Advanced Search Results

Sumitomo Corporation Vs. Cdc Financial Services (Mauritius) Ltd. and o ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Civil

Acts : Companies Act, 1956 - Sections 2(11), 10(1), 10F, 397, 398, 399 and 402; Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Sections 2, 8, 37, 44, 45, 47, 47(2), 48 and 50; Companies (Second Amendment) Act, 2002; Companies (Amendment) Act, 1988; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 16 to 20

Reported in : AIR2008SC1594; 2008(1)ARBLR452(SC); (2008)1CompLJ393(SC); JT2008(3)SC32; 2008(4)MhLj31; 2008(3)SCALE92; (2008)4SCC91; [2008]82SCL495(SC); 2008AIRSCW1766; MANU/SC/1101/2008

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 … to hear the appeals from such order. In this regard, it is useful to reproduce the Explanation to Section 47 of the Arbitration Act which reads thus:47. Evidence.- xxxxxxxxxExplanation.- In this section and all the following sections of

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 … to hear the appeals from such order. In this regard, it is useful to reproduce the Explanation to Section 47 of the Arbitration Act which reads thus: "47. Evidence.- xxx xxxx Explanation.- In this section and all the

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 … pending consi- deration of sickness ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~”57. 10 yet to be heard - 47 pending determi- nation of sickness ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 49. The above Table shows that

Gopal Krishan vs.super Cassettes Industries Ltd. & Ors.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Company

since in fact the repeal of the said provision had not been notified till April 2015. (b) The Companies (Second Amendment) Act 2002, the Press Note No.2/2003 dated 4th April 2003, the notification dated 10th July, 2012 of the Ministry of … the Applicant. According to the contesting... RESPONDENTS at the time that the application was filed on 22nd July 2002 Section 391 (7) of the Act had not been repealed and an appeal could have been filed thereunder. This … the Appellant as an application seeking review. (iv) In terms of Order 47 Rule 7 read with Order 43 Rule 1 (w) of the Code

Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited Vs. Amit Gupta

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Land Acquisition

Courts.4. It is stated that the recommendations of the Eradi Committee were accepted by the Government and Company (Second Amendment) Act, 2002 was passed providing for establishment of NCLT and NCLAT to take-over the functions which are being performed by … provides that the State Commission shall discharge the function of adjudicating ―the disputes between the licensees, and generating companies and to refer any dispute for arbitration‖. Therefore, any issue in relation to the PPA must be raised … IBC. I.1 Section 60(5)(c) : “arising out of” and “in relation to” 47 It has been submitted before us on behalf of the appellant that … JUDGMENT Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J This judgment has been divided into sections to facilitate analysis. They are: A The appeal B The genesis of

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 … that alleging disobedience, the petitioner filed C.A.No.113 of 2011 before the Company Law Board under Regulations 44 and 47 of the Company Law Board Regulations read with Section 406 of the Companies Act. By order dated 7.7.2011,

C. Valli Narayan Vs. C. Vinod Hayagriv and Others

Court : Karnataka

Subject : Company

provides for enforcement of orders of Company Law Board deals only with final orders. More over by the Companies (Second Amendment) Act 2002, said proviso has been made inapplicable. On the contrary Regulation 47 of the COMPANY LAW BOARD REGULATIONS, 1991 … is no specific provision for proceeding against a person who had disobeyed the orders of the Board. However, Section 634A which provides for enforcement of orders of Company Law Board deals only with final orders. More over

C. Valli Narayan Vs. C. Vinod Hayagriv

Court : Karnataka

Subject : Company

provides for enforcement of orders of Company Law Board deals only with final orders. More over by the Companies (Second Amendment) Act 2002, said proviso has been made inapplicable. On the contrary Regulation 47 of the COMPANY LAW BOARD REGULATIONS, 1991 … (BY SRI.JANEKERE C KRISHNA FOR A-1 TO A-6, SMT.GAYATHRI BALU, ADVOCATE FOR A-7) THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS10 11 & 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, BY THE COMPLAINANT, WHEREIN HE PRAYS THAT THE

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 … Limited & Ors. Companies Act, 2013 - s.66 - Reduction of share capital - Requirements - Explained. [Para 47]Case Law Cited Union of India v. Madras Bar Association [2010] 6 SCR 857 : (2010) 11 SCC 1;

Vivek Hire Purchase and Leasing Limited Rep. by Its Vice President, Mr ...

Court : Chennai

Subject : Company

Acts : Companies Act, 1956 - Sections 433 and 434

Reported in : [2006]129CompCas343(Mad); 2005(1)CTC524; (2005)2MLJ8; [2005]62SCL245(Mad)

to whom the company is indebted in a sum exceeding rupees one lakh (substituted for Rs. 500 by Companies (Second Amendment) Act, 2002) then due, has served on the company, by, causing it to be delivered at its registered office, by … entitled to seize the assets and the same is pending. On 22.6.2002, the petitioner issued a notice under Section 434 of the Companies Act, calling upon the petitioner to pay the sum of Rs. 9,46,503 due as … Bank of India v. Sukhani Mining and Engineering Industries (P) Ltd., (1977) 47 Camp.Cas 1, had observed that there was no provision in the Act