Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: companies second amendment act 2002 section 64 amendment of section 450 Page 7 of about 32,508 results (0.429 seconds)

Subhash JaIn Vs. Pioneer Shopping Complex (P.) Ltd.

Court : Kerala

Reported in : [2008]142CompCas533(Ker); [2007]79SCL289(Ker)

..... 2002.section 634a has conferred power on the company law board to enforce its orders. section 634a says that any order made by the company law board may be enforced by that board in the same manner as if ..... a company, the registered office of the company is situated, or(b) in the case of an order against any other person, the person concerned voluntarily resides, or carries on business or personally works for gain:provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply on and after the commencement of the companies (second amendment) act, ..... of this case.5. the powers conferred on the high court under section 402 of the companies act have been conferred on the company law board by the companies (amendment) act, 1988. while acting under section 398, read with section 402 of the companies act, 1956, the court/clb has ample jurisdiction and very wide powers to pass such orders .....

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kavita Rani and ors.

Court : Himachal Pradesh

Reported in : I(1993)ACC606,1993ACJ489

..... no more res integra. the provision of clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 95 of the act, as it stood prior to the amendment act no. 56 of 1969, was judicially interpreted. it was held that the liability undertaken by the insurance company with regard to the death of or bodily injury to a third party, caused by or arising out of ..... thousand' in clause (b) aforementioned were substituted with words 'fifty thousand'.12. by virtue of section 54 of the amendment act no. 56 of 1969, which came into force on and from 2nd march, 1970, clause (b) was substantially amended and it stood after amendment as under:95. requirements of policies and limits of liability.-(1)xxx xxx xxx(2) subject to the proviso to .....

Bank of Maharashtra Vs. Pandurang Keshav Gorwardkar and Others

Court : Supreme Court of India

..... act 11 of 2003 into effect. though section 441 has been substituted by section 56 of the above amendment act but since it has not come into force, we reproduce section 441 as ..... therein. 36. section 36 empowers the central government to make rules to carry out the provisions of the 1993 act. in exercise of the powers conferred under section 36, the central government has framed the debts recovery tribunal (procedure) rules, 1993. 37. the companies act has undergone substantial amendments by the companies (second amendment) act 2002 (11 of 2003) but no notification has been issued so far bringing .....

Bank of Maharashtra Vs. Pandurang Keshav Gorwardkar and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

..... act 11 of 2003 into effect. though section 441 has been substituted by section 56 of the above amendment act but since it has not come into force, we reproduce section 441 as ..... therein.36. section 36 empowers the central government to make rules to carry out the provisions of the 1993 act. in exercise of the powers conferred under section 36, the central government has framed the debts recovery tribunal (procedure) rules, 1993.37. the companies act has undergone substantial amendments by the companies (second amendment) act 2002 (11 of 2003) but no notification has been issued so far bringing .....

Masusmi Sa Investment Llc Vs. Keystone Realtors Pvt. Ltd. and Others

Court : Mumbai

..... affect or take away any right to appeal to the supreme court. section 10f of the companies act, 1956 [10f. appeals against the order of the company law board. any person aggrieved by any decision or order of the company law board [made before the commencement of the companies (second amendment) act, 2002] may file an appeal to the high court within sixty days from the date of ..... to matters falling within the scope of the jurisdiction conferred, in respect of companies having their registered offices in the district." "10f. appeals against the order of the company law board.- any person aggrieved by any decision or order of the company law board made before the commencement of the companies (second amendment) act, 2002 may file an appeal to the high court within sixty days from .....

Sharath Rukmangada and Another Vs. Cauvery Papers Limited (In Liqn), R ...

Court : Karnataka

..... arisen or arises or such application has been made or is made before or after the order for the winding up of the company, or before or after commencement of the companies (amendment) act, 1960] (65 of 1960) (3) ***omitted by the companies (second amendment act) act, 2002 (4) nothing in sub-section (1) or sub- section (3) shall apply to any proceeding pending in appeal before the supreme ..... court or a high court.] section 529a of the act, 1956 reads as under: section 529a: overriding preferential payment - notwithstanding anything contained in any other .....

Gopal Krishan vs.super Cassettes Industries Ltd. & Ors.

Court : Delhi

..... without creating a corresponding provision for appeal. this was a mistaken basis since in fact the repeal of the said provision had not been notified till april 2015. (b) the companies (second amendment) act 2002, the press note no.2/2003 dated 4th april 2003, the notification dated 10th july, 2012 of the ministry of corporate affairs and the gazette of india dated 14th ..... 230. however, at the relevant time when the appeal was filed, the provision relevant for that purpose was section 391(7) of the act. although in terms of the companies (second amendment act) 2002 ( 2002 amendment ), section 391 (7) stood omitted, the said amendment was to take effect only from date notified by the central government.19. the purpose behind omitting the section 391 (7) of the .....

Bank of New York Mellon London Branch Vs. Zenith Infotech Limited

Court : Supreme Court of India

..... .12.2016. relevant details thereof will be noticed hereinafter.4. at this stage, it will also be necessary to take note of the fact that the national company law tribunal envisaged under the companies (second amendment) act of 2002 has been authorized to exercise and discharge its powers and functions with effect from 1.6.2016 and, in fact, the tribunals with benches throughout the ..... of such abated proceedings provisions have been made to enable the company to seek a reference as per provisions of part vi-a of the companies act, 1956 within 180 days from the date of the repeal act. interestingly, the provisions of part vi-a of the companies act, 1956 which, though brought about by the companies (second amendment) act of 2002 had/have not been made effective. in fact .....

New Bridge Holdings B.V. Vs. Ttk-lig Limited and ors.

Court : Chennai

..... , or carries on business or personally works for gain. [provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply on and after the commencement of the companies (second amendment) act, 2002.] 11. section 10 of the contempt of courts act, 1971 confers a power on the high court to punish contempts of subordinate courts. by that provision, every high court shall have and exercise the ..... 24.12.97. by virtue of the proviso inserted by the companies (second amendment) act, 2002, the said provision shall not apply on and after the commencement of the said amendment act. the amendment act came into force with effect from 13.12.2002. hence, the reliance placed by the respondents over the power of the company law board to enforce its order in terms of section 634a instead .....

Bar Council of India Vs. Union of India

Court : Supreme Court of India

..... constitution bench of this court was concerned with the matters wherein the constitutional validity of parts i-b and i-c of the companies act, 1956 inserted by companies (second amendment) act, 2002 providing for the constitution of national company law tribunal and national company law appellate tribunal was under challenge. the court while examining the difference between the courts and tribunals, inter alia, referred to earlier decisions ..... an adjudicatory power, in our view, such institutional mechanisms or arrangements cannot be faulted on the ground of arbitrariness or irrationality.21. the permanent lok adalats under the 1987 act (as amended by 2002 amendment act) are in addition to and not in derogation of fora provided under various statutes. this position is accepted by the central government in their counter affidavit.22. it .....