : Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 100A; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) (Amendment) Act, 1999; Companies Act, 1956 - Sections 10F and 111

Reported in : 2003(4)ALLMR575; 2004(2)BomCR280; [2003]117CompCas643(Bom); 2003(4)MhLj883; [2003]47SCL372(Bom)

allowed an appeal filed by the Respondent under Section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956 against an order of the Company Law Board. The maintainability … in certain cases against the decision of a Single Judge in a second appeal. Such an appeal in effect amounted to a third appeal. Consequently, … necessary intendment and not otherwise.6. Section 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure was initially inserted by an Amendment Act of 1976. The Statement of Objects and Reasons indicated that Letters Patents Appeals lie in certain cases against … The amended provisions of Section 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure came into force on 1st July, 2002. Section 100A as amended provides as follows :'No further appeal in certain cases.--Notwithstanding anything contained in any Letters Patent … Section 4(1) as well as Sections 96, 100, 104 and 105 of the Cr.PC. preserve a substantive