Companies Act 2013 Section 226 - Judgment Search Results
Home > Cases Phrase: companies act 2013 section 226 Page 1 of about 715 results (3.183 seconds)Tata Consultancy Services Limited Vs. Cyrus Investments Pvt Ltd
Court: Supreme Court of India
..... the coming into force of section 2 68 of the companies act 2013 the old act namely the companies act 1956 had not been repealed the provisions for repeal are contained in section 465 of the companies act 2013 section 465 1 repeals the 1956 .....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTCaptain G R Gopinath Vs. Serious Fraud Investigation Office
Court: Karnataka
sections 36 read with section 448 and 447 of the companies act 2013 and section 68 read with section 628 of cognizance of an offence under section 68 of the companies act 1956 is only upon a written complaint as enumerated in the new act d section 2 29 of the act 2013 is very clear that the court of sessions has jurisdiction only be alleged against officers in default as defined under section 5 of the act 1956 the act which results in
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTRishabh Mishra Vs. The Serious Fraud Investigation Office
Court: Karnataka
city civil and sessions judge and special court under the companies act at bengaluru city cch 60 annexure a and all provisions of the act 2013 cannot be retrospectively applied to acts performed under the act 1956 the allegation against the petitioner the act 1956 b section 2 29 of the act 2013 defines the term court which includes a magistrate having jurisdiction to be a report filed by a police officer under section 173 only for framing of charges as stated under section
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTSri Ashok Wadhwa Vs. The Serious Fraud Investigation Office
Court: Karnataka
action taken or initiated by sfio under the provisions of companies act 1956 shall continue to be proceeded with under that of the act and section 6 of the general clauses act will come into play enabling the continuation of proceedings including of the companies act 2013 with effect from 12 09 2013 the investigation was to be conducted under the new act is limited to taking cognizance of offenses specified under sub section 1 of section 435 of the act 2013 therefore offenses
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTDarshana Kadakia Vs. Serious Fraud Investigation Office
Court: Karnataka
of criminal procedure 1973 praying to declare section2126 and217of the companies act 2013 as unconstitutional quash the order dated2812 2017 at the change of forum after the enactment of the new act being procedural the amendment of the forum would operate retrospectively and sessions judge and special court under the companies act 2013 and all its consequent proceedings and etc 10 nc 2024 issuing the process iii whether the scheme of arrangement under sections 391 to 394 of the act 1956 approved by this
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTMr Sujal Shah Vs. The Serious Fraud Investigation Office
Court: Karnataka
7 supreme 899 e section 2 29 iii of the companies 2013 inter alia states that the court means the court of sessions having jurisdiction to try any offence under this act or under any previous companies law 22 section 211 of procedure 1973 praying to declare section2126 and217of the companies act 2013 as unconstitutional quash the order dated2812 2017 at annexure a kingfisher airlines ltd and deccan aviation ltd filed petitions under sections 391 to 394 of the companies act 1956 in company
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTVinod Wadhawani Vs. The Serious Fraud Investigation Office
Court: Karnataka
when the special court took cognizance of the offenses the companies act 1956 was in force consequently the special court established offenses were purportedly committed during the period when the companies act of 1956 was in effect the initiation of legal proceedings civil and sessions judge and special court under conpanies act 2013 bengaluru vide annexure b and all its consequent proceedings and section 448 and 447 of the companies act 2013 and section 68 read with section 628 of the companies act 1956
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTDevas Multimedia Private Limited Vs. Antrix Corporation Limited
Court: Supreme Court of India
to see the contours of section 271 c of the companies act 2013 as it is stated by the learned counsel which a period of limitation is pre scribed by this act a the suit or application is based upon the fraud provisions of sections 270 to 272 of the companies act 2013 were replaced by the 11th schedule read with section 255 on behalf of the appellants is that the petition under section 271 c should have been preceded at least by a
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTSrividya C G Vs. Serious Fraud Investigation Office
Court: Karnataka
the ministry of corporate affairs based on the registrar of companies report dated 27 05 2015 highlighting irregularities by kingfisher airlines the jurisdiction is not extended to the offences under the act 1956 the 43 nc 2024 khc 14889 wp no 4380 supreme 899 e section 2 29 iii of the companies 2013 inter alia states that the court means the court of the complaint lodged by the complainant respondent therein under various sections of the companies act and the indian penal code regarding
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTMr. Rajesh C Jain Vs. Serious Fraud Investigation Office
Court: Karnataka
the ministry of corporate affairs based on the registrar of companies report dated 27 05 2015 highlighting irregularities by kingfisher airlines specified under sub section 1 of section 435 of the act 2013 therefore offenses not specified in section 435 1 are of the first class 42 section 465 of the act 2013 which deals with the repeal of certain enactments and savings of the dal and kfal combined liable for prosecution under section 227 read with section 233 of the companies act 1956
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT