Advanced Search Results

Madras Bar Association Vs. Union of India and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Direct Taxation

1B and 1C of the Companies Act, 1956. These parts were inserted into the Companies Act, by the Companies (Second Amendment) Act, 2002. Thereby, provision was made for the constitution of the National Company Law Tribunal and the National Company Law … issue adjudicated upon, pertained to the constitutional validity of the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976, and more particularly, Sections 4 and 55 thereof, whereby Articles 31C and 368 of the Constitution, came to be amended. The majority … to establish rapport with Judges (SCR p. 456 CD : SCC p. 230, para 43). Taking this direction in its letter and spirit, the Law

Salem Textiles Limited Vs. Authorized Officer of Phoenix Arc Private L ...

Court : Chennai

Subject : Land Acquisition

take note of 3 developments that have taken place, one in the year 2002 in the form of Companies (Second Amendment) Act, 2002, the second in the same year 2002 in the form of Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Repeal Act, … High Court went to the extent of holding that in the light of Section 35 of the Securitisation Act, 2002, Section 22 of SICA does not survive anymore. (vi) In Nabha Industries Ltd vs. Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation … Supreme Court in Mardia Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India (AIR 200.SC 2371). While upholding the provisions of the Act, except Section 17(2), the Supreme

Madras Bar Association Vs. Union Of India

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Land Acquisition

powers relating to winding up vested in the High Courts. The Government accepted the recommendations and passed the Companies (Second Amendment) Act, 2002. The reason for the said amendment was to avoid multiplicity of litigation before various fora and to reduce … King said that “he thought the law was founded on reason, and 23 | Pa ge that he and others had reason, as well as … JUDGMENT L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.1. The Madras Bar Association has filed this Writ Petition seeking a declaration that Sections 12 and 13 of the Tribunal Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service) Ordinance, 2021 and Sections 184 and

M/S United Breweries (Holdings) Limited vs Offilical Liquidator

Court : Karnataka

filed, the provision relevant for that purpose was Section 391(7) of the Act. Although in terms of the Companies (Second Amendment Act) 2002 (‘2002 Amendment’), Section 391(7) stood omitted, the said amendment was to take effect only from date notified by … liquidation process of the Company in liquidation. He submits that the application may be allowed.5. This Court on 23.01.2025, has passed an order,wherein it is observed that respondent No.1 was represented by the Official Liquidator, respondent Nos.2

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 … of 1983 - S.P. Nagrath & Co. v. Bareja Knipping Fasteners Ltd., the High Court vide order dated 23.10.1983 ordered winding up of the Company and an Official Liquidator was appointed who took over possession of the

Arunachalam Muthu Vs. Nafan Bv and Others

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Land Acquisition

person aggrieved by any decision or order of the Company Law Board made before the commencement of the Companies (Second Amendment) Act, 2002 may file an appeal to the High Court within sixty days from the date of communication of the … 1. The Appellant has filed the above Appeal under Section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956 (“the Act”) impugning the order dated 31st May 2012 passed by the … heard by the learned Member Shri Kanthi Narahari for a period of 23 days (full and half days) approximately spanning over two years. During this

Vs. India Steam Laundry(P) Ltd.Defendant/Re

Court : Kolkata

Subject : Land Acquisition

Secs. 10FA and 647A of the Companies Act, 1956 which were inserted by way of amendment by the Companies (Second Amendment) Act, 2002. Mr. Mookherjee also referred to Taxmann’s guide to Companies Bill, 2011 in which in the section captioned as … :14. 02.2017 Judgment On :22. 03.2017 Arijit Banerjee, J.:(1) Company Petition No.611 of 1998 filed under Sections 155, 237, 397, 398, 399, 402, 403 and 406 of the Companies Act, 1956 along with connected applications have been

Bar Council of India Vs. Union of India

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Service

Acts : Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 - Sections 22-A, 22-B, 22-C, 22-D, 22-E, 22-E(1), 22-C(8); Legal Services Authorities (Amendment) Act, 2002, 227Constitution of India - Articles 226

the matters wherein the constitutional validity of Parts I-B and I-C of the Companies Act, 1956 inserted by Companies (Second Amendment) Act, 2002 providing for the Constitution of National Company Law Tribunal and National Company Law Appellate Tribunal was under challenge. … Chapter VI-A entitled “Pre-litigation Conciliation and Settlement” comprising of Sections 22-A to 22-E came to be inserted. In Section 23 of the 1987 Act, the words “members of the Lok Adalats” were substituted by the words “members of

Anju Timblo, Managing Director of Fomento Resorts and Hotels Ltd. and ...

Court : Mumbai Goa

Subject : Company

person aggrieved by any decision or order of the Company Law Board [made before the commencement of the Companies (Second Amendment) Act, 2002] may file an appeal to the High Court within sixty days from the date of communication of the … respondents. 4. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. 5. These appeals under Section 10F of Companies Act, 1956 (the Act, for short) arise out of the order dated 18/05/2015, passed by … funds of the Company. He, therefore, submitted that the appeal be dismissed. 23. Shri Kodian Thara, the learned Senior Counsel for the first respondent has

Masusmi Sa Investment Llc Vs. Keystone Realtors Pvt. Ltd. and Others

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Arbitration

person aggrieved by any decision or order of the Company Law Board [made before the commencement of the Companies (Second Amendment) Act, 2002] may file an appeal to the High Court within sixty days from the date of communication of the … by a common order. FACTS IN COMPANY APPEAL (L) NO. 47 OF 2012: 2. By this appeal under section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956, the appellant challenges the order dated 12th October, 2012 passed by the … appeal able under Section 50 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.” 23. Alternatively, it is submitted that the order passed by the Division Bench