Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-07-2017
..... from doing so, nor was the lic bound to disclose its reasons for moving the resolution. 73.5 the learned single judge has, in 43 of the impugned judgement, sought to distinguish l.i.c. of india (supra) thus: the judgement of the supreme court in life insurance corporation (supra)relied on by the learned counsel for the defendants, in my view, is not applicable in the facts of the present case. the supreme court in the said judgement was not considering a provision like section 169 which specifically confers an opportunity of being heard. (emphasis supplied) 73.6 we are unable to concur with the opinion, expressed ..... before the high court (who were two of the directors of the bank) moved the trial court on the ground, inter alia, that the convening of the said meeting fao (os) 253/2017 page 107 of 116 had to be accompanied by an explanatory statement, as provided in section 173 of the companies act, 1956 (corresponding to section 100 of the present act). as in the present case, the contention, of the said aggrieved directors, was that a very cryptic explanatory statement has been annexed to the notice which states that the other directors have no interest in the item of business and only states that a requisition has been .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-22-2017
..... manufacturing company vs. life insurance corporation of india (1980) 4 scc435to contend that the scope and object of the public premises (eviction of unautorized occupants) act, 1971 and the rent control act has been held to be different and the rent control act has been held to be of much wider application than the public premises act inasmuch as it applies to all private premises which do not fall within the limited exceptions indicated in section 2 of the public premises act and (v) thus ..... 28 of 34 incorporated under section 25 of the companies act, 1956 equivalent to section 8 of the companies act, 2013 may also be a public institution; (iv) that the explanation to section 22 is inclusive and not exclusive or exhaustive; (v) that every section of the rent control act entitling the landlord to evict the tenant is distinct; (vi) special provision is made for the requirement of landlords falling in sections 14a to 14d even though their cases would have been covered by section 14(1)(e); (vii) that ..... company requires the premises for use of its employees, it is section 22 alone which would be applicable and not section 14(1)(e). there is thus an inconsistency in the two judgments of coordinate benches of this court.43. i am also, with respect, unable to agree with the reasoning given in canara bank (supra) for section 22 to be not available to such a landlord i.e. of neither of the clauses of section 22 being applicable. as enquired by me during the hearing and recorded above, i .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-22-2017
..... manufacturing company vs. life insurance corporation of india (1980) 4 scc435to contend that the scope and object of the public premises (eviction of unautorized occupants) act, 1971 and the rent control act has been held to be different and the rent control act has been held to be of much wider application than the public premises act inasmuch as it applies to all private premises which do not fall within the limited exceptions indicated in section 2 of the public premises act and (v) thus ..... 28 of 34 incorporated under section 25 of the companies act, 1956 equivalent to section 8 of the companies act, 2013 may also be a public institution; (iv) that the explanation to section 22 is inclusive and not exclusive or exhaustive; (v) that every section of the rent control act entitling the landlord to evict the tenant is distinct; (vi) special provision is made for the requirement of landlords falling in sections 14a to 14d even though their cases would have been covered by section 14(1)(e); (vii) that ..... company requires the premises for use of its employees, it is section 22 alone which would be applicable and not section 14(1)(e). there is thus an inconsistency in the two judgments of coordinate benches of this court.43. i am also, with respect, unable to agree with the reasoning given in canara bank (supra) for section 22 to be not available to such a landlord i.e. of neither of the clauses of section 22 being applicable. as enquired by me during the hearing and recorded above, i .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-22-2017
..... manufacturing company vs. life insurance corporation of india (1980) 4 scc435to contend that the scope and object of the public premises (eviction of unautorized occupants) act, 1971 and the rent control act has been held to be different and the rent control act has been held to be of much wider application than the public premises act inasmuch as it applies to all private premises which do not fall within the limited exceptions indicated in section 2 of the public premises act and (v) thus ..... 28 of 34 incorporated under section 25 of the companies act, 1956 equivalent to section 8 of the companies act, 2013 may also be a public institution; (iv) that the explanation to section 22 is inclusive and not exclusive or exhaustive; (v) that every section of the rent control act entitling the landlord to evict the tenant is distinct; (vi) special provision is made for the requirement of landlords falling in sections 14a to 14d even though their cases would have been covered by section 14(1)(e); (vii) that ..... company requires the premises for use of its employees, it is section 22 alone which would be applicable and not section 14(1)(e). there is thus an inconsistency in the two judgments of coordinate benches of this court.43. i am also, with respect, unable to agree with the reasoning given in canara bank (supra) for section 22 to be not available to such a landlord i.e. of neither of the clauses of section 22 being applicable. as enquired by me during the hearing and recorded above, i .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-22-2017
..... manufacturing company vs. life insurance corporation of india (1980) 4 scc435to contend that the scope and object of the public premises (eviction of unautorized occupants) act, 1971 and the rent control act has been held to be different and the rent control act has been held to be of much wider application than the public premises act inasmuch as it applies to all private premises which do not fall within the limited exceptions indicated in section 2 of the public premises act and (v) thus ..... 28 of 34 incorporated under section 25 of the companies act, 1956 equivalent to section 8 of the companies act, 2013 may also be a public institution; (iv) that the explanation to section 22 is inclusive and not exclusive or exhaustive; (v) that every section of the rent control act entitling the landlord to evict the tenant is distinct; (vi) special provision is made for the requirement of landlords falling in sections 14a to 14d even though their cases would have been covered by section 14(1)(e); (vii) that ..... company requires the premises for use of its employees, it is section 22 alone which would be applicable and not section 14(1)(e). there is thus an inconsistency in the two judgments of coordinate benches of this court.43. i am also, with respect, unable to agree with the reasoning given in canara bank (supra) for section 22 to be not available to such a landlord i.e. of neither of the clauses of section 22 being applicable. as enquired by me during the hearing and recorded above, i .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-22-2017
..... manufacturing company vs. life insurance corporation of india (1980) 4 scc435to contend that the scope and object of the public premises (eviction of unautorized occupants) act, 1971 and the rent control act has been held to be different and the rent control act has been held to be of much wider application than the public premises act inasmuch as it applies to all private premises which do not fall within the limited exceptions indicated in section 2 of the public premises act and (v) thus ..... 28 of 34 incorporated under section 25 of the companies act, 1956 equivalent to section 8 of the companies act, 2013 may also be a public institution; (iv) that the explanation to section 22 is inclusive and not exclusive or exhaustive; (v) that every section of the rent control act entitling the landlord to evict the tenant is distinct; (vi) special provision is made for the requirement of landlords falling in sections 14a to 14d even though their cases would have been covered by section 14(1)(e); (vii) that ..... company requires the premises for use of its employees, it is section 22 alone which would be applicable and not section 14(1)(e). there is thus an inconsistency in the two judgments of coordinate benches of this court.43. i am also, with respect, unable to agree with the reasoning given in canara bank (supra) for section 22 to be not available to such a landlord i.e. of neither of the clauses of section 22 being applicable. as enquired by me during the hearing and recorded above, i .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-22-2017
..... manufacturing company vs. life insurance corporation of india (1980) 4 scc435to contend that the scope and object of the public premises (eviction of unautorized occupants) act, 1971 and the rent control act has been held to be different and the rent control act has been held to be of much wider application than the public premises act inasmuch as it applies to all private premises which do not fall within the limited exceptions indicated in section 2 of the public premises act and (v) thus ..... 28 of 34 incorporated under section 25 of the companies act, 1956 equivalent to section 8 of the companies act, 2013 may also be a public institution; (iv) that the explanation to section 22 is inclusive and not exclusive or exhaustive; (v) that every section of the rent control act entitling the landlord to evict the tenant is distinct; (vi) special provision is made for the requirement of landlords falling in sections 14a to 14d even though their cases would have been covered by section 14(1)(e); (vii) that ..... company requires the premises for use of its employees, it is section 22 alone which would be applicable and not section 14(1)(e). there is thus an inconsistency in the two judgments of coordinate benches of this court.43. i am also, with respect, unable to agree with the reasoning given in canara bank (supra) for section 22 to be not available to such a landlord i.e. of neither of the clauses of section 22 being applicable. as enquired by me during the hearing and recorded above, i .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-22-2017
..... manufacturing company vs. life insurance corporation of india (1980) 4 scc435to contend that the scope and object of the public premises (eviction of unautorized occupants) act, 1971 and the rent control act has been held to be different and the rent control act has been held to be of much wider application than the public premises act inasmuch as it applies to all private premises which do not fall within the limited exceptions indicated in section 2 of the public premises act and (v) thus ..... 28 of 34 incorporated under section 25 of the companies act, 1956 equivalent to section 8 of the companies act, 2013 may also be a public institution; (iv) that the explanation to section 22 is inclusive and not exclusive or exhaustive; (v) that every section of the rent control act entitling the landlord to evict the tenant is distinct; (vi) special provision is made for the requirement of landlords falling in sections 14a to 14d even though their cases would have been covered by section 14(1)(e); (vii) that ..... company requires the premises for use of its employees, it is section 22 alone which would be applicable and not section 14(1)(e). there is thus an inconsistency in the two judgments of coordinate benches of this court.43. i am also, with respect, unable to agree with the reasoning given in canara bank (supra) for section 22 to be not available to such a landlord i.e. of neither of the clauses of section 22 being applicable. as enquired by me during the hearing and recorded above, i .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-20-2017
$~ * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:20. 12.2017 LPA8042017 & CM Nos.46598-46600/2017 INTEC INDIA LIMITED ..... Appellant Through: Dr. Amit George with Mr. Prashant Sharma, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Ms. Shubhra Parashar, Adv. for R-1/UOI. Mr. Arun Kumar, Adv. for R-2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. CHAWLA S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.(ORAL) 1. Complaining of arbitrariness, the appellant had sought the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution in respect of the detention/demurrage charges for two months (from 14.08.2016 to 15.10.2016) claimed by the respondent (hereafter CONCOR) to the extent of `6,04,686/-. The appellants contention was that the materials on the record produced before the Single Judge revealed that CONCOR was beneficiary as lessee of public lands for which it paid an extremely subsidised fee. The learned Single Judge rejected the plea of arbitrariness and held that the dete...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-19-2017
$~209 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 11352/2017 MS. SHIKHA KHULLAR ........ Petitioner Through: Ms Sikha Sapra and Mr Sumit Chander, Advocates. versus LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA ..... Respondent Through: Mr Vishwendra, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU % ORDER1912.2017 VIBHU BAKHRU, J CM No.46385/2017 1.2. Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed of. W.P.(C) 11352/2017 and CM No.46386/2017 3. The petitioner has filed the present petitioner impugning a communication dated 05.09.2017 issued by the respondent.4. The petitioner is essentially aggrieved on two counts. First that the respondent has held that she is not entitled to Renewal Commission on discontinuation of her agency. According to the respondent, the petitioner would be entitled to such Renewal Commission after her ceasing to be an agency, only if she does not directly or indirectly solicit or procure or W.P.(C) 11352/2017 Page 1 of 6 pr...
Tag this Judgment!