Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (2.47 seconds)
Documents citing Shanita Holdings Sdn vs Shanita Hotel Trichy Pvt. Limited on 13 February, 2009

The Authorised Officer vs K.Panneer Selvam ... 1St on 28 April, 2009

17. The learned Counsel for the first respondent/ plaintiff in support of his contention that exclusion of Civil Court jurisdiction is not to be readily inferred and that the presumption is in favour of existence of Civil Court jurisdiction, relies on the decision of this Court in Shanita Holdings SDN, BHD, Malaysia v. Shanita Hotel Trichy Pvt. Limited reported in 2009 (2) CTC 210 wherein it is held that 'unless a particular matter is specified in Companies Act to be dealt with by Company Court it cannot exercise its jurisdiction merely because it is also a matter which relates to Company and that when no specific remedy is provided under Companies Act, proper remedy is suit and that exclusion of civil jurisdiction is not to be readily inferred and exclusion must either be explicitly or clearly implied and presumption is in favour of existence of civil Court jurisdiction.'
Madras High Court Cites 46 - Cited by 0 - M Venugopal - Full Document

Gemini Communications Limited vs Merrill Lynch International on 11 February, 2014

In Shanita Holdings SDN, BHD, Malaysia and another vs. Shanita Hotel Trichy P. Ltd., and another ((2009) 152 Comp Cas 116 (Mad)), the learned Single Judge of this Court has observed as under:- The exclusion of jurisdiction of the civil court is not to be readily inferred and such exclusion must either be explicitly expressed or clearly implied, in accordance with the principles of statutory interpretation. The presumption is in favour of existence of the jurisdiction rather than exclusion of jurisdiction of the civil courts. 49.
Madras High Court Cites 51 - Cited by 0 - T Mathivanan - Full Document

Aascar Entertainment Private Limited vs A.Chandrasekaran on 5 October, 2018

4.2 The first limb of the triple criteria, whose existence the Courts are required to examine for grant of interim injunction, is the existence of a strong prima facie case. This is founded on a prima facie assessment of the character of the legal-right, to remedy whose violation the suitor institutes an action. With no legally recognisable right in him, the plaintiff has approached the Court and has obtained an order of interim injunction, which is unsustainable in law, and is plainly unjust. Every unjust order, even if the same is passed exparte is appealable. Reliance was placed on Shanita Holdings SDN & Another Vs. Shanita Hotel Trichy Pvt. Limited [2009 (2) CTC 210], The Bengal Club Ltd., Vs. Susanta Kumar Chowdhary [AIR 2003 CALCUTTA 96], M/s.Aristo Printers Pvt. Ltd., Vs. M/s.Purbanchal Trader Centre, Guwahati [(1992) 1 Gauhati Law Reports 81].
Madras High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - N Seshasayee - Full Document

The Prayer Made In This Company ... vs The Official Liquidator on 22 June, 2011

16. Learned counsel for the respondents, thereafter, placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Shanita Holdings SDN, BHD, Malaysia and another vs. Shanita Hotel Trichy Pvt. Limited and another, in 2009 (2) CTC 210, wherein, this Court was pleased to lay down, that where no specific remedy is provided under Companies Act, the proper remedy is the civil suit, as exclusion of civil Court jurisdiction is not to be readily inferred, as exclusion must either explicit or clearly imply.
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - V K Sharma - Full Document
1