Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-15-1989
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
Decided on : May-05-1989
Reported in : 39(1989)DLT87; 1989(17)DRJ53; 1989RLR495
Arun B. Saharya, J.(1) In this second appeal, under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', arising out of an order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated 10th April 1986 affirming order of eviction of the appellant-tenant made by the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act, the main question of law which has arisen is: whether Clause (b) of the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act applies to residential premises let out to a company also. (2) The relevant facts lie within a narrow compass. The appellant is a public company having its registered office at Calcutta. The respondent let out his property No. 1 M-11, Greater Kailash No. 11, New Delhi, hereinafter referred to as the demised premises, to the appellant on terms and conditions contained in a deed of lease executed between the parties on 17th January, 1980. Clause (11) (c) of the lease deed contains one of the lessee's covenants in the followin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jan-18-1989
Reported in : [1990]68CompCas145(Delhi)
1. I have heard arguments for deciding the application. The plaintiff, who is one of the directors of the defendant-company, has filed this suit seeking a decree for a declaration to the effect that the defendant-respondent has no power to reject and/or refuse the appointment of Mr. Brij Anand as an alternate director to the plaintiff and in the alternative a decree for a declaration that the rejection of Mr. Brij Anand as an alternate director to the plaintiff is wholly illegal, invalid, arbitrary and for a declaration that the resolution passed by the board of directors of the respondent in October, 1988 in this respect is illegal and invalid and a relief of mandatory injunction in sought requiring the respondent to appoint Mr. Brij Anand as alternate director to the plaintiff. Along with the suit, the plaintiff had moved an application under order XXXIX rules 1 and 1 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking an interim injunction restraining the respondent from im...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-15-1989
Reported in : ILR1990Delhi16; 1990RLR112
Bahri, J.(1) In this civil revision brought under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act challenging the eviction order dated December 17, 1986, made by an Additional Rent Controller, on the ground of eviction covered by clause (e) of proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), a learned Single Judge has made a reference on the question of law to be decided by this Bench. The relevant portion of the reference remembered order is reproduced as follows : 'The learned Additional Rent Controller has relied on a judgment of this Court in 'Food Corporation of India v. Smt. Usha Bhardwaj' 1986(2) Rcj 52(1), for the proposition that the Rent Controller has no power to extend the period of limitation for putting in appearance and filing an application for leave to defend. I have been referred to two contrary judgments of this Court. The first one is by M. L. Jam, J., in Surinder Kumar v. Prem Kumar. 1980 Rlr 621(2), and t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jan-18-1989
Reported in : [1989]66CompCas363(Delhi); 1989(16)DRJ273
P.K. Bahri, J.(1) Have heard arguments for deciding the application. The plaintiff, who is one of the directors of the defendant/company, has filed this suit seeking decree for declaration to the effect that the defendant- respondent has no power to reject and/or refuse the appointment of Mr. Brij. Anand as an alternate director to the plaintiff and in the alternative a decree for declaration that the rejection of Mr. Brij Anand as an alternate director to the plaintiff is wholly, invalid, arbitrary and for declaration that the resolution passed by the Board of Directors of the respondent in October, 1988 in this respect is illegal and invalid and a relief of mandatory injunction is sought requiring the respondent to appoint Mr. Brij Anand alternate director to the plaintiff. Along with the suit the plaintiff bad moved an application under Order Xxxix Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking interim injunction restraining the respondent from implementing...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-09-1989
Reported in : AIR1989Delhi315a; ILR1989Delhi255
P.N. Nag, J. (1) The petitioners in the present writ petition seek issuance of a writ of mandamus against the respondent directing it to desist from denying or discontinuing the supply of all kinds of lubricants to the petitioner No. I and from ousting, black-listing, coercing or pressurising them from the business of dealing with all kinds of lubricants supplied: by the respondent to them and to continue to supply of all kinds of lubricants to the petitioner No. I firm as was done in the past and for the maintenance of status quo as existed on 27th May, 1983 and for payment of necessary damages for the period from 28th May, 1983, till the date of the filing of the writ petition or till the decision of the writ petition. (2) The relevant facts set out in the pleadings briefly are that the petitioner No. I, M/s Mahabir Auto Stores (hereinafter referred to as 'the firm') is a partnership firm duly registered with the Registrar of Firms at Delhi having its office/shop at C-69, Shivaji Par...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Aug-31-1989
Reported in : [1990]67CompCas589(Delhi)
..... t neither the facts are before us, nor is it proper or necessary to deal with this aspect at this stage. however, the observations or the supreme court in life insurance corporation of india v. escorts ltd. : 1986(8)ecc189 are pertinent. mr. justice o. chinnappa ready, speaking for the court, has pointed that once permission ..... legal heirs of a deceased shareholder can be regarded as members of the company for the purpose of maintaining a petition under sections 397 and 398 of the companies act, 1956, and (ii) whether a composite petition under sections 397, 398 and 433(f) of the companies act, 1956, is maintainable. 2. the admitted facts are briefly set out. as per a certified copy of the annual ..... election by executing a transfer of the share. (3) all the limitations, restrictions and provisions of these regulations relating to the right to transfer and the registration of transfers of shares shall be applicable to any such notice or transfer as aforesaid as if the death or insolvency of the member had not occurred and the notice or transfer were a transfer signed by that ..... act for him, for, how else will the deceased member act this is borne out by the provisions of section 109 of the act and other provisions pertaining to transfer. 43. it is well-settled that succession is not kept in abeyance and the property vests in the legal representatives on death and they can act for the deceased member for the purpose of transfer of shares etc., as is provided in section 109 of the act .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-14-1989
Reported in : [1989]66CompCas149(Delhi)
S. N. Sapra, J.1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellants under section 110D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), against the order dated August 22, 1975 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Delhi. 2. Smt. Chandro Devi, appellant No. 1 and appellants Nos. 2 to 6 are the unfortunate widow and children respectively of deceased Bhartu. The facts in brief are as under: Shri Bhartu, son of Shri Shera, was residing in village Teha Tehsil Sonepat, Haryana, along with his family. On the night of July 7/8, 1968, Shri Bhartu, now deceased, was coming in motor truck No. PNF-8204 driven by Jit Singh, respondent as owner of his goods consisting of vegetables from his village to Subzi Market, Delhi on G.T. Road. When the truck was near mile stone No. 14 on the Grand Trunk Road, another truck, bearing registration No. PNQ-2409, being driven by respondent Sucha Singh, was coming from Delhi and both the vehicles collided with each other and overturned re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on : Aug-28-1989
Reported in : (1989)(24)ECC108
1. The facts relevant to the present appeal are that the appellants have a factory for making P VC coated galvanised steel wires. M/s. IDL Chemicals Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as IDL), another unit, supplied bare steel wires and PVC granules required for the manufacture of coated steel wires to the appellants. The coated steel wires manufactured by the appellants are returned to IDL.2. From the Collector's order it appears that there was some correspondence between the appellants and the Department and a letter dated 8-1-1981 was written by the appellants to the Department.Subsequently, a show cause notice was issued to the appellants and after due process the Collector held that the appellants were liable to pay duty on the full value of the coated wires. He further ordered that the benefit of exemption Notifications No. 89/79 and 105/80 be extended to the appellants to the extent they were eligible. He demanded duty amounting to Rs. 3,94,234.64 paise and imposed a penalty of Rs. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-23-1989
Reported in : AIR1990Delhi186; II(1992)BC546; [1992]73CompCas630(Delhi)
ORDER1. Industrial Finance Corporation of India, (IFCI for short), a statutory body established under the Industrial Finance Corporation Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), advances medium and long term credits, amongst others, to industrial concerns in India, particularly in circumstances where normal banking accommodation is inappropriate or recourse to capital issue methods is impracticable. It is empowered under the Act, inter alia, to grant loans or advances to industrial concerns on the security of mortgage, pledge, hypothecation etc. of moveable and immoveable properties of such industrial concerns.2. The IFCI, as petitioner 1, sets out following facts, which have necessitated a petition to this Court, invoking provisions of S. 30 of the Act:M/s. Century Metals Ltd., a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Company), with its registered office at 86/ 87, Model Basti New Delhi, respondent I herein, is an industrial concern w...
Tag this Judgment!