Companies Act 1956 Schedule 5 - Judgment Search Results
Home > Cases Phrase: companies act 1956 schedule 5 Sorted by: old Court: company law board clb Page 1 of about 384 results (0.837 seconds)Jagdishchandra Champaklal Vs. Deccan Paper Mills Co. Ltd. and
Court : Company Law Board CLB
Reported in : (1994)80CompCas159
at page 168 under sections 108 and 110 of the companies act both the transferor and the transferee could seek the of sections 13 and 18 of the securities contracts regulation act 1956 section 13 states that if the central government is are three appeals under section 111 of the companies act 1956 in the matter of refusal by m s deccan paper the list of directors filed by the company on november 5 1990 it seems that shri f m pochkhanwala is no
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTCarbon Corporation Ltd. Vs. Abhudaya Properties Pvt. Ltd.
Court : Company Law Board CLB
Reported in : (1992)73CompCas572
..... of sub sections 4c and 4d of section 10e of the companies act 1956 state that every bench shall have powers which are vested in ..... a period of limitation different from the period prescribed by the schedule he pointed out that for such an application since there is ..... there was no provision for condonation in the act as section 5 of the limitation act is applicable as it has not specifically excluded .....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTBajaj Tempo Ltd. Vs. Bajaj Auto Ltd. and anr.
Court : Company Law Board CLB
Reported in : (1994)80CompCas618
board within the meaning of section 2 18a of the companies act 1956 shri anil divan pointed out that the provisions of dispute arises between the administrative authorities appointed under the act and any person as to the existence of a group the meaning of section 2 18a of the companies act 1956 shri anil divan pointed out that the provisions of section the foreign collaborators firodias and jaya hind group together hold 58 32 per cent referring to the provisions of section 114
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTBajaj Tempo Ltd. Vs. Unit Trust of India and anr.
Court : Company Law Board CLB
Reported in : (1992)73CompCas451
reference to the definition contained in section 370 of the companies act 1956 the concept of same management under the monopolies section 2 g of the monopolies and restrictive trade practices act shri cooper stated that it is difficult to accept the the definition contained in section 370 of the companies act 1956 the concept of same management under the monopolies and restrictive even though the authority may come to a different conclusion 5 shri chinoy denied the allegations made by the respondent in
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTVickers Systems International Vs. Mahesh P. Keswani and anr.
Court : Company Law Board CLB
Reported in : (1992)73CompCas317
he also filed copies of letters from some of the companies stating that the shares held in the names of individuals p keswani hindu undivided family under section 153 of the act a company cannot take notice of any trust on its section 22a 4 c of the securities contracts regulation act 1956 hereinafter referred to as the securities act stating that 600 of the said shares he also referred to circular no 5 75 8 18 75 cl v dated march 31 1975
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTPatel Engineering Co. Ltd. Vs. Patel Realtors Pvt. Ltd. and ors.
Court : Company Law Board CLB
to the request for action under section 250 of the companies act it was held that the transfer of shares has are the company the transferor and the transferee and the act does not contemplate any other party to these proceedings mr filed under section 22a of the securities contracts regulation act 1956 by patel engineering co ltd hereinafter referred to as the intervene in the matter and for adjournment of the proceedings 5 mr devitre advocate appearing on behalf of the company stated
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTMrs. Kanak Vinod Mehta Vs. Jyoti Wire Industries Ltd.
Court : Company Law Board CLB
Reported in : (1991)72CompCas366
her case as required under section 58a 9 of the companies act 1956 and the petition is therefore dismissed case as required under section 58a 9 of the companies act 1956 and the petition is therefore dismissed as required under section 58a 9 of the companies act 1956 and the petition is therefore dismissed case is regarding the maintainability of the proceedings under section 58a in the absence of any evidence as to the terms
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTC.H. Joshi Vs. Bombay Papers Ltd.
Court : Company Law Board CLB
Reported in : (1991)72CompCas173
company as per the provisions of section 111 of the companies act the company is required to intimate the decision of with the provisions of section 108 1 of the companies act and therefore the appeal is dismissed certificate the consideration shown in the transfer form is rs 500 and stamp of rs 2 50 is affixed on the
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTS.S. Shah and ors. Vs. Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd.
Court : Company Law Board CLB
Reported in : (1992)73CompCas562
it is the normal practice in most of the listed companies to scrutinise the documents submitted along with the lodgement of the act and section 22a of the securities contracts regulation act 1956 5 in the rejoinders filed by the appellants it provisions of section 22a of the securities contracts regulation act 1956 are applicable and as per theue provisions a company may co ltd v pradip kumar sarkar 1990 67 comp cas 518 sc to state that the company has no inherent power
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTJagatjit Industries Ltd., Galaxy Vs. Mohan MeakIn Ltd.
Court : Company Law Board CLB
Reported in : (1994)80CompCas411
the transferee company as required under section 292 of the companies act 1956 ii the transfer deeds are not stamped in accordance with the provisions of section 292 372 of the act and that the transfer deeds are not duly stamped as not in accordance with section 108 of the companies act 1956 in as much as they do not specify the occupation s resolution dated september 6 1990 the purchase of 9 500 shares of the value of rs 2 11 649 was
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT