Gujarat Court February 2007 Judgments
Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Vs. Balaram Cements Ltd.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-01-2007
Reported in: [2008]146CompCas1(Guj)
M.R. Shah, J.1. By way of this petition, the applicant Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., considered to be a secured creditor of the company in liquidation has prayed for an appropriate order to recall the order dated December 26, 2006, made in Company Application No. 663 of 2006 and to cancel the meetings of the shareholders and the secured creditors of the respondent-company scheduled to be held on January 29, 2007.It is required to be noted that by order dated December 26, 2006, passed in Company Application No. 663 of 2006, on an application made by the respondent-company, this court passed an order of convening the meetings of the shareholders and the creditors of the respondent-company to consider and if thought fit, approve with or without modification the proposed scheme of arrangement and/or compromise.2. Relying upon the judgment of the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NGEF Ltd. v. Chandra Developers P. Ltd. : (2005)8SCC219 Shri Pahwa, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the a...
Tag this Judgment!Gandabhai Kuvarbhai and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-01-2007
Reported in: (2007)2GLR1750
Jayant Patel, J.1. The short facts of the case are that deceased Gandabhai Kuvarbhai was holding the agricultural land at Village Bhatharia. The form was filed by him under Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). There were earlier litigations, and ultimately, the matter was remanded to the Mamlatdar for reconsideration on the aspects as to whether the other sons who are staying separately would be entitled to the benefits of the provisions of Section 6(3B) of the Act or not. The Maralatdar and A.L.T. once again considered the matter after remand and vide order dated 3rd October, 1981, Mamlatdar declared that it is not proved that any son was major, who was in the family of Gandabhai Kuvarbhai and other two sons were staying separately, and therefore, it was declared that the applicants would be entitled to hold 54 acres of land and the lands bearing Survey Nos. 106 and 146, admeasuring 19 acres and 5 gunthas were declared as surplus land. It appe...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›