Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-13-1992
Reported in : [1993]76CompCas67(Mad)
Mishra J.1. The petitioner herein, who was enrolled as an advocate in the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu in 1975 and who has been practising as an advocate in this court for the last 15 years, has filed the instant petition challenging the constitutional validity of the Company Law Board Members (Qualifications and Experience) Rules, 1989*, hereinafter called 'the impugned Rules,' brought into force by G. S. R. No. 740(E) dated August 4, 1989. He has, however, also sought a declaration that the provisions of section 10E(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act 1 of 1956), are illegal, void and ultra vires the Constitution of India. 2. Two sections, viz., section 10E and 10F, were inserted as part I-A into the Companies Act, 1956, (Act 1 of 1956), by section 4 of the Companies (Amendment) Act (53 of 1963), with effect from January 1, 1964, only to be amended in some parts by the Companies (Amendment) Act No. 41 of 1941 and by Act No. 46 of 1977 and by the Companies (Amendment) Act, 1988. Since the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Sep-29-1992
Reported in : 1993CriLJ2147
Mishra, J.1. On a report by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Crime (General), Egmore, Madras-8, X Crime No. 1899/92 under sections 120-B, 124A, 153A(1)(a)(b), 505(1)(b) of the Indian Penal Code and Ss. 13(1) and 13(2) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 has been registered. Petitioners herein were taken in custody in connection with the said case, and produced before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras. 2. Mr. T. V. Subramaniyan, who is in charge of regular Court No. X, since the Court of the regular Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate was vacant, held the charge of the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and ordered for remand of the petitioners on 18-9-1992. This order passed under sub-section (2) of S. 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was evidently on the report of the officer-in-charge of the police station concerned who, after arresting the petitioners herein and obtaining them into custody, was duty bound to prod...
Tag this Judgment!