Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 60 (5.33 seconds)
Documents citing Erach Boman Khavar vs Tukaram Sridhar Bhat & Ors on 12 December, 2013

Principal Junior Civil Judge vs Administrator-General Of Bengal And ... on 10 December, 2021

In Erach Boman Khavar vs. Tukaram Shridhar Bhat and Ors., the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph No.38 while holding that a subsequent application on the same issue can be filed, had placed a caveat on such subsequent filing. The Hon'ble Supreme Court took the view that a subsequent application would not be permissible if it is found that the earlier application had been disposed of on merits. This observation came up on the peculiar facts of that case. In the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, an earlier application was disposed of, not on merits, but on the basis of a submission made that an application for amendment would not be opposed and subsequently, when such application was made, the same was dismissed on the ground that the earlier application had also been dismissed. It was on account of the fact that the earlier application was not disposed of on merits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court took the view that the subsequent application was maintainable.
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - R R Rao - Full Document

Replenish Realty Pvt. Ltd vs Jigar Bhatt on 31 May, 2024

44. When we look into the provision of Section 171 and Section 446, it is clear that leave of the Court has to be prior to the instituting any proceeding. Thus, the expression 'leave of the Court' and 'prior approval' denotes same meaning i.e. leave of the Court/ prior approval before any proceeding is instituted by the Liquidator. The legislative scheme which was earlier operating in the Companies Act, 1913 and Companies Act, 1956 has been carried forward by the IBC in so far as requirement under Section 33(5) are concerned. We, thus, are of the view that the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Bansidhar Shankarlal vs. Mohd. Ibrahim & Anr." (Supra) and "Erach Boman Khavar v. Tukaram Shridhar Bhat & Anr." (Supra) throw considerable light on interpretation of Section 33(5) of the I&B Code. The submission of the Appellant on this issue is not relevant. In view of the foregoing discussion, we answer Question No.2 and 3 is as follows:
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 75 - Cited by 0 - A Bhushan - Full Document

Mis Slimline Realty Private Limited vs Jigar Bhatt on 31 May, 2024

44. When we look into the provision of Section 171 and Section 446, it is clear that leave of the Court has to be prior to the instituting any proceeding. Thus, the expression 'leave of the Court' and 'prior approval' denotes same meaning i.e. leave of the Court/ prior approval before any proceeding is instituted by the Liquidator. The legislative scheme which was earlier operating in the Companies Act, 1913 and Companies Act, 1956 has been carried forward by the IBC in so far as requirement under Section 33(5) are concerned. We, thus, are of the view that the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Bansidhar Shankarlal vs. Mohd. Ibrahim & Anr." (Supra) and "Erach Boman Khavar v. Tukaram Shridhar Bhat & Anr." (Supra) throw considerable light on interpretation of Section 33(5) of the I&B Code. The submission of the Appellant on this issue is not relevant. In view of the foregoing discussion, we answer Question No.2 and 3 is as follows:
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 75 - Cited by 0 - A Bhushan - Full Document

M/S Winsome Realty Pvt. Ltd vs Jigar Bhatt on 31 May, 2024

44. When we look into the provision of Section 171 and Section 446, it is clear that leave of the Court has to be prior to the instituting any proceeding. Thus, the expression 'leave of the Court' and 'prior approval' denotes same meaning i.e. leave of the Court/ prior approval before any proceeding is instituted by the Liquidator. The legislative scheme which was earlier operating in the Companies Act, 1913 and Companies Act, 1956 has been carried forward by the IBC in so far as requirement under Section 33(5) are concerned. We, thus, are of the view that the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Bansidhar Shankarlal vs. Mohd. Ibrahim & Anr." (Supra) and "Erach Boman Khavar v. Tukaram Shridhar Bhat & Anr." (Supra) throw considerable light on interpretation of Section 33(5) of the I&B Code. The submission of the Appellant on this issue is not relevant. In view of the foregoing discussion, we answer Question No.2 and 3 is as follows:
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 75 - Cited by 0 - A Bhushan - Full Document

Budding Mercantile Company Pvt. Ltd vs Jigar Bhatt on 31 May, 2024

44. When we look into the provision of Section 171 and Section 446, it is clear that leave of the Court has to be prior to the instituting any proceeding. Thus, the expression 'leave of the Court' and 'prior approval' denotes same meaning i.e. leave of the Court/ prior approval before any proceeding is instituted by the Liquidator. The legislative scheme which was earlier operating in the Companies Act, 1913 and Companies Act, 1956 has been carried forward by the IBC in so far as requirement under Section 33(5) are concerned. We, thus, are of the view that the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Bansidhar Shankarlal vs. Mohd. Ibrahim & Anr." (Supra) and "Erach Boman Khavar v. Tukaram Shridhar Bhat & Anr." (Supra) throw considerable light on interpretation of Section 33(5) of the I&B Code. The submission of the Appellant on this issue is not relevant. In view of the foregoing discussion, we answer Question No.2 and 3 is as follows:
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 75 - Cited by 0 - A Bhushan - Full Document

Avocado Realty Pvt. Ltd vs Mr. Jigar Bhatt on 31 May, 2024

44. When we look into the provision of Section 171 and Section 446, it is clear that leave of the Court has to be prior to the instituting any proceeding. Thus, the expression 'leave of the Court' and 'prior approval' denotes same meaning i.e. leave of the Court/ prior approval before any proceeding is instituted by the Liquidator. The legislative scheme which was earlier operating in the Companies Act, 1913 and Companies Act, 1956 has been carried forward by the IBC in so far as requirement under Section 33(5) are concerned. We, thus, are of the view that the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Bansidhar Shankarlal vs. Mohd. Ibrahim & Anr." (Supra) and "Erach Boman Khavar v. Tukaram Shridhar Bhat & Anr." (Supra) throw considerable light on interpretation of Section 33(5) of the I&B Code. The submission of the Appellant on this issue is not relevant. In view of the foregoing discussion, we answer Question No.2 and 3 is as follows:
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 75 - Cited by 0 - A Bhushan - Full Document

Swami Vasudevanand Saraswati Disciple ... vs Jagat Guru Shankarcharya Jyotishpeeth ... on 22 September, 2017

283 471, 472 454, 454 36 Dhanajishaw Vs. Fforde (1887) ILR 11 Bom 649 566 519 37 Dill Vs. Watson, (1836) 2 Jones Rep. (Ir Ex) 48) 319 254 38 Dr. Subramanian Swamy vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2014(5) SCC 75 520, 524 484, 487 39 Erach Boman Khavar Vs. Tukaram Shridhar Bhat and another, 2013(15) SCC 655 531, 535 491, 495 40 Feroze Din and Ors. vs. Nawab Khan and others, AIR 1928 Lahore 432 141 111 41 Free Church of Scotland Vs. Overtoun; 1904 AC 515 319 254 42 Giyana Sambandha Pandara Sannadhi Vs. Kandasami Thambira I.L.R. 10 Mad 375 213, 262, 264 173, 216, 219 43 Gorie Gouri Naidu (Minor) and another Vs. Thandrothu Bodemma and others, AIR 1997 SC 808 473 455 44 Government of Province of Bombay Vs. Peston Ji Ardeshir Wadia AIR 1949 PC 143 501 471 45 Greater Cochin Development Authority Vs. Leelamma Valson, 2002(2) SCC 573 527 489 46 Greedharee Doss Vs. Nandokissore Doss, Mohunt (1867) M.I.A. 405 213 174 47 Guda Vijayalakshmi Vs. Guda Ramchandra Sekhara Sastry, AIR 1981 SC 1143 479 459 48 Gulabchhand Chhotalal Parikh vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 1965 SC 1153 530 490 49 Gulam Abbas Vs. State of U.P., AIR 1981 SC 2199 452 447 50 H. Venkatachala Iyengar vs. B. N. Thimmajamma & others AIR 1959 SC 443 716 642 51 H.H. Shri Swamiji of Shri Amar Mutt and others Vs. Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department and others 1979 (4) SCC 642 276 224 52 Hansraj Gupta and others Vs. Dehradun Mussorie Electric Tramway Company Ltd., AIR 1933 PC 63 484 461 53 Hari Singh vs. Firm Karam Chand-Kanshi Ram, AIR 1927 Lahore 115 140 111 54 Harkirat Singh v. Amrinder Singh (2005) 13 SCC 511 677 610 55 Hook Vs. Administrator General of Bengal 1921 (ILR) 48 (Cal.) 499 (P.C.)
Allahabad High Court Cites 273 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 Next