Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.33 seconds)
Documents citing Ramkumar Potdar vs The Sholapur Spinning And Weaving Co. ... on 22 March, 1934

National Thermal Power Corporation ... vs Spectrum Power Generation Ltd. And Ors. on 5 November, 1997

The learned Senior Counsel relied upon the judgment of the Privy Council in British America Nickel Corporation Limited and Others v. M.j. O'Brien Limited and the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Ramkumar Potdar v. Sholapur Spinning & Weaving Co. Ltd., Air 1934 Bombay 427. In my view, the proposition as contended for by the learned senior Counsel would not apply to the situation and I don't want to dilate any further on this aspect. The learned senior Counsel submitted that the Ntpc and the St Usa have not made out any case for injunction or for the appointment of a Receiver.
Delhi High Court Cites 38 - Cited by 0 - K Ramamoorthy - Full Document

Mothey Krishna Rao vs Grandhi Anjaneyulu And Ors. on 29 October, 1952

In -- 'Ramkumar Potdar v. Sholapur Spinning & Weaving Co. Ltd.', AIR 1934 Bom 427 (F), a Bench of the Bombay High Court held that the Court does not interfere with the internal management of the affairs of a company and that, if a majority of shareholders consider that a particular contract of employment should be terminated, the Court would not ordinarily consider the matter at the instance of a minority of shareholders. It further held that the memorandum of association of a limited company does not constitute a contract between the company and the third party, who may be mentioned therein and that the Court would not make an order, the effect of which would be to enforce specifically a contract of personal service.
Madras High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

Firm Al. Ar. Arunachalam Chettiar And ... vs Kaleeswarar Mills Ltd., Coimbatore And ... on 14 August, 1956

21. The question in the present case, therefore, is whether the normal remedy of a suit is not available to the petitioners, as an adequate remedy. As stated already, the object of the present writ is to direct the respondents to forbear from enforcing in any manner the resolution passed by respondents 2 to 9 on 7th April, 1956. It is for the petitioners to satisfy the Court that they cannot get that remedy in a regular action for mandamus. Ordinarily, it must be held that such an action would lie. But their learn d counsel, Mr. Nambiar, contended that in the circumstances of the present case, a suit for that specific remedy will not be maintainable and in support of his contention, he relied on the following decisions: Mothey Krishnarao v. Anjaneyalu, (W); Ramkumar Potdar v, Sholapur Spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd.. ILR 59 Bom 218: (AIR 1934 Bom 427 (X); Boulton Bros.
Madras High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Chandulal And Co. Ltd. And Ors. vs Natwarlal Chunilal Bhalakia And Ors. on 25 November, 1955

In that case the suit of the plaintiff was for a declaration that certain resolutions passed by the directors for the dismissal of the Company's agents were in contravention of the memorandum End articles of association of the company and were not binding on the members of the company. The plaintiff's argument in that case also was that the rights of the agents arose under the Memorandum of association of the Company and therefore could not be altered. But the argument was held to be quite untenable.
Bombay High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1