Court : Delhi
Reported in : [1991]72CompCas5(Delhi)
..... , without the permission of the court. 30. mr. nayyar has contended that when a company goes into liquidation, then, the said (the state corporations act, 1951) becomes a general law and the act (companies act, 1956) becomes the special law which alone is applicable to the present case. he has placed reliance upon the judgment in life insurance corporation of india. v. asia udyog (p.) ltd. : [1984]145itr520(delhi) . he has further argued that section 29 of the said act is applicable only when the directors of the company are in charge of and have control over the assets of the company, but when the assets of the company ..... which may be found there are not intended to be expositions of the whole law, but governed and qualified by the particular facts of the case in which such expressions are to be found. learned counsel for the applicant relied upon this judgment to show that the decision in m.k. ranganathan : [1955]2scr374 does not cover the facts of the present case. however, the judgment in this case is not applicable, because the judgment of the supreme court is very express. 43. in first national bank ltd. v. om prakash sharma , the facts are different from the facts of the present case, because in this case, during the pendency of the winding up proceedings, the company .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 121(2005)DLT65
A.K. Sikri, J.1. CA No. 1168/2002 is filed by the three applicants who claim that they are the owners of the property bearing Municipal No. 16, Friends Colony (West), New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the demised property'). Smt. Ram Pyari Sethi, their mother and predecessor-in-interest of this property, had granted lease of this property to Bharat Steel Tubes Pvt. Ltd. (now in liquidation) (hereinafter called as 'the company') vide written deed dated 11th June, 1965. The property was meant for personal office of the Managing Director Mr. Raunaq Singh and a guest house. The tenancy commenced from 1st April, 1964 for a period of five years ending on 31st March, 1969. Rent of the demised premises was fixed at Rs. 2,000/- per month. The demised premises were, however, not vacated by the company after the expiry of the contractual period of tenancy.2. Some time in the year 1990, the company became sick and consequently it made reference before the Board for Industrial and Financial Re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
1. The present appeal filed under Section 82 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 is directed against the judgment and order dated 15.02.2002 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, ESI Court, Delhi in ESI Petition No.19/99, whereby it was held that the appellant is covered by the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and is not entitled to the relief claimed by it in the petition filed under Section 75 of the Act. 2. The facts leading to the filing of the petition under the aforesaid Act are that the appellant-Company is a private limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 with its registered office at 57, Nehru Place, Manjusha building, 5th Floor, New Delhi-110019. It was established in May, 1969 as a professional Architectural/Engineering Consultancy Organisation having no association with any contractor/manufacturer/supplier and renders comprehensive consultancy services starting from initial fact findin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* + + + + + + + + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:07. 03.2019 Pronounced on:01. 05.2019 ST.APPL. 1/2017, C.M. Appl. No.3884-3885/2017 COMMISSIONER OF TRADE & TAXES, DELHI........ Petitioner SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC INDIA PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent versus ST.APPL. 5/2017, C.M. Appl. No.36948/2017, 36950/2017 COMMISSIONER OF TRADE & TAXES, DELHI ........ Petitioner SUPER AGENCIES ST.APPL. 6/2017 COMMISSIONER OF TRADE & TAXES DELHI ........ Petitioner M/S INGRAM MICRO INDIA LTD ..... Respondent ..... Respondent versus versus VAT APPEAL162016, C.M. Appl. No.29580/2016 M/S HANS RAJ OM PAKASH COMMISISONER TRADE & TAXES & ANR. versus ..... Appellant ..... Respondent VAT APPEAL172016 LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD. COMMISSIONER OF TRADE & TAXES versus ..... Appellant ..... Respondent versus VAT APPEAL182016 LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD. COMMISSIONER OF TRADE & TAXES VAT APPEAL192016, C.M. Appl. No.31746/2016 GE INDIA INDUSTRIAL PVT LTD COMMISSIONER OF TRADE AND TAXES DELHI..... Respondent ..... Resp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : LC2010(1)268
S. Ravindra Bhat, J. 1. This order will dispose off an application IA 12828/2009 whereby the defendants seek dismissal of this suit for injunction, on the ground that this Court lacks territorial jurisdiction.2. The plaintiffs in this suit seek permanent injunction to restrain the defendants or their representatives from using selling, soliciting, exporting, displaying, or advertising their goods and the services under the mark 'SHOLAY', which the plaintiffs owns. The plaintiffs company is engaged in film production, and avers to being one of the foremost concerns in that regard. The suit speaks of the plaintiffs. extensive reputation, and production of prominent and well- known films. It is alleged that the plaintiffs produced the blockbuster 'SHOLAY' in 1975, which became one of the most successful and renowned films ever. The plaintiffs allege that 'SHOLAY' and its appeal has transcended films, and it has cut across barriers of geography, language, ideology and class. It also allude...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 166(2010)DLT391
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.IA No. 12828/20091. This order will dispose of an application IA 12828/2009 whereby the defendants seek dismissal of this suit for injunction.2. The plaintiff in this suit seek permanent injunction to restrain the defendants or their representatives from using selling, soliciting, exporting, displaying, or advertising their goods and the sale of various kinds of cosmetics and personal care products under the trademark 'VOV', which the plaintiff owns. It is contended that the plaintiff company honestly coined and conceived and started using the trademark 'VO5' and 'VO5 along with the term ALBERTO', which is its name. The plaintiff company's name is depicted in small letters about the letter V. The plaintiff has produced photographs depicting its trademark. It claims to be using the Mark continuously since 1955 as its proprietor and have built a valuable trade goodwill and reputation in respect of such products under the trademark in question. The suit averments are a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
..... life insurance corporation act, 1956 would override certain provisions of the companies act, 1956. under section 446(2) of the companies act, 1956, the company court would have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding or claim against a company which is being would up. section 446 of the companies act, 1956 contains a non-obstante clause and its provisions would, thus, override other laws. the life insurance corporation act, 1956, on the other hand, did not contain a non-obstante clause. however, the supreme court held that the life insurance corporation act being a special act would override the provisions of the companies act and the tribunal constituted under the life insurance corporation act ..... record or document from any office. it is apparent that such powers are extensive. 61. section 43 of the competition act also provides for imposition of penalty upon any person who fails to comply with the directions issued by the dg under section 41(2) of the competition act. any person subjected to an investigation would also have to endure the attendant inconvenience and, ..... of trade and/or industry - and, therefore, in conformity with the trips agreement, it enacted provisions for remedying the same by issuance of compulsory licences. 131. however, the provisions of section 84 of the patents act would not be applicable where a period of three years from the grant of licence has not elapsed. in other words, the proprietors of patents enjoy a larger degree of protection during .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1996Delhi415
J.B. Goel, J.(1) The Institute of Applied Manpower Research (for short IAMR) Respondent No. I herein is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act. 1860.(2) The petitioner is in service of IAMR since 24-8-1864 when ha had joined as a Research Assistant and at the relevant time i.e. in 1993-94 he wss holding the post of Chief Grade IT.(3) The petitioner had availed foreign assignments in United Nations Development Programme (for short UNDP) sponsored project in the Republic of Seychelles on four occasions (1) 12-12-1991 to 12-1-1992; (2) 5-4-1992 to 4-6-1992: (3) 1-9-1992 to December, 1992, and (4) from 30-7-1993 to 4-2-1994. His case is that he had proceeded to attend these assignments with the leave and permission of the Institute, Leave for first three assignments was granted but for the further assignment permission/leave was applied and was not refused. After availing this last assignment he had reported for duty on 4-2-1994 but was not allowed to resume work and the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
1. The Petitioner challenges an Award dated 16th June 1990 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal („CGIT) in ID No. 112 of 1990 upholding the validity of the action of Respondent No. 3, Life Insurance Corporation of India („LIC), in removing the Petitioner from service with effect from 11th August 1980. 2. The Petitioner joined the services of the LIC on 4th December 1963 as an Office Assistant. The service conditions of the Petitioner were covered by the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations 1960 („Staff Regulations) framed under Section 49 (2) (b) and (bb) of the Life Insurance Corporation of India Act, 1956 („LIC Act). The Petitioner states that he was an active trade union member and the General Secretary of the Meerut Division of the Insurance Employees Union. He was also at one time its President. The Petitioner states that in April 1975 while he was Joint Secretary of the Central Zone Insurance Employees Federation he broug...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : [1973(27)FLR207]; ILR1973Delhi29; 1974LabIC223
..... article 311, and the reference to article 12 was made only to distinguish the decision of the supreme court in the case of rajasthan state electricity board (supra). (43) in pramodrai shamaldas bhavsar v. life insurance corporation of india, : air1969bom337 , (28) the question arose as to whether the life insurance corporation was an 'authority' within the meaning of article 12 of the constitution. it was pointed out that the life insurance corporation is a statutory corporate body created under the life insurance act, 1956, and that a perusal of the provisions of the act shows clearly that the activity of the corporation is only business activity and it possesses no power which in any manner can be exercised to affect the activities of other citizens ..... of managing agents under the companies act, 1956, and the application of the provisions of the companies act to an industrial concern whose management has been taken over by the corporation. it may be noted that sections 28 and 30a to 30e only make the corporation a kind of preferred corporation in the matter of realization of its dues as compared with other companies incorporated under the companies act. the powers or functions of the corporation under the said sections are not, in our opinion, governmental powers or functions. shri jitendra sharma contended that the provisions in section 30a to 30e of the industrial finance corporation act, are similar to the provisions in section 18a to 18f of the industries (development .....
Tag this Judgment!