Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 228 (0.94 seconds)
Documents citing Siddalingamma And Anr vs Mamtha Shenoy on 18 October, 2001

Southern Ancillaries Private Limited, ... vs Southern Alloy Foundaries Private ... on 28 March, 2003

" An amendment once incorporated relates back to the date of the suit. However, the doctrine of relation back in the context of amendment of pleadings is not one of universal application and in appropriate cases, the Court is competent while permitting an amendment to direct that the amendment permitted by it shall not relate back to the date of the suit and to the extent permitted by it shall be deemed to have been brought before the Court on the date on which the application seeking the amendment was filed. (See observations in Siddalingamma and another v. Mamtha Shenoy . ".
Madras High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 13 - M Chockalingam - Full Document

In Re: Firebricks And Potteries Private ... vs Unknown on 13 March, 2008

This conversion of RCPS into equity shares of the Company, resulted in reduction of the shares held by the petitioner from 15.60% to 1.42 %. The petitioner while claiming reliefs under Section 397/398, has inter-alia sought for declaration that the issue of 40,000 cumulative preference shares of Rs. 100/- be declared as null and void. The petitioner further by means of an application (C.A. No. 215 of 2006) prayed that the conversion of 32500 RCPS into equity shares be null and void for the reasons elaborated therein, upon which the petitioner was permitted by an order dated 12.01.2007 to amend the company petition in terms of the prayer made in C.A. No. 215 of 2006. The present sequence of events would show that the issue as well as conversion of RCPS into equity shares is under challenge in the main proceedings, pursuant to allowing of the amendment application (CA No. 215 of 2006) and on account of the principles of doctrine of relation back as enunciated in Siddalingamma v. Mmamtha Shenoy (Supra), which, ultimately caused reduction in the share holding of the petitioner from 15.60% to 1.42%. The validity of the issue of RCPS and conversion of such RCPS into equity shares involving substantial factual matters cannot be adjudicated as preliminary issue but only while disposing the company petition on merits. If the petitioner succeeds in his charges against the respondents in the matter of the issue conversion of RCPS into equity shares and in the event of any likelihood of setting aside the issue of RCPS or conversion of RCPS into equity shares, the petitioner will continue to hold 15.60% of the paid up capital of the Company, qualifying him to agitate his grievances under Section 307/308. If on the other hand, the issue of RCPS as well as conversion of RCPS into equity shares is upheld by this Bench, the share holding of the petitioner would get validly reduced to 1.42%, in which case he shall not have any right to maintain the main petition.
Company Law Board Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ganpat Lal Gupta And Ors. vs Vth Additional District Judge And Ors. on 21 March, 2003

Rukhmabai v. Lala Laxminarayan and Ors., AIR 1960 SC 335 and Siddalingamma and Anr. v. Mamtha Shenoy, (2001) 8 SCC 561. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that such an application should be allowed even if it is filed at a belated stage. The Supreme Court further held that it is not permissible for the trial court to examine the correctness or genuineness of the contents of the application at the time of entertainment stage in such an application, observing as under :
Allahabad High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 2 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

Barun Kumar Malviya vs Anil Kumar Malviya on 15 October, 2019

However, the stand has been taken that the said fact came into notice of the petitioner when the written statement has been filed and the said fact has been placed therein but the question is that the registered sale deed dated 16.10.2004 is being sought to be quashed in a partition suit filed in the year 2015 and as such, the same will lead to the question of limitation as has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajkumar Gurawara vs. S.K. Sarwagi and Company Private Limited and Anr. (supra) and Revajeetu Builder and Developers vs. Narayanaswamy and Sons and Ors. (supra) that the amendment is fit to be disallowed if a fresh suit on the amended claim would be barred by limitation on the date of application and further as has been held in the case of Siddalingamma and Anr. vs. Mamtha Shenoy (supra) that where amendment it relates back to the date of institution of original suit.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - S N Prasad - Full Document

Yalamanchili Santhosh Kumar vs Molli Appala Naidu on 23 September, 2023

10. An amendment once incorporated relates back to the date of the suit. However, the doctrine of relation-back in the context of amendment of pleadings is not one of universal application and in appropriate cases the court is competent while permitting an amendment to direct that the amendment permitted by it shall not relate back to the date of the suit and to the extent permitted by it shall be deemed to have been brought before the court on the date on which the application seeking the amendment was filed. [See observations in Siddalingamma v. Mamtha Shenoy AIR 2001 SC 2896]."
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Vidyasagar Parchuri Suspended ... vs State Bank Of India on 16 October, 2023

However, the doctrine of relation back in the context of amendment of pleadings is not one of universal application and in appropriate cases the Court is competent while permitting an amendment to direct that the amendment permitted by it shall not relate back to the date of the suit and to the extent permitted by it shall be deemed to have been brought before the Court on the date on which the application seeking the amendment was filed. (See observation in Siddalingamma and Anr. v. Mamtha Shenoy MANU/SC/0657/2001 : 8 SCC 561.''
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 50 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Khyali Ram vs Mahaveer Prasad on 15 October, 2009

In Siddalingamma and another Vs. Mamtha Shenoy (supra) while considering the expression 'bonafide requirement of landlord' the Apex Court held that Rent control legislation generally leans in favour of the tenant; it is only the provision for seeking eviction of the tenant on the ground of bona fide requirement of the landlord for his own occupation or use of the tenanted accommodation which treats the landlord with some sympathy. It was further held that the question to be asked by a judge of facts, by placing himself in the place of the landlord, is, whether in the given facts proved by the material on record the need to occupy the premises can be said to be natural, real, sincere, honest. If the answer be in the positive the need is bona fide. The concept of bona fide need or genuine requirement needs a practical approach instructed by the realities of life. An approach either too liberal or too conservative or pedantic must be guarded against. If the landlord wishes to live with comfort in a house of his own, the law does not command or compel him to squeeze himself and dwell in lesser premises so as to protect the 11 SBCSA No. 181/03 tenant's continued occupation in tenancy premises.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - H R Panwar - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next