Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (1.51 seconds)
Documents citing Cotton Corporation Of India vs United Industrial Bank on 19 September, 1983

Orissa Sponge Iron & vs Mrs. Margaret T. Desor And Others on 22 February, 2011

With reference to the above judgments, it was contended on behalf of the appellants that the facts mentioned in C.A.Nos.113, 161, 213, 258 and 295 of 2009 contained certain allegations which did not find place in the main petition. No amendment was sought for by the respondents for amending the Company Petition and therefore, in view of the above decisions, the interim applications should have been dismissed as being beyond the pleadings of the Company Petition. The Company Law Board in the impugned order allowed C.A.Nos.213, 258 and 295 of 2009 so far as it relates to conversion of warrants into equity shares even though there was no such allegation of oppression in the main petition in relation to the said amendments. The Court's jurisdiction regarding orders to be passed in interim applications was considered in the case of Cotton Corporation of India Limited V. United Industrial Bank Limited and others, reported in AIR 1983 Supreme Court 1272 and the relevant portion of the judgment is quoted below:
Orissa High Court Cites 62 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State Of Orissa Through The Collector ... vs Orissa Olympic Association Through ... on 29 November, 2014

9. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the land in question was never part of the leasehold land. At no point of time, the suit land was included in the leasehold land or the land sanctioned to be leased out. This was at best a permissive possession of the plaintiff-Association for parking purpose. According to him, the plaintiff filed the suit and managed to obtain decree from the trial court in collusion with the then Government Pleaders and the officers. This is a very valuable piece of Government land and the suit was filed in order to prevent the statutory authority from passing an order of eviction in exercise of statutory powers under the O.P.L.E. Act. Even though the 6 plaintiff - respondent had appeared in the O.P.L.E. Proceeding through its counsel, it did not file any show cause in the said proceeding much less claiming adverse possession. Rather, an application for injunction was filed before the trial court under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. wherein the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) directed the parties to maintain status quo and the order of status quo ultimately, the said application was dismissed by order dated 27.1.1996 holding that the application for injunction was not maintainable in view of the judgment in the case of Cotton Corporation of India Ltd. V. United Industrial Bank Ltd. And others, AIR 1983 SC 1272, wherein the Hon'ble apex Court vide paragraph- 10 held as follows:-
Orissa High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - B P Ray - Full Document
1