Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.41 seconds)
Documents citing Luxmi Industrial Gases Private Limited vs Punjab Chemi Plant International Ltd. on 19 November, 1998

Evergreen Plywood Industries (P.) Ltd. vs Circular Leasing & Resources (P.) Ltd. on 11 December, 2002

29. The decision reported in the case of Luxmi International Gases (P.) Ltd. v. Punjab Chemi Plant International Ltd. (30) SEBI & Corporate Laws Reports 413 has also no manner of application in the present case and in the said case the notice was received by the respondent-company through its Managing Director which was held to be substantial compliance of Section 434. In the instant case it was not even proved that notice was served upon the Managing Director.
Calcutta High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Evergreen Plywood Industries (P.) Ltd. vs Circular Leasing & Resources (P.) Ltd. on 16 May, 2002

7. He then relied on the case of Bhartiya Gramin Vikas Vitta Nigam Ltd., In re [2000] 27 SCL 249 (All.) wherein a winding up petition was admitted without service of a notice under Section 434. This was a case where the company never appeared. The statutory notice was not served because the office was found closed. It was an ex pane order, no proposition was laid down in this case.
Calcutta High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - G C Gupta - Full Document

Ambica Ginning Pressing Pvt Ltd vs Amazon Ceramics Limited on 5 February, 2025

7.3 Mr.Godiawala learned counsel for the appellant would want us to accept his submission that though the notice was addressed by a company to a company on account of the title of the notices and expect us to accept his submission that the director issuing a notice and the recipient be addressed as the Managing Director being admitted his substantial compliance of the provisions of Section 431 of the Companies Act for which he has relied on the decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court in case of Luxmi Industrial Gases Private Limited (supra), one cannot loose sight of the fact that it is well settled that the company is a distinct juristic company separate from its director.
Gujarat High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - B Vaishnav - Full Document

Isha Distribution House Pvt. Ltd vs Aditya Birla Faashion & Retail Ltd on 29 July, 2016

In Luxmi Industrial Gases Private Limited Vs. Punjab Chemi Plant International Ltd. reported in (2001) 103 Company Cases 429, a Single Bench found on facts that the notice, though not addressed to the Company in that case, had been addressed to its Managing 7 Director. The Single Bench held that it might be true that notice ought to be addressed to the respondent Company and not to the Managing Director but that would matter if the receipt of the notice on the respondent Company was not proved or not admitted. First of all, in the aforesaid case the notice was served on the registered office. In this case notice has been served in Patna. No notice has been served at the registered office which is in Kolkata. Even otherwise we are unable to agree with the view that notice addressed to the Managing Director would amount to substantial compliance of Section 434(1)(a). The statute clearly contemplates service on the Company and at its registered office for attraction of the deeming provision of the Company being unable to pay its debts.
Calcutta High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - I Banerjee - Full Document
1