Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: company secretaries act 1980 section 22d officers and other staff of authority Page 7 of about 119 results (0.045 seconds)

P. Mahamani Vs. Tamil Nadu Magnesite Limited and ors.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1993)2MLJ634

..... the charge memo are based on proper materials.21. under section 2(45) of the companies act, secretary means a company secretary within the meaning of the clause (c)of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the company secretaries act, 1980 and includes any other individual possessing the prescribed qualifications and appointed to perform the duties ..... which may be performed by a secretary under this act and any other ministerial or administrative duties. clause 45(a) of section 2 of the companies act, 1956 reads that secretary in whole time practice means a secretary who ..... be in practice within the meaning of sub-section (2) of section 2 of the companies act and who is not in full time employment. section 2(1)(c) of the company secretaries act, 56 of 1980 defines a company secretary as a person who is a member of the institute which in turn is defined in .....

Hemant D. Vakil and ors. Vs. Rdi Print and Publishing Pvt. Ltd.

Court : Company Law Board CLB

Reported in : (1995)84CompCas838

..... the appointment of shri manhar mody as alternate director was opposed by respondent no. 16 in his letter dated april 3, 1992, sent to the company secretary, being contrary to the provisions of section 3-13 of the companies act, 1956. shri cooper also referred to paras 12 and 13 of the affidavit dated june 23, 1992, filed by shri fernandes. shri cooper pointed ..... given her the general power of attorney dated march 22, 1990. while acting under such general power of attorney, shri cooper pointed out that she had acted for the companies which had conflicting interests with the company, its subsidiary, for which miss captain was the company secretary. it clearly shows that she has acted in connivance with respondents nos. 2 to 5 and has played an active .....

St. Paul and P. R. Co. Vs. Northern Pac. R. Co.

Court : US Supreme Court

..... in 1869, and the map of its definite location, approved by the secretary of the interior, was not filed with the commissioner of the general land office until december 20, 1871. the release required by the act of march 3, 1871, was not made by the st. paul and pacific railroad company until december 13, 1871, and a formal release to the united ..... approved march 4, 1864, entitled 'an act to extend the time for the construction of the branch road of the st. paul and pacific railroad company,' be, and the same and each and every of them are hereby, approved, accepted, and assented to by the st. paul and pacific railroad company, and the president and secretary of this company are hereby directed to transmit a .....

Southern Pacific R. Co. Vs. United States

Court : US Supreme Court

..... portions of the line or route designated by the plats herewith filed or heretofore filed by said company, may be withdrawn from sale, entry, or preemption, and reserved for said railroad company according to the provisions of said act." 2. a letter from secretary delano to mr. hillyer, under date of march 9, 1872, acknowledging the receipt of the ..... an examination of each such section by commissioners to be appointed by the president, as provided in the act making a grant of land to said company, approved july 27th, 1866, and upon the report of the commissioners to the secretary of the interior that such section of said railroad and telegraph line has been constructed as required by ..... a valid and sufficient map of definite location of its route from the colorado river to the pacific ocean was filed by the atlantic and pacific company and approved by the secretary of the interior; that, by such act, the title to these lands passed, under the grant of 1866, to the atlantic and pacific railroad .....

Humbird Vs. Avery

Court : US Supreme Court

..... to decide, in the first instance, that the selections made by the railroad company of lieu lands shall be approved by the secretary, or to decide what lands should be on the lists required to be furnished to the railroad, granted under the act of 1898, or to control directly or indirectly the work which congress, with ..... issued therefor, "under a mistake of law founded upon a certain erroneous ruling by the secretary of the interior, to the effect that the said northern pacific railroad company, and their successors in interest, were not entitled to any lands by virtue of said act of congress approved july 2, 1864, and said joint resolution, approved may 31, 1870 ..... the thirteenth of july, 1898, in writing, and such written acceptance was promptly transmitted by the company to the secretary of the interior. in a case in the supreme court of wisconsin determined shortly before the act of 1898, it was held, contrary to the ruling of the interior department in 1896, that ashland, and not duluth, .....

United States

Court : US Supreme Court

..... s. 108 . as indemnity for any lands so excepted, as also for any excluded as mineral, other lands were to be "selected by said company," under the direction of the secretary of the interior, from unoccupied, unappropriated, nonmineral lands in odd-numbered sections within prescribed indemnity limits. the line of the road was to be definitely ..... was approved and the patent issued. in support of this position, the company points to the stipulation on which the case was heard in the district court wherein, following a reference to the act of march 3, 1887, c. 376, 24 stat. 556, directing the secretary "to immediately adjust" this and other railroad land grants, and to ..... have been approved or consented to by the secretary of the interior, since, under the adjustment act of march 3, 1887, the supervision of the adjustment was specially devolved upon the secretary. p. 256 u. s. 67 . 9. a stipulation that all the lands received by the northern pacific company under its grant and all that it was .....

Lloyd Sabaudo Societa Anonima Per Azioni Vs. Elting

Court : US Supreme Court

..... was adverse to the petitioner is reviewable. p. 287 u. s. 331 . 2. section 9 of the immigration act of 1917, as amended, which confers upon the secretary of labor, as an administrative officer, authority to impose money penalties upon persons or transportation companies bringing to the united states aliens afflicted with any of the diseases therein enumerated, or with any mental or ..... stone delivered the opinion of the court. petitioner, a steamship transportation company, brought suit in the district court for southern new york to recover from the collector of customs certain fines page 287 u. s. 331 alleged to have been illegally exacted by the secretary of labor under 9 of the immigration act of 1917, c. 29, 39 stat. 874, 880, or its .....

Ahmedabad Electricity Company Limited Vs. Sanghi Spinners (India) Ltd. ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : 2006(4)ALD749; [2007]74SCL95(AP)

..... act, demanding the payment within a period of three weeks; failing which the petitioner would initiate proceedings for winding up of the respondent-company, in reply to the said notice the respondent raised all these untenable pleas. hence, the pleas raised by the respondent are devoid of merit.20. to prove the case of the petitioner-company, the company secretary of the petitioner-company ..... under the provisions of any act. rule 21 of the companies (court) rules, 1959 provides that every petition shall be verified by an affidavit made by the petitioner or by one of the petitioners and in the case of a body corporate by a director, secretary or other principal officer thereto. ..... 98 co. cases 151 (mad-db).33. in view of the above legal position, it has to be considered whether the company secretary of the petitioner-company was authorized to file the company petition as well as to give evidence by filing the verified affidavit and also to give evidence. admittedly, no document, showing that .....

N. Nagendra Rao and Co. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1994SC2663; JT1994(5)SC572; 1994(3)SCALE977; (1994)6SCC205; [1994]Supp3SCR144

..... of rajasthan v. mst. vidhyawati and anr. : air1962sc933 .)10. this principle was statutorily recognised when east india company was taken over by the crown. section 68 of the government of india act, 1858 permitted the secretary of the state in council to sue or be sued. it was a departure from the english common law that ..... the observation :several cases were cited during the argument of actions brought against the east india company, and the secretary of state for indian in which questions have arisen whether the acts of the indian government were or were not acts of sovereignty or state, and so beyond the cognizance of the municipal courts. the east india ..... foundation and furnished basis for determining liability of the secretary of state in council. if the east india company was not a sovereign and the rights that vested in the crown under government of india act, 1858 were no more than what was possessed by the company then where was the question of sovereign power and sovereign .....

Asset Reconstruction Company (india) Limited Vs. Bishal Jaiswal

Court : Supreme Court of India

..... be prescribed, shall be certified by a company secretary in practice in the prescribed form, stating that the annual return discloses the facts correctly and adequately and that the company has complied with all the provisions of this act. (3) every company shall place a copy of the annual return on the website of the company, if any, and the web-link ..... be made applicable by reason of the arguments put forth by him. as has been held in ambika prasad mishra v. state of u.p., (1980) 3 scc719 every argumentative novelty does not undo a settled position of law. krishna iyer, j., speaking for a bench of five learned judges, stated thus: ..... of law that an acknowledgement of debts in the balance-sheets of a company does furnish fresh starting point of limitation is too well settled to need any elaborate discussion (see: jones v. bellgrove properties ltd. [1949 (1) all er498, in re: campania de electricidad [1980 ch d146, babulal rukmanand v. official liquidator [air1968rajasthan 214]. and bengal .....