Gresham And Craven Of Indian Private Limited Acquisition And Transfer Of Undertakings Act 1977 Section 26 Protection Of Action Taken In Good Faith - Judgment Search Results

Kenney Vs. Craven

Court: US Supreme Court

operating two mills located in Holyoke, Massachusetts, sold to Michael Craven machinery contained in the mills, and evidenced the same by As regards the decree in the equity cause pleaded in bar, it was found that the title to the property alleged from him the value of the machinery so as aforesaid transferred to him by Avery, trustee, alleging that Craven had taken bar or called to our attention in any form. The action was again tried to a jury, who, by direction of bar or called to our attention in any form. The action was again tried to a jury, who, by direction of transferred to him by Avery, trustee, alleging that Craven had taken possession of and converted the property sued for to his September 18, 1901, the said plaintiff acquired title to said goods and chattels by purchase from said Avery as trustee, aforesaid,

Reece Vs. Craven

Court: US Supreme Court

- 412 U.S. 962 (1973) U.S. Supreme Court REECE v. CRAVEN , 412 U.S. 962 (1973) 412 U.S. 962 Ronald L.

Streeter Vs. Craven

Court: US Supreme Court

CRAVEN, 392 U.S. 650 (1968) 392 U.S. 650 STREETER v. CRAVEN, WARDEN, ET AL. ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO

Bharat Manilal Dalal Vs. the State of Bomaby

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR81

new tenancy came into existence on the departure of Mrs. Craven from India. That decision clearly shows that the appeal Court the provisions of Section 6, he renders himself liable to penal consequences. But does that mean that no right is created contained in Section 5 of the Act. There is a limitation upon the exercise of the powers conferred by Section 5 by allocating it to persons who are in need of property, and if the landlord does not conform to the scheme, with the requirements of vacancy laid down in the Requisition Act. He took the view that under Article 226 it was as between landlord and tenant? Looking to the scheme of Section 6 it is clear that Section 6 is not intended not render a tenancy created void. It only penalises the action of the landlord in that he created the tenancy without a judgment of the Appeal Court in which the view taken was that the order would be bad if it was in Dwarkadas Gordhandas v. The State of Bombay is still good law and I am in respectful agreement with that decision.9.

N.P. Nathwani Vs. the Commissioner of Police

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (1976)78BOMLR1

piece of subordinate legislation.67. The aforesaid discussion on decided cases, Indian and English, and the passages quoted above from the well-known It was said that the proposed meeting was not a private meeting, but it was a public meeting where matters relating of children of employees or former employees of a British limited company or any of its subsidiary or allied companies. The him.41. Simply because despite such restriction some invitee may surreptitiously transfer the invitation and such transferee whether lawyer or not may be a right to property or to any interest or undertaking. It is clear that the State of Punjab had done within the defined limits of his power and while so acting in the exercise of such power he should be shown an administrative order passed by the Company Law Board under Section 237(b) of the Companies Act, 1956 appointing certain named persons Lord Shaw of Dunfermline in Rex v. Halliday [1917] A.C. 260 to the following effect :In so far as the mandate that a man who seeks the assistance of, or the protection of, the King's Courts should be exposed to fine and complete during the period in question and legislative and executive action which contravenes Article 19 cannot be questioned even after the subsists laws may be enacted, and executive action may be taken in pursuance of lawful authority, which if the provisions of dishonesty or corrupt purpose. Even if it is passed in good faith and with the best of intention to further the a public meeting. Any meeting with the object of affirming faith in Civil Liberties and the Rule of Law will require

Jagdish Prasad and anr. Vs. Pt. Paras Ram and ors.

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: AIR1941All360

and, conformably with Sir George Mellish's judgment in In Re Gresham Life Assurance Society; Ex parte Penney (1873) 8 Ch. A. respectively. The General Transport Company Ltd. was incorporated as a private company with articles of association which restricted the right of ensuring that the number of members does not exceed the limit prescribed by Article 2. The directors may refuse to register Are bound to give their reason why they reject the transferee, and if they reject him without giving a reason that company.4. I should of course say that technically speaking no actual transfer was before them for registration. All the letter of had actually done was to give a sale notice under Section 18 of the articles. That however is not material. On that the applicants say is (by para. 10) that the action of the directors is mala fide and contrary to the the 3rd day of February 1941.Please acknowledge and oblige.Thanking you.Yours faithfully,for the General Transport Ltd.(Sd.) General Manager.3. The actual resolution enclosed

Vasant Investment Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Company Law Board and Others

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR1999Bom207; 1999(1)ALLMR362; 1999(2)BomCR254a; (1999)1BOMLR916; [2000]102CompCas421(Bom)

action of the Directors was 'mala fide' :-- In re, Gresham Life Assurance Society; Ex Parte Penney 1872(8) Ch. A. 446(A), 18 to 23 inclusive, of Table A, annexed to the Indian Companies Act, 1913, shall apply with the following modification :- as may be prescribed. (11) In the case of a private company which is not a subsidiary of a public company, in appeal from the decision of the CLB would be limited to see whether there was a bona fide exercise of and general body of shareholders and (e) that the intended acquisition, if permitted, could bring out such a change in the Directors in refusing registration to transfer thought of the proposed transferees as mere nominees who could adopt the attitude of the No doubt in the year, 1983, section 82 of the Act provided that the shares or other interest of any member transfer was delivered to the company under subsection (3) of section 111. Sub-section (4) is not very relevant for the present shares. It would, thus, be seen that the cause of action accrued to respondents No. 4 and 5 on rejection of by respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and, therefore, the decision taken by the Board of Directors of the Company on 3-1-91 on the Company to show that it acted bonafide, in good faith and not with corrupt motive. Mr. Seervai, vehemently contended to show that the company acted mala fide, in bad faith, arbitrarily and with corrupt motive. The learned Counsel for the

Khimji Visram and Sons (Gujarat) Private Limited Vs. Commissioner of I ...

Court: Gujarat

Reported in: [1994]209ITR993(Guj)

word 'profits'.... is to be understood', observed Lord Halsbury in Gresham Life Assurance Society v. Styles [1892] AC 309; [1892] 3 setting up a business and for the purpose of the Indian Income-tax Act it is the setting up of the business position with regard to section 30. It operates in a limited filed in cases where the premises are used for the be allowed. Section 35A deals with deduction of expenditure on acquisition of patent rights or copyrights and provision is made under the business and for the protection of its assets and property from expropriation, coercive process and assertion of hostile title; it activities, whether the activities are such that they can be undertaken at a time and such other relevant factors for the wider than the one available under section 12(2) of the Act. This court in the case of CIT v. Malayalam Plantations its office to the premises at Bombay only in January, 1977. During the intervening period, the premises were not ready for of section 30 of the Income-tax Act and depreciation under section 32 of the Income-tax Act with regard to the premises, not entitled to get the said deduction under section 30. 26. The next limb of the question is : whether the measures for the preservation of the business and for the protection of its assets and property from expropriation, coercive process or and it was completed in March, 1973. The land was taken on rent for the purpose of the business of the of that rule be true on general principles, there is good reason why the scope of section 10(2) (xv) should be

The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. the New India Assurance Company Ltd ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (1938)40BOMLR980

Income-tax Act of 1842, it was further pointed out in Gresham Life Assurance Society v. Bishop [1902] A.C. 287 that the for consideration is the construction of Section 4 of the Indian Income-tax Act. Under that section income from whatever source derived, the provisions of the Act. There are provisions in the Act, for example, in Section 7(2), Section 11(3) and Section 42, of Income-tax under Section 66 (2) of the Indian Income-tax Act in which he raises the question, whether two sums of agree. The short point for consideration is the construction of Section 4 of the Indian Income-tax Act. Under that section income in ascertaining the profits for the year and has been taken into account also in determining the amount to be paid

Haji Mohd. Sayeed and ors. Vs. Abdul Ghafoor and ors.

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: AIR1955All688

considered to be 'Makruh' (improper). (The word 'Makruh' according to Craven's Royal Dictionary means odious, abominable, improper, unbecoming, loathsome, something to the Muslims of Makka, Madina, Baitulmoqaddas, Egypt, and Sham have acted upon this principle. Those, who do contrary, are not reliable.'It not dealt with in any of the passages cited above.The action of the plaintiffs appears to us to be clearly mala of various parties on the principles of justice, equity and good conscience in the light of the particular circumstances emerging in the lower Court having held that every individual professing moslem faith has a right to pray in a mosque, it should