Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.48 seconds)
Documents citing Daddy S. Mazda And Ors. vs K.R. Irani on 28 May, 1974

Durga Finance Ltd. vs Rungta Irrigation Ltd. And Ors. on 31 August, 2004

In the case of Daddy S. Mazda v. K.K. Rani it is held that serious charges of fraud, forgery impersonation and falsification where serious disputed question of facts were involved in an application under Section 155 of the Companies Act, 1956, it was not open to the company court to make an order for rectification without taking evidence on the disputed questions of fact or without relegating the parties to a suit.
Company Law Board Cites 22 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Shiv Dayal Agarwal And Ors. vs Sidhartha Polyster Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. on 9 August, 1995

This discretion available in view of complicated questions of facts and law has been affirmed in a number of cases decided by various High Courts, namely, Laxminarayan Bhayya v. Praga Tools Corporation Ltd. [1953] 23 Comp Cas 198 (Hyd), Dady S. Mazda v. K. R. Irani [1977] 47 Comp Cas 39 (Cal), Public Trustee v. Rajeshwar Tyagi [1973] 43 Comp Cas 371 (Delhi), Joginder Singh v. Basawa Singh [1985] 58 Comp Cas 843 (P & H), S. Gurucharan Singh Mahant v. Rattan Sports (P.) Ltd. [1986] 59 Comp Cas 279 (P & H).
Company Law Board Cites 40 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

M/S Sethi Constructions. vs M/S Designs on 22 May, 2015

We have heard the submission made by both sides.  The Learned Counsel for the Misc. Applicant has referred to the decisions reported in 78 CWN 872 [Daddy S. Mazda & Ors vs. K. R. Irani]; (2009) 7 SCC 412 [State of Orissa vs. Prasanna Kumar Mohanty]; (1989) 3 SCC 56 [Gopal Saran vs. Satyanarayana].  The Complainant has filed written objection against the Miscellaneous Application contending that the transaction is not at all commercial in nature.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1