Advanced Search Results

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 … Ors.a closely held company having 1.09% of its shareholding with individuals, decided to reduce its share capital under Section 66 of the Companies Act 20131 by cancelling 28,457,840 equity sharesheld by the identified minority shareholders by paying an

Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Limited and Others. Vs. Securitie ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Companies

Acts : Companies Act, 1956 - Section 55A(b), 55A(c), 56, 57, 58, 60B, 60B(1), (2), 2(19A), 60B(9), 235 to 241, 73, 73(1)(2A), 209-A , 68A(1)(a), 2(45AA), 81(1A), 234(1), 234(4)(a), 67(3), 62, 63, 108A, 109, 110, 117A, 117B, 117C, 56, 62, 63, 642, 642(4), 2(19A); Securities and Exchange Board of India (Disclosure and Investor Protection) Guidelines, 2000 ; Securities and Exchange Board of India (Issue of Capital and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2009 - Regulations 3, 6, 2(zc), 2(p), 2(n), 4(2), 5(1), 6, 7, 16(1), 20(1), 25, 26, 36, 37, 46, 57; Securities and Exchange Board of India(SEBI) Act 1992 - Section 11C, 11A, 15Z, 55A, 68A, 77A, 80A, 108, 109, 110 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 206, 206A, 207, 59 to 81,; Companies (Central Government's) General Rules and Forms, 1956 - Rule 4CC, Form No. 2A,; Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act(SCR), 1956 - Section 2(h), 21, 73(1)(3), 28, 28(1)(b), 20; Companies (Amendment) Act, 2000 - Section 55A, 67(3); Companies (Second Amendment) Act, 2002 - Section 2(19B), 60B(9), 60B(1)(2)(3), ; Constitution of India - Articles 129, ; Companies Act, 2006 - Sections 755, 760,; Food Safety Modernization(FSMA), Act 2000 - Section 85; Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 - Section 45I(f) ; Companies Amendment Act 53 of 2000 - Section 81(1A); Insurance Act, 1938 - Section 2; Securities Laws (Amendment) Act, 1995 - Sections 13, 16, 28(1)(b), 28(2); Indian Evidence Act - Section 114 ; Companies (Central Government's) General Rules and Forms, 1956 - Rule 4CC, 4D; Unlisted Public Companies (Preferential Allotment) Rules, 2003 - Rule 2,; UPC (PA) Amendment Rules 2011 ; SCR Rules - Rule 19; Unlisted Public Companies (Preferential Allotment) Amendment Rules 2011

Reported in : (2013)1SCC1

a recognized stock exchange. Section 60B, as already indicated, refers to IM. Section 2(19B) was inserted by the Companies (Second Amendment) Act, 2002, w.e.f. 1.4.2003, which reads as follows:“2(19B) "information memorandum" means a process undertaken prior to the filing of a

Rojer Mathew Vs. South Indian Bank Ltd and Ors Chief Manager

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Land Acquisition

of Chapters 1-B and 1-C of the Companies Act, 6 (2010) 11 SCC112 PART A1956as inserted by the Companies (Second Amendment) Act 2002 which provided for the constitution of a National Company Law Tribunal7 and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal8 … F F Merits of the challenge F.1 Passage as a Money Bill 66 On 19 February 2014, the Appellate Tribunals and Other Authorities (Conditions of … demonstrate an apparent disparity in 96 age of superannuation of Members and Chairpersons/Presiding Officers of different Tribunals. Illustratively, Section 14D of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 provides a Member of Telecom Disputes Settlement and

Duroflex Ltd. Vs. Johnny Mathew

Court : Kerala

Subject : Company

Acts : Companies Act - Sections 10, 10E(1), (1A), (4B) to (4D), 10F, 18, 111, 111(1), 111(2), 111(3), 111(4), 111(5), 111(7), 111(10), 113(4), 155 and 155(1); Limitation Act, 1963 - Sections 3, 4 to 24, 29(2) and 137 - Article 137; Maharashtra Rent Control Act - Sections 18; Telangana Area Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act; Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971 - Sections 8A; Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965; Companies (Amendment) Act, 1988; Companies (Second Amendment) Act, 2002; Securities Act, 1992; Special Court Act - Sections 9A; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 195 and 196; Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 193 and 228; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Order 21

Reported in : (2008)2CompLJ314(Ker); [2007]75SCL569(Ker)

exercise and discharge such powers and functions as may be conferred on it before the commencement of the Companies (Second Amendment) Act, 2002 by or under this Act or any other law, and shall also exercise and discharge such other powers … An application (appeal) was filed by the first respondent before the Company Law Board, South Region Bench under Section 111(2) of the Companies Act (for short 'the Act') as the company refused to register the transaction of … the Court.8. In Brajnandan Shi ha v. Jyoti Narain AIR 1956 SC 66 it was observed by the Supreme Court as follows:It is clear, therefore,

Purnima Manthena and Anr. Vs. Dr. Renuka Datla and Ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

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 … Pradesh, in Company Appeal No.17 of 2014 preferred by the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 herein, under Section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short hereinafter to be referred to as “the Act”) assailing the … out of an order of the Appellate Tribunal, as envisaged in Section 66(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1922 had ruled that when a question

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 … will be reduced and BIFR and AAIFR could be abolished.‖ (emphasis supplied) 66 The IBC was a reform which was distilled through many committee reports, … 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

Colgate-palmolive (India) Limited Vs. Anchor Health and Beauty Care Pr ...

Court : Chennai

Subject : Media and CommunicationCivil

Acts : Consumer Protection Act, 1987; Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 - Sections 36A, 36(1) and 55; Lanham Act; Federal Trade Commission Act - Sections 5(1), 12, 15 and 15(1); Broadcasting Act, 1981; Cable Broadcasting Act, 1984; European Communities Act; Young Persons (Harmful Publications) Act, 1956; Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use)Act, 1950; Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954; Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986; Prenatal Diagnostic Techniques (Regulation and Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1994; Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994; Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940; Prize Competition Act, 1955; Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978; Cigarettes and other Tobacco Product

Reported in : (2008)7MLJ1119; 2009(40)PTC653(Mad)

trade practice.55. However, The MRTP Act, 1969 is sought to be repealed by Section 66 of The Competition Act, 2002 ( Section 66 does not appear to have been notified so far). But fortunately, the power to enquire … webportal 'youtube', in which the respondent showed the tooth paste of other companies, with the artist rejecting all other tooth pastes towards the end of … paste containing all the 3 ingredients viz., Calcium, Fluoride and Triclosan.(ii) The second objection of the plaintiff is to the statement in the advertisement that … 292(2)(b) of Indian Penal Code declaring advertisements relating to obscene material as punishable(ii)Section 292-A(e), I.P.C., (inserted by Tamilnadu Amendment Act 25 of 1960 in its application to the State) making it a punishable offence to release advertisements containing

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

The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/S. Triumph International Finance ...

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Direct Taxation

the said failure.” 16. Chapter XXB containing Sections 269SS to Section 269TT were introduced by the Income Tax (Second Amendment) Act 1981 with effect from 11th July 1981 with a view to counter the evasion of tax. The object … completely different fields. The object of Section 80O is to encourage Indian Companies to develop technical know-how and make it available to foreign companies and … penalty for failure to comply with Section 269T of the Act. Section 269T has been substituted by Finance Act 2002 with effect from 1st June 2002 wherein the provision relating to repayment of deposit exceeding the prescribed limit … Income Tax V/s. Motta Constructions P. Limited reported in (2011) 338 ITR 66 (Bom.). 13. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. 14. The basic

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 … 456 U. S. 353 , 381-382, and n. 66. It is appropriate for the Court to assume … 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)