Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: company secretaries act 1980 section 1 short title extent and commencement Page 10 of about 10,469 results (0.380 seconds)

Jer Rutton Kavasmanek and anr. Vs. Gharda Chemicals Ltd. and ors.

Court : Mumbai

..... companies (amendment) act, 2000. 31] on 5th may 2001, the said extra ordinary general meeting was held. the appellants opposed the proposed resolution. the proposed resolution for amendment of the articles of association was not passed. the appellants amongst the other shareholders voted against the said resolution. after this eogm, one mr.udayan maroo, the company secretary ..... 1984) 8. (1978) 1 scc 215 (cosmosteels private ltd. and ors. v. jairam das gupta & ors.) 9. (1977) company cases vol.47 page 92 (bennet coleman & co. v. union of india and ors.) 10.(1980) company cases vol.50 page 771 (debi jhora tea co. ltd. v. barendra krishna bhowmick & ors.) 11.(2005) 11 scc 73 ( ..... claude-lila parulekar (smt) v. sakal papers (p) ltd. and ors.) 12.(1986) company cases vol. 59 page46 (bhubaneshwar singh & anr. v. kanthal india .....

Umesh K. Modi Vs. Deputy Director of Enforcement

Court : Delhi

..... for day-to-day affairs of mxl in terms of section 68 (1) & (2) of fera. additionally he pointed out that the compliance certificates by the company secretary of mxl confirming that all the statutory requirements had been complied with, were placed at every board meeting of mxl and therefore, its directors had proceeded on the basis ..... contravention. (2) notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where a contravention of any of the provisions of this act or of any rule, direction or order made thereunder has been committed by a company and it is proved that the contravention has taken place with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to any ..... ) of directorate of enforcement ( doe ) finding him guilty of the contravention of section 8 (3) read with section 8 (4) and section 68 of the foreign exchange regulation act, 1973 ( fera ) and imposing a total penalty of rs. 1 lakh each on certain directors of modi xerox limited ( mxl ) including the appellant and rs. 5 lakh on .....

Farnsworth Vs. Minnesota and Pacific Railroad Company

Court : US Supreme Court

..... twenty continuous miles of the road should be completed so as to admit of running regular trains and the governor should certify the fact to the secretary. by the same act, the company was authorized to borrow money and to execute its bonds and mortgages and other obligations for the same, or for any liabilities incurred in the construction ..... "without merger or extinguishment, to be used, granted, or disposed of, for the purpose of aiding and facilitating the construction of said road and branch." this act the company accepted with all its conditions, but it never completed the portion of the road there designated to be put into operation before the first of the following january ..... in aid of which the congressional grant was made, proposed, in march, 1858, an amendment to the constitution removing this prohibition so far as the four companies named in the act of may 22, 1857, were concerned. the amendment was submitted to the people and, on the 15th of april of the same year, was adopted. .....

Sioux City Co. Vs. Griffey

Court : US Supreme Court

..... : "the route must be considered as 'definitely fixed' when it has ceased to be the subject of change at the volition of the company. until the map is filed with the secretary of the interior, the company is at page 143 u. s. 39 liberty to adopt such a route as it may deem best after an examination of the ground ..... disclosed the feasibility and advantages of different lines. but when a route is adopted by the company, and a map designating it is filed with the secretary of the interior and accepted by that officer, the route is established; it is, in the language of the act, 'definitely fixed,' and cannot be the subject of future change so as to affect ..... the grant except upon legislative consent." and in pacific railway company v. dunmeyer it is also said: "we .....

Atul B. Munim Vs. Registrar of Companies and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : (2000)102BOMLR288

..... ) the managing director or managing directors;(b) the whole-time director or whole-time directors;(c) the manager;(d) the secretary;(e) any person in accordance with whose directions or instructions the board of directors of the company is accustomed to act;(f) any person charged by the board with the responsibility of complying with that provision;provided that the person so charged ..... the definition of 'officer who is in default' in section 5 of the companies act which is worded as follows:where penal provisions of the companies act provide for punishment of officers in default, prosecution is to be filed against managing director/whole-time director/manager, apart from secretary, if any, and company. it is only where there is no such managerial personnel prosecution is to .....

Workmen of Indian Telephone Industries Ltd. Vs. Management of Indian T ...

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : ILR2001KAR1341; (2002)IVLLJ370Kant

..... entire share holding is held by the union government. section 10 of the representation of people act, 1951 provides as follows:- disqualification for office under government company. - a person shall be disqualified if, and for so long as, he is a managing agent, manager or secretary of any company or corporation (other than a co-operative society) in the capital of which the appropriate ..... , this provision will beredundant. even parliament, when passing the act, did not consider it necessary to disqualify every person holding an office of profit under a government company, but limited the disqualification to persons holding the office of managing agent, manager or secretary of the company. the fact that the entire share capital in the company in question is owned by the government does not .....

Dalmia Dadri Cement Co., Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, SimlA.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : [1954]26ITR375(P& H)

..... the time being in any such covenanting state.'this was followed by the issue, over the signature of the revenue secretary, of notification no. 35, dated 27-5-2005/11th september, 1948, that the patiala income-tax act of 2001 and the rules thereunder had come into force in the various covenanting states from 20th august, 1948, and ..... combined all these functions in himself; but what we have to consider is what particular function was being discharged when this agreement was entered into between the assessee company and the phaltan state. it could not possibly be said that it was the legislative function which the raja of phaltan was is charging when he entered into ..... to exist, and that no court of law has jurisdiction to enforce such contracts if the annexing state refuses to recognise them'.in west rand central gold mining company limited v. the king a case to which reference has already been made, it was argued that all contractual obligations incurred by the conquered state before war .....

T.R. Sriram Vs. K.M. Duraibabu and ors.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1993)2MLJ574

..... draws our attention to ex.r-4 which is the minutes of the 49th annual general meeting. it is recorded in the minutes as follows:shri. s. kathiresen, company secretary, informed the members that the management was not aware of collection of proxies by any one before the date of despatch of notices. the printed proxy forms in conformity ..... is no dispute with regard to the publication made in the newspapers by the bank as stated therein. by these advertisements notices under section 257(1) of the companies act are given informing the shareholders that proposals have been received from the shareholders for the candidatures of certain persons set out therein in the place of vacancies arising ..... it is only the person who issued the proxy can raise objections thereto. reliance is placed on the judgment of delhi high court in swadeshi polytex ltd. in re. (1980) 63 c.c. 709. the relevant passage in the judgment reads thus:the instrument appointing a proxy shall (a) be in writing and (b) be signed by .....

Sunita Palita Vs. M/s. Panchami Stone Quarry

Court : Supreme Court of India

..... . the very fact that the dishonoured cheque was signed by him on behalf of the company, would give rise to responsibility under sub-section (2) of section 141. (iii) in the case of a director, secretary or manager [as defined in section 2(24) of the companies act]. or a person referred to in clauses (e) and (f) of section 5 ..... of the companies act, an averment in the complaint that he was in charge of, and was responsible to the company, for the conduct of the business of the ..... categories of persons were covered by section 141 of the ni act the company who committed the offence as alleged; everyone who was in-charge of or was responsible for the business of the company and any other person who was a director or a manager or a secretary or officer of the company with whose connivance or due to whose neglect the .....

V.S. Gupta Vs. Punjab National Bank

Court : Delhi

Reported in : [2010]154CompCas1(Delhi)

..... . the very fact that the dishonoured cheque was signed by him on behalf of the company, would give rise to responsibility under sub-section (2) of section 141.(iii) in the case of a director, secretary or manager (as defined in section 2(24) of the companies act) or a person referred to in clauses (e) and (f) of section 5 ..... ) the managing director/s;(b) the whole-time director/s;(c) the manager;(d) the secretary;(e) any person in accordance with whose directions or instructions the board of directors of the company is accustomed to act;(f) any person charged by the board with the responsibility of complying with that provision (and who has given his consent in ..... petitioner did not become person in-charge of and responsible to the company for conduct and its business.24. since the petitioner was not a director, secretary, manager or any other person falling under any of the categories a to g listed in section 5 of companies act, at the time of commission of the offence, he could not have .....