Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2013)1SCC1
K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.1. We are, in these appeals, primarily concerned with the powers of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (for short 'SEBI') under Section 55A(b) of the Companies Act, 1956 to administer various provisions relating to issue and transfer of securities to the public by listed companies or companies which intend to get their securities listed on any recognized stock exchange in India and also the question whether Optionally Fully Convertible Debentures (for short 'OFCDs') offered by the appellants should have been listed on any recognized stock exchange in India, being Public Issue under Section 73 read with Section 60B and allied provisions of the Companies Act and whether they had violated the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Disclosure and Investor Protection) Guidelines, 2000 [for short 'DIP Guidelines'] and various regulations of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Issue of Capital and Disclosure Requirements) Re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [2002]109CompCas18(Bom)
..... mah. lj 940. that judgment refers to the statement of objects and reasons for adding section 9a which in turn refers to an earlier judgment in the case of institute indo/portuguese v. borges : air1959bom275 , wherein this court had taken a view that the city civil court need not go into the question of jurisdiction while granting interim relief. this had .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2000CriLJ4530
..... of personnel and training) on 10-8-1993 authorising the cbi to investigate the case under section 6 read with section 5(1) of the delhi special police establishment act referred to above. the objection of learned counsel for the petitioner is that this notification has not been expressed in the name of the president. learned ..... section 20 of tada. the inspector general of police did not accord sanction for prosecution. thereafter, an amendment application was moved on behalf of the petitioner by learned counsel in which an amendment was sought in ..... of the petitioner in the aforesaid case crime. it was stated that the state government had sent direction to the director general and the inspector general of police meerut zone directing them not to afford sanction for prosecution under the tada and the designated court under tada released all the persons arrested by the cbi under .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2006(4)Raj3323
..... from service on 14.6.1987. from the reply.of the respondents it appears that the incident had taken place when the unit was posted 1.5 kms. from the border during 'operation trident'. an incident had occurred in the neighbourhood in which a woman had been reportedly raped by some army personnel and in the circumstances, instructions had been issued .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
..... , authoritative articles written by eminent authors etc. before examining the same, let us first examine the legal status of a corporate structure, its usefulness in cross- border transactions and other legal and commercial principles in use in such transactions, which are germane to our case. part - ii corporate structure / general principles (national and ..... are owned directly or indirectly by one or more individual residents of a controlling state. lob clause also finds a place in india- singapore dta. indo mauritius treaty does not restrict the benefit to companies whose shareholders are non- citizens/residents of mauritius, or where the beneficial interest is owned by non ..... short trc) issued by the mauritian authorities has to be respected and in the absence of any limitation on benefit (lob clause), the benefit of the indo- mauritian treaty is available to third parties who invest in india through mauritius route. 39. mr. salve also argued on the extra territorial applicability of .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1996All135
ORDERV.N. Khare, J.1. Two Judges of this Court having differed in their opinion on the question of competence of State Legislature to enact U.P. Sheera Niyantran Adhiniyam 1964 (U.P. Act No. XXIV of 1964) (in short, the Adhiniyam) have referred the following point of difference to third Judge for opinion:'Whether by virtue of Section 18G of the Industrial (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, the State Legislature stood denuded of power to legislate regulating supply, distribution and price of molasses-a product of sugar industry, and was conse-qeuntly incompetent to enact Sections 7, 8 and 10 of the Uttar Pradesh Sheera Niyantran Adhiniyam 1964 (U.P. Act No. 24 of 1964)?'Hon'ble the Chief Justice instead of referring the matter to the third Judge, constituted this Full Bench to answer the point of difference between the two Judges and that is how the matter has come up before us. It arises in the context of statement made in the Lok Sabha by the Minister of State in the Ministry of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 2006CriLJ726
..... under ipc, it may further investigate into the matter, and after the investigation, if the case is found to be not falling into general exceptions, the police may further proceed for investigation by interrogation, etc. therefore, there is no substance in the contention raised that while proceeding for investigation of a complaint in respect ..... atrocities act. the learned app submitted that considering the allegations made in the complaint it cannot be said that there is no prima facie case for investigation by police and, therefore, it was submitted that the complaint may not be quashed by this court at this stage.11. mr. jani, learned counsel appearing for the ..... may also result into dereliction of the statutory duties by the accused petitioners. it was submitted on behalf of the respondents that the investigation by the police in connection with the present complaint cannot be said as without jurisdiction. it was submitted that the present complaint may not be quashed and all petitions .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC450; 2006(1)ALD10(SC); 2005(3)ARBLR285(SC); 2006(1)AWC538(SC); 2006(1)BomCR585; [2005]128CompCas465(SC); (2006)2CompLJ7(SC); 2005(5)CTC302; (2006)3GLR2097; [2006(1
..... ., the court held that the order passed by the chief justice under section 11 of the act was administrative in nature. referring to a decision of the constitution bench in indo-china steam navigation co. ltd. v. jasjit singh, additional collector of customs and ors., : 1964crilj234, the court observed that it is well settled that a petition under article 136 of .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR2000Ker417
..... this case under consideration, the order of reference of the learned single judge gave brief reasons. the order of the learned single judge is as follows : "petitioner police constable was convicted of an unnatural offence. the court of session acquitted him. no appeal was preferred. on the basis of the facts which formed the subject of ..... the ground of misconduct by a police constable are impugned in the petition. the grounds raised in the petition, inter alia, are that (i) having regard to the petitioner's acquittal in the criminal ..... rules, 1958. he had filed an appeal against the said order, which has been dismissed under the order ext. p9 dated 24th march. 1987 by the dig police. northern range, calicut. further appeal was dismissed on 20th january, 1989 by the state government under ext. p10. these three orders recording concurrent findings of fact on .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC855; [1992]74CompCas482(SC); JT1990(3)SC417; 1990(2)SCALE200; (1990)4SCC406; [1990]3SCR649
ORDER1. The common question which arises for consideration in these appeals, by special leave, and the writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution is, whether a person who was inducted as a tenant in premises, which are public premises for the purpose of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Public Premises Act'), and whose tenancy has expired or has been terminated, can be evicted from the said premises as being a person in unauthorised occupation of the premises under the provisions of the Public Premises Act and whether such a person can invoke the protection of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rent Control Act'). In short, the question is, whether the provisions of the Public Premises Act would override the provisions of the Rent Control Act in relation to premises which fall within the ambit of both the enactments.2. Civil Appeals Nos. 2368 and 2369 of 1986 relate to the pre...
Tag this Judgment!