Industrial Reconstruction Bank Of India Act 1984 Section 40 - Judgment Search Results

industrial Investment Bank of India Limited, Bangalore Vs. Indiana Dai ...

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : [1999]96CompCas313(Kar); 2000(3)KarLJ283

..... was as under this petition has been filed under section 40 of the industrial reconstruction bank of india act 1984 read with section 12 2 of industrial reconstruction bank transfer of undertaking and repeal act 1997 admittedly this petition has nothing to do .....

Mittal Steels Ltd. and anr. Vs. Appellate Authority for Industrial and ...

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : IV(2004)BC497; [2004]118CompCas661(Kar); [2004]56SCL92(Kar)

by the petitioner company under section 15 of the sick industrial companies special provisions act 1985 the petitioners complain that the 14 learned counsel also submits that in the matter of reconstruction of a sick industrial company the possibilities of the rehabilitation interest took such further steps by appointing the industrial investment bank of india as the operating agency under section 17 3 court exercising jurisdiction under article 227 of the constitution of india may not and will not as a matter of course said order was in conformity with the provisions of the act and law taking into consideration all relevant aspects that it company to take undue advantage of the facilities provided under section 22 of the act see deputy commercial tax officer v

H V Gopal Vs. The Bangalore Souhardha Central

Court : Karnataka

examining the scheme of the statutes in question in nahar industrial enterprises ltd v hong kong and shanghai banking corpn 2009 said sa filed u s 17 of the securitization and reconstruction of financial assets and enforcement of security interest act 2002 or c the branch or any other officer of a bank or financial institution is maintaining an account in which debt delay can be implied as laid down in union of india v popular construction co 2001 8 scc470 mukri gopalan v section 13 is in accordance with the provisions of this act and the rules made thereunder then notwithstanding anything contained in 29 of the limitation act 1963 which are as under section 17 of sarfaesi act 17 application against measures to recover

Kanoria Industries Limited Vs. the State of Karnataka and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : I(2006)BC471; [2005]128CompCas1025(Kar); ILR2005KAR2960; (2008)11VST723(Karn)

law or the memorandum and articles of association of the industrial company or any other instrument having effect under the said limited and anr v the board for industrial and financial reconstruction and ors 88 1993 stc 47 since the argument of appellant was declared a sick industrial company the industrial development bank of india has been appointed the operating agency to formulate declared a sick industrial company the industrial development bank of india has been appointed the operating agency to formulate a scheme of sub section o of section 3 of the 1985 act and that a scheme for its rehabilitation is under preparation section 22 of the 1985 act what is prohibited by section 22 1 of the 1985 act is a positive act are dealers and proposes to issue declarations in form no 40 to them it approached the deputy commissioner of commercial taxes

Gauri Industries Vs. State of Karnataka

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : ILR1986KAR118

investments or creation of incumbrances on the assets of the industrial undertaking or by diversion of funds brought about a situation the case of mysore electro chemical works limited the industrial reconstruction corporation of india limited calcutta a government of india organisation of continuous losses inadequate working capital because of the commercial banks and creditors choking up assistance for fear of dilution of industrial reconstruction corporation of india limited calcutta a government of india organisation are the chief promoters for its rehabilitation in all the state government under sections 3 and 4 of the act is unassailable in the event of the second respondent being therefore the state government could not take any action under sections 3 and 4 of the act the second respondent has the cost of land and buildings a sum of rs 40 26 456 49 towards the cost of machinery and equipment

Loharu Steel Industries Ltd. Vs. D.C.M. Ltd.

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : [2001]107CompCas353(Kar); ILR2001KAR4673

the basis for directing the winding up of the sick industrial company by the high court the high court is precluded appellant company on ground that board of industrial and financial reconstruction bifr has recommended winding up of appellant company company court madras high court in j m malhotra v union of india 1997 89 comp cas 600 and also the decision of in the case of v r ramaraju v union of india 1997 89 comp cas 609 approving the decision of the order for winding up under the provisions of the companies act as rightly pointed out by sri patil he power of company and the language employed under sub section 2 of section 20 it is not possible to take the view that

Electrex (India) Ltd., Rep. by Its Executive Director, Sri Achuth Hegd ...

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : [2006]133CompCas874(Kar); ILR2006KAR3745; [2007]75SCL545(Kar)

distress or the like against any property owned by the industrial company interpreting the term no suit for recovery of money reference was made to the board of industrial and financial reconstruction bifr for short under section 15 of the sick industrial court in deepak insulated cable corporation limited v union of india and ors 2001 company kar 401 held that a claim 1 m s electrex india limited is before us aggrieved by the common order dated made applications under section 58 a 9 of the companies act before the bifr for a direction to the appellant to termed as suit for recovery of money attracting provisions of section 22 1 held interest of depositors had to be protected limited v union of india and ors 2001 company kar 401 held that a claim for recovery of deposited amount cannot

Karnataka State Financial Corporation Vs. M/s. Shimoga Castings Privat ...

Court : Karnataka

the absolute owner of the property bearing plot no 279 industrial area hootagalli mysore and that the applicant has itself admitted an appeal before the appellate authority for industrial and financial reconstruction aaifr and the matter has been remanded to the bifr land jointly by ksiidc and ksfc ksiidc as the lead banker was in possession of the title deeds that were kept to the second respondent pursuant to the orders of the board for industrial and financial reconstruction bifr the ksiidc which held of the material available it was found that the property actually belonged to m s shimoga steels ltd accordingly the earlier under rule 9 of company court rules 1959 read with section 151 of the code of civil procedure praying to modify second respondent apart from sanctioning a loan of rs 134 40 lakh which was again secured by way of pari passu

M/S Bellary Steels and Alloys Ltd and Another Vs. M/S Man Takraf (Indi ...

Court : Karnataka

that no reference shall be made to the board for industrial and financial reconstruction after the commencement of the securitisation and refer to the fact that parliament enacted the securtisation and reconstruction of financial assets and enforcement of security interest act 2002 and for matter connected thereto the said act enables the banks and financial institutions to realize long term assets manage problems and improve recovery by exercising powers to take possession of securities sell them and reduce non performing assets by adopting measures from the aforesaid proviso that after commencement of the sarfaesi act where a reference is pending before the board such reference years in the aggregate 4 any declaration made under sub section 3 with respect to a sick industrial company shall have

Karnataka State Financial Corporation Represented by Its Deputy Genera ...

Court : Karnataka

legal fiction created under section 19 2 of the sick industrial companies special provisions act 1985 the sica act for short annexure l passed by the board for industrial and financial reconstruction bifr for short in case no 321 1998 directing the should be implemented and the obligations should be discharged by bank s fi s it is in this context that kfc central government a state government any scheduled bank or other bank a public financial institution or stale level institution or any legal fiction created under section 19 2 of the sica act would come into play therefore in the present case it considering the delay is not sustainable 1 limitation act 1961 sections 4 to 24 and section 29 2 code of civil