Delhi Court May 2005 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2005 Page 30 of about 292 results (0.017 seconds)Ferro Alloys Corporation Vs. National Steel and General Mills (P) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 120(2005)DLT58; 2005(82)DRJ447; [2005]62SCL406(Delhi)
A.K. Sikri, J.1. This is a petition preferred under Sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act (in short the 'Act') seeking sanction of the proposed Scheme of Arrangement/Restructuring (hereinafter referred to as the 'Scheme'). The applicant is a shareholder/contributory of M/s. National Steel and General Mills Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'Company'). This company is in liquidation. A winding-up petition being CP No. 98/1984 was filed against the company and in the said petition this Court vide order dated 18th August, 1988 passed final winding-up order and appointed the Official Liquidator attached to this Court as the Liquidator. Liquidation proceedings are in progress. It may also be noted that between August, 1984 and 2001 various attempts were made for revival of the company by filing Schemes of Arrangement. However, none of those schemes were found feasible because of paucity of funds and in the absence of workable scheme of arrangement/restructuring.2. Present petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Archana Dayal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 120(2005)DLT100; 2005(83)DRJ330; [2005(106)FLR927]
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. In this Petition it has been prayed that the Order dated 4.4.2005 whereby the Petitioner's services have been terminated should be quashed and the Respondents should be directed to immediately confirm the Petitioner in service. The Husband of the Petitioner, Dr. D.B. Dyal, joined the service of Respondent No.2, namely, National Board of Examinations, in September, 2001 as the Controller of Examinations. In February, 2002 the Petitioner was appointed as Assistant Controller of Examinations by Memorandum dated 4.2.2002 which stated, inter alia, that the said post was temporary but likely to continue; and that the Petitioner would be on probation for a period of two years from the date of appointment which may be extended at the discretion of the competent authority. It has been asseverated by the Petitioner that she had addressed a letter to the erstwhile President on 5.2.2004, bringing it to his notice that she had completed two years of probation and that her 'post...
Tag this Judgment!