Advanced Search Results

Raghunath Rai Bareja and anr. Vs. Punjab National Bank and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : BankingLimitation

Acts : Limitation Act, 1963 - Schedule - Article 136; Companies Act, 1956 - Sections 446, 446(1) and 446(3); Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 - Sections 17, 18, 19, 24, 31, 31(1) and 34; Companies (Second Amendment) Act, 2002; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Order 34, Rule 11; Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 - Rule 9, 10 and 117; Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227

Reported in : 2007(2)ALT114(SC); 2007(1)AWC507(SC); [2007]135CompCas163(SC); (2007)1CompLJ108(SC); 2007(5)CTC642; 2007(3)MhLj83; 2007MPLJ306(SC); 2006(13)SCALE511; (2007)2SCC230; 2006AIRSCW6446

16. In this connection, it may be mentioned that Section 446(3) of the Companies Act was omitted by Companies (Second Amendment) Act, 2002 and evidently the High Court has overlooked this Amendment. As a result in our opinion the High Court … 1984. 5. Ultimately, a decree was passed in favour of the Bank on 15.1.1987 in Company Application No. 115 of 1986.The aforesaid final decree dated 15.1.1987 stated as under:It is hereby ordered and decreed that the mortgaged/pledged/hypothecated

New Bridge Holdings B.V. Vs. Ttk-lig Limited and ors.

Court : Chennai

Subject : Criminal

Acts : Companies Act - Section 406; Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Section 10; Land Revenue Act - Section 40; Constitution of India - Article 227; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Section 195(1)(b); Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 39 Rule 2(3)

gain. [Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply on and after the commencement of the Companies (Second Amendment) Act, 2002.]” 11. Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 confers a power on the High Court to

Pannalal Bhansali versus Bharti Telecom Limited & Ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : [2026] 3 S.C.R. 493

running foul of the mandate declared in 2010-MBA3. The Constitution Bench in 2010-MBA3 considered the challenge against the Companies (Second Amendment) Act, 2002, constituting the NCLT & NCLAT; pointedly for our purpose, with reference to Section 10-FL insofar as the constitution … which put the identified shareholders in a position enhancing their shareholding exponentially, especially since the rights issue offered 115 shares at par for Rs.10/-, as against every single share held by an investor. Hence, the capital reduction

Indorama Synthetics (I) Limited Vs. State of Maharashtra, Through the ...

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Company

restrain proceedings against the Company, against which winding-up order is passed, it stands repealed in view of the Companies (Second Amendment) Act, 2002. Hence, its applicability to proceedings under Section 138 of N.I. Act needs no consideration. Reference to that effect

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 … is subject to the provisions of Section 47 and Section 622 of the earlier Code which corresponds to Section 115 of the present Code. In other words, the saving clause unambiguously means that an order passed by the

P.Kumar Vs. Secretary to Government

Court : Chennai

Subject : Education

for the petitioner would submit that Chapter IV A of the Companies Act was introduced by means of Companies (Second Amendment) Act, 2002. He would further submit that as per the said amendment, in the place of ".Company Law Board"., ".Tribunal". … Government Arts College, Nandanam. This Court had the benefit of hearing them also. According to them, as per Section 388-E of the Act, which was introduced by means of Companies (Second Amendment) Act, 2002, the ".Tribunal". alone

Vallabhaneni Lakshmana Swamy and anr. Vs. Valluru Basavaiah and ors.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Subject : Civil

Acts : Andhra Pradesh Civil Courts Act, 1972 - Sections 9 and 17; Andhra Pradesh Civil Courts (Amendment) Act, 1989; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Sections 24; Andhra Pradesh General Clauses Act - Sections 8 and 18

Reported in : 2004(5)ALD807; 2004(5)ALT755

Jain v. Jaikumar M, : AIR2004AP136 (FB).3. The issue that arises for consideration is(a) Whether A.P. Civil Court (Amendment) Act, 30 of 1989 is retrospective or prospective in operation?(b) Whether there is any distinction between vested right and … thus:'15. Language of Sections 96 and 100 of the Code which deal with appeals can be compared with Section 115 of the Code. While in the former two provisions specifically provide for right of appeal, the same is … into the force on the date notified by the State Government and secondly on the statement and objects and reasons which would reveal the intention … Court in S. Shiva Raja Reddy v. S. Raghu Raj Reddy, : 2002(5)ALD181 (DB), in which one of us (BRSRJ) is a party has to

Manak Chand and ors. Vs. Rameshwar and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Subject : Civil

Acts : Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) Amendment Act, 1999 - Sections 115 and 115(1)

Reported in : RLW2004(2)Raj791

be suffice.6. Prior to the amendment brought into Section 115 of the C.P.C. by Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act 1976 (Act No. 104 of 76) (hereinafter shall be referred to as 'the Act, 1976'), this Section read … Code as it stood prior to its amendment by the Act, 1976 or the Act, 1999 or the Act, 2002, High Court was not competent to correct errors of fact, however, gross or even errors of law unless … petition stated to have been allowed on 1st of October, 1996. The second revision petition was filed against the order of the learned trial court

Shiv Shakti Coop. Housing Society, Nagpur Vs. Swaraj Developers and or ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Civil

Acts : Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 2, 2(2), 96, 100, 104(2) and 115 - Order 43, Rule 1; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) (Amendment) Act, 1999 - Sections 12, 32(2), 115(2) and 115(3); General Clauses Act, 1897 - Sections 6; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) (Amendment) Act, 1976 - Sections 97(3); Constitution of India - Article 227; Arbitration Act, 1940 - Sections 104 and 105

Reported in : AIR2003SC2434; 2003(4)ALD1(SC); 2003(3)ALLMR(SC)696; 2003(4)ALT27(SC); 2003(3)AWC2198(SC); 2003(2)BLJR1324; 2003(2)CTC564; (2004)1GLR38; [2003(4)JCR22(SC)]; JT2003(4)SC225; (2003) 6 SCC 659

any factual adjudication, a brief reference thereto would suffice.3. By Section 12(i) of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999 (in short 'the Amendment Act') operative from 1.7.2002, amendments were made to Section 115 of the Code. … the statute conferring the right of appeal limits the re-hearing in some way, as has been done in second appeals arising under the Code. The power of hearing revision is generally given to a superior Court so

Food and Allied Workers Union Vs. L Ngcobo N O (M Ndlela) and Another

Court : South Africa Supreme Court of Appeal

Subject : Land Acquisition

dismissed on 15 May 2002. Sections 193 and 194 of the LRA were amended by the Labour Relations Amendment Act 12 of 2002 which commenced on 1 August 2002. The amendment sought to address what Conradie JA described … and argued that it was prejudiced by the delay. It is a subsidiary of an international group of companies and clearly had the resources to record what happened during the retrenchment of its employees. Nayager was unable … to lodge the statements of claim timeously with the Labour Court, and, secondly, in failing to lodge an application for condonation with the Labour Court … with us in terms of the provisions of the Procedural Agreement and Section 189 of the LRA. We look forward to your urgent response. Pursuant … 13. Section 191(1) of the LRA. 14. Section 115(1)(a) and 135(1) of the LRA. 15. Section135(5) of