Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.35 seconds)
Documents citing Dale And Carrington Invt. P. Ltd. And ... vs P.K. Prathapan And Others on 13 September, 2004

Mrs. Malakumar vs M/S. Tata Steel Processing on 9 March, 2022

(P) ltd. And another Vs. P.K. Prathapan and others (supra) and therefore I hold that the complaint in this case was not filed by the company as required under Clause (a) of Section 142 of the Act and on such a complaint no process could have been issued much less a conviction imposed. The said Shri Prashant Shirodkar could not have filed the same merely in his capacity of a Director. He had to file the same only with authorization from the Board of Directors. As already stated, prima facie, it appears that such authorization was issued by the complainant company in favour of Shri Pednekar as can be seen from the copy of power of attorney produced."
Bangalore District Court Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Sangam Enterprises vs M/S Drj Chemicals (P) Ltd on 29 October, 2011

In support of his contention Ld Counsel for appellant has relied upon Dale and Carrington Invt. (Pvt) Ltd and Anr Vs P.K. Prathapan and Ors wherein it has been observed that the " company is a juristic person and it acts through its Directors who are collectively referred to as the Board of Directors. An individual Director has no power to act on behalf of company of which he is a Director unless by some resolution of the Board of Directors of the Company specific power is given to him/her. Whatever decisions are taken regarding running the affairs of the company, they are taken by the Board of Directors".
Delhi District Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Sangam Enterprises vs M/S Drj Chemicals (P) Ltd on 29 October, 2011

In support of his contention Ld Counsel for appellant has relied upon Dale and Carrington Invt. (Pvt) Ltd and Anr Vs P.K. Prathapan and Ors wherein it has been observed that the " company is a juristic person and it acts through its Directors who are collectively referred to as the Board of Directors. An individual Director has no power to act on behalf of company of which he is a Director unless by some resolution of the Board of Directors of the Company specific power is given to him/her. Whatever decisions are taken regarding running the affairs of the company, they are taken by the Board of Directors".
Delhi District Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Sangam Enterprises vs M/S Drj Chemicals (P) Ltd on 29 October, 2011

In support of his contention Ld Counsel for appellant has relied upon Dale and Carrington Invt. (Pvt) Ltd and Anr Vs P.K. Prathapan and Ors wherein it has been observed that the " company is a juristic person and it acts through its Directors who are collectively referred to as the Board of Directors. An individual Director has no power to act on behalf of company of which he is a Director unless by some resolution of the Board of Directors of the Company specific power is given to him/her. Whatever decisions are taken regarding running the affairs of the company, they are taken by the Board of Directors".
Delhi District Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Page No. 1 To 10 M/S Monovik Leasing Ltd. vs . Sanjay Bahri on 24 June, 2013

6. Ld. Counsel for accused contended that CW1 Vipin Kumar is not specifically authorized person on behalf of complainant company to pursue present complaint case. CW1 Vipin Kumar admitted during his cross examination that document CW1/A is not specific authorization for present case and no litigation between complainant and accused was pending on between 23.11.1998 to 17.11.1999 as document Ex. CW1/A and marked B are dated. Accordingly, Ld. Counsel for accused questioned the legal competence of CW1 Vipin Kumar as witness / Authorized representative of complainant company. (Vide Dale & Carrington Invt. (P) Ltd. and Anr. V. P. K. Prathapan and Ors. MANU/SC/478/2004: (2005)1SCC212 ). The court is also aware of basic rule of interpretation as to criminal law has to be construed strictly and life and liberty of a person should not be deprived except process established by the law.
Delhi District Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Sangam Enterprises vs M/S Drj Chemicals (P) Ltd on 29 October, 2011

In support of his contention Ld Counsel for appellant has relied upon Dale and Carrington Invt. (Pvt) Ltd and Anr Vs P.K. Prathapan and Ors wherein it has been observed that the " company is a juristic person and it acts through its Directors who are collectively referred to as the Board of Directors. An individual Director has no power to act on behalf of company of which he is a Director unless by some resolution of the Board of Directors of the Company specific power is given to him/her. Whatever decisions are taken regarding running the affairs of the company, they are taken by the Board of Directors".
Delhi District Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Page No. 1 To 8 Sanjeev vs . Narender Kaur on 15 February, 2013

7. From the testimony of complainant in his cross examination it is clear that accused was member of some chit fund run by complainant and she had repaid at least 16 installments of chit fund. It is also clear from the testimony of complainant that there were three directors of SRD Chit fund Pvt. Ltd. and no resolution of director has been filed by the complainant for launching present criminal complaint case on behalf of chit fund. Here, ld. Counsel for accused contends that complainant namely Sanjeet could not have filed present complaint case in his own name or just in capacity of individual director or MD of SRD Chit fund without any supported resolution of board of director. Court is aware of observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India made in M. M. T. C Ltd & Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. & Anr. 2002 ALLMR (Cri) 230 (S.C) and Dale and Carrington Invt. (P) Ltd. Vs. P. K. Prathapan and Ors. Dt. 13.09.2004.
Delhi District Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

By Way Of The Present Judgment vs Power Set India( P) Ltd Page No. 1 Of Pages ... on 20 October, 2012

Ashok Bampto Pagui v. Agencia Real Canacona (P) Ltd 2007 Crilj 4645 (Decided by High Court of Bombay at Goa), it was observed that The Apex Court in M/s MMTC Ltd and Anr, v. M/s Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd and Anr. (supra) was dealing with the case at the initial stage of quashing the proceedings and considering that the Apex Court observed that even presuming that initially there was no authority, still the Company can, at any stage, rectify that defect.
Delhi District Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1