Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (0.94 seconds)
Documents citing H.V. Jayaram vs Industrial Credit And Investment ... on 15 December, 1999

Sh. Anil Kumar vs Karvy Computers Pvt. Ltd on 22 March, 2012

Onus to prove this issue was on defendant. The defendant has claimed that its registered office is situated at Secunderabad and in view of the same and relying upon H.V. Jayaram Vs. Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation of India Ltd. and Others, X (1999) SLT 474 = AIR 2000 SC 579; Rajaram Corn Producers Punjab Ltd. Vs. Suryakant Nitin Kumar Gupta (HUT) and Others, I (1996) CPJ 233 (NC) = 1996 NCJ 314 and has claimed that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction. The plaintiff had does not denied the contention of the defendant that this Court have the jurisdiction. However the defendant has failed to substantiate his contentions with legal arguments and evidence. In facts of the case the judgmens cited by defendant do not help them and issue is held as not proved.
Delhi District Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Mohna Ramakrishanan And Anr. vs Smt. Yogam Bala Dev Raj And Anr. on 27 September, 2002

In H.V. Jayaram v. Industrial Credit and Investment Corpn. of India Ltd., , the Hon'ble Supreme Court examined the issue of territorial jurisdiction of a Court in respect of the offence under Section 113(2) of the Indian Companies Act, 1956. Taking note of Sections 113 and 207 of the said Act, the Apex Court held that the cause of action for default of not sending the share certificates within the stipulated period would arise only at a place where the registered office of the company was situated as from that place the share certificates could be posted and are usually posted.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 59 - Cited by 1 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

Mohan Bhatia And Ors. vs The State Of Rajasthan And Anr. on 6 May, 2008

In H.V. Jayaram v. Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation of India Ltd. and Ors. , it was held that compliant for offence under Section 113(2) and Section 53 of the Companies Act for non-delivery of share certificates within prescribed time can be filed only where registered office of Company is situated and not where the purchaser is residing.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 24 - Cited by 4 - D N Thanvi - Full Document

Rajendra Kumar Mishra vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 5 October, 2004

In H. V, Jayaram v. Industrial Credit & Investment. Corporation of India IJd, . AIR 2000 SC 579, the Supreme Court examined the issue of territorial jurisdiction of a Court in respect of the offence under Section 113(2) of the Indian Companies Act, 1956. Taking note of Sections 113 and 207 of the said Act, the Court held, that the cause of action for default of not sending the share certificates within the stipulated period would arise.only at a place where the registered office, of the company was situated as from that place the share certificates..could be posted and . are usually posted,.
Allahabad High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 90 - M Katju - Full Document

Shri J.C. Thind, Son Of Shri L.R. Thind vs Union Of India (Uoi), Through Director ... on 20 September, 2005

In H.V. Jayaram v. Industrial Credit & Investment Corpn. of India Ltd., , the Hon'ble Supreme Court examined the issue of territorial jurisdiction of a court in respect of the offence under Section 113(2) of the Indian Companies Act, 1956. Taking note of Sections 113 and 207 of the said Act, the Apex Court held that the cause of action for default of not sending the share certificates within the stipulated period would arise only at a place where the registered office of the company was situated as from that place the share certificates could be posted and are usually posted.
Allahabad High Court Cites 40 - Cited by 1 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

The Karnataka Bank Limited, Head ... vs B. Suresh on 8 January, 2001

". . . . when the company posts the dividend warrant at the registered address of the shareholder, the post office becomes the agent of the shareholder and the loss of a dividend warrant during the transit thereafter is at the risk of the shareholder. The Court further held that the place where the dividend warrant would be posted is the place where the company has its registered office and the offence under Section 207 of the Act would also occur at the place where the failure to discharge that obligation arises, namely, the failure to post the dividend warrant within 42 days...".
Karnataka High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 1 - K R Rao - Full Document

Dinesh Dalmia vs The Commissioner Of Police, Detective ... on 28 March, 2003

After analysing the various provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the contents of the F.I.R therein, and after holding that the Division Bench of Bombay High Court based its decision on the sole consideration that the complainant had filed the complaint at Shillong in the State of Meghalaya, that the High Court did not consider the alternative prayer made in the writ petition to transfer the investigation to Mumbai police, and that the High Court also did not take note of the averments in the writ petition that filing of the complaint at Shillong was a mala fide move on the part of the complainant to harass and pressurise the petitioners to reverse the transaction for transfer of shares, Their Lordships in the above decision arrived at a conclusion that "On the averments made in the writ petition gist of which has been noted earlier it cannot be said that no part of the cause of action for filing the writ petition arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court." In the cases on hand, I have referred to the complaints under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., the contents of both the F.I.Rs. , the report of the Joint Parliamentary Committee and its finding etc. These particulars do not show that any cause of action much less part of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Court. I have already referred to the observation of Their Lordships in the above decision, namely, in so far the question of territorial jurisdiction with reference to the criminal offence is concerned, the main factor to be considered is the place where the alleged offence was committed. Further, in the above decision the Supreme Court has observed that the Bombay High Court did not consider the alternative prayer for transfer of investigation from the State of Meghalaya to Mumbai. There is also allegation regarding mala fide move on the part of the complainant to harass and pressurise the petitioners to reverse the transaction for transfer of shares, and according to the Supreme Court, the same was not considered by the Bombay High Court. Further, a large number of events had taken place at Bombay in respect of the allegations contained in the F.I.R. registered at Shillong. In those circumstances and in the light of the specific averments in the affidavit filed in support of the said writ petition, the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that part of cause of action arose at Bombay, and that the Bombay High Court has jurisdiction to consider the issue raised. That is not the position here and there is no malafide move on the part of the complainants to harass and pressurise the petitioner herein; accordingly the said decision is not helpful to the cases on hand.
Madras High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - P Sathasivam - Full Document

Dinesh Dalmia vs The Commissioner Of Police on 28 March, 2003

After analysing the various provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the contents of the F.I.R therein, and after holding that the Division Bench of Bombay High Court based its decision on the sole consideration that the complainant had filed the co mplaint at Shillong in the State of Meghalaya, that the High Court did not consider the alternative prayer made in the writ petition to transfer the investigation to Mumbai police, and that the High Court also did not take note of the averments in the wr it petition that filing of the complaint at Shillong was a mala fide move on the part of the complainant to harass and pressurise the petitioners to reverse the transaction for transfer of shares, Their Lordships in the above decision arrived at a conclu sion that "On the averments made in the writ petition gist of which has been noted earlier it cannot be said that no part of the cause of action for filing the writ petition arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court." In the cas es on hand, I have referred to the complaints under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., the contents of both the F.I.Rs., the report of the Joint Parliamentary Committee and its finding etc. These particulars do not show that any cause of action much less part of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Court. I have already referred to the observation of Their Lordships in the above decision, namely, in so far the question of territorial jurisdiction with reference to the criminal offence is concer ned, the main factor to be considered is the place where the alleged offence was committed. Further, in the above decision the Supreme Court has observed that the Bombay High Court did not consider the alternative prayer for transfer of investigation fr om the State of Meghalaya to Mumbai. There is also allegation regarding mala fide move on the part of the complainant to harass and pressurise the petitioners to reverse the transaction for transfer of shares, and according to the Supreme Court, the sam e was not considered by the Bombay High Court. Further, a large number of events had taken place at Bombay in respect of the allegations contained in the F.I.R. registered at Shillong. In those circumstances and in the light of the specific averments in the affidavit filed in support of the said writ petition, the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that part of cause of action arose at Bombay, and that the Bombay High Court has jurisdiction to consider the issue raised. That is not the position here and there is no malafide move on the part of the complainants to harass and pressurise the petitioner herein; accordingly the said decision is not helpful to the cases on hand.
Madras High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - P Sathasivam - Full Document

M/S B F L Software vs State on 8 September, 2009

In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the cases of Bibhuti Bhusan Das Gupta & Anr. Vs. State of West Bengal, AIR 1969 SC 381; H.V.Jayaram Vs. Industrial Credit & Investment Corpn. Of India Ltd. & ors., (2000) 2 SCC 202; Basavaraj R. Patil & ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & ors., JT 2000 (Suppl.1) SC 422; and Keya Mukherjee Vs. Magma Leasing Ltd. & Anr., JT 2008 (4) SC 487.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next