Dr. Sunita Chandra (Now S/S) vs U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Human ... on 17 April, 2019
xii) Claude-Lila Parulekar Vs. Sakal Papers (P) Ltd.; (2005) 11 SCC 73.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 89 (1.35 seconds)M/S Nitesh Indiranagar Retail vs Mr. George Thangiah on 23 February, 2022
The
88
Com.A.S 134 of 2018
applicant no.1, vide its letter dated 6.1.2015 at Ex. C60(a)
has expressed that it is able to secure loan of Rs.124 crores
from Bank of Baroda and the sanction letter stipulates
certain modification to the Joint Development Agreement
and therefore, same may be accepted. However, the
defendant has not agreed for it. Thereafter, the respondent
as per Ex.C62, dated 19.1.2015 has expressed that the
applicants have breached and repudiated the obligation
under Joint Development Agreement and he accepted the
same. The Arbitral Tribunal by referring to the decision in
the case of Workmen and others Vs. M/s Hindustan
Levers Limited, reported in (1984) 1 SCC 728 to the
effect that unilateral repudiation of an agreement does not
result in termination of agreement, has opined that there is
no repudiation on the part of the applicants. The Arbitral
Tribunal has not considered unilateral termination as
alleged by the applicants or deemed repudiation by the
applicants as contended by the defendant and the decision
quoted by the applicants in the case of Smt. Claude - Lila
89
Com.A.S 134 of 2018
Parulekar Vs. Sakal Papers Private Limited of the Apex
Court has also been taken note of by the Arbitral Tribunal
and the attempt made by the applicants to secure loan
from Goldman Sachs Ltd., by entering into contract with
said company and in view of the RBI guidelines, requested
the defendant to modify the Joint Development Agreement
to suit the condition. The above two decisions have been
considered by the Arbitral Tribunal and the decision which
was not cited before the Arbitral Tribunal i.e.,
MANU/WP/009/1906 though cited, it has come within the
line of above decision and the ratio laid down is one and
the same. The Arbitral Tribunal, by referring to the
decision cited by learned counsel for the respondent
regarding repudiation, has come to the conclusion that the
claimant wanted to respondent to agree for modifying the
Joint Development Agreement by agreeing for upfront
mortgage of the schedule property to secure the loan, which
was not the desire of the defendant as per the Joint
Development Agreement. So, by referring to the evidence
90
Com.A.S 134 of 2018
as well as materials on record, concluded by holding that
there was no repudiation by the applicants and further, the
respondent have not unilaterally terminated the contract by
holding that mere acceptance of letter, dated 19.1.2015
cannot be treated as repudiation of contract. Accordingly,
negatived contention of both the parties regarding
termination of contract.
Ms. M. Nandana Reddy vs M/S. Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Mining Co. P ... on 24 April, 2023
35. We also take note of the observations of the Hon'ble
Karnataka High Court in the matter of Kobian Pte. Ltd. (supra),
wherein the following is held:-
Smt. Laxmi Devi Newar (Since Deceased) ... vs East India Investment Company Private ... on 28 June, 2006
It cannot even be argued that in the Board meeting held on 15.7.2004, the Board had approved the transmission without production of probate for the reason, the Board has in a way actually approved/ratified the decision of a single director to obtain indemnity bond without specifically mentioning so. In Sakal Paper case the Supreme Court has held that ratification in respect of an act which is incompetent is only possible by a person who would have been competent to do such act. In the present case, when the 6th respondent alone had no competence to seek for indemnity, the Board could not have acted on the basis of the indemnity.
In Re: Legend Technologies (India) ... vs Unknown on 15 February, 2008
The board of directors of the Company at the meeting held on 28.01.2005 approved the transfer of 15000 shares by MJR in favour of the second respondent and the petitioner is a party to such board resolution, approving the impugned transfer, in terms of the relevant attendance sheet, signed by the petitioner. The impugned transfer of 15,000 shares by the petitioner to the second respondent, registered on 28.01.2005 is found disclosed in the annual return made upto 30.09.2005. All these materials would prima facie establish the investment of MJR towards share capital of the Company, the consequent allotment of 15000 shares in his favour by the Company and the subsequent transfer of 15000 shares by the MJR to the second respondent, pursuant to the application made before the RBI for transfer of shares, which is reportedly not a legal requirement. The complaint that the instrument of transfer executed in favour of the second respondent is not in compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 108(1A) of the Act, cannot successfully be made in a Section 397/398 proceeding, in which case, the decision in Smt Claude-Lila Parulekar v. Sakal Properties P. Ltd. (supra), on the mandatory requirement of Section 108 will have no application to the present facts.
Mrs. Saroj Hashmukh Patel And Ors. vs Kantilal Pranalal Patel And Ors. on 23 October, 2007
The plea of non-fulfillment of the requirements of Section 108, which are mandatory as emphasized in Smt. Claude-Lila Parulekar v. Sakal Papers Private Limited and Ors. (Supra) is an after thought on the part of the petitioners and in this connection it is relevant to point out that in a petition under Section 397/398 as held in Vasudev P. Hanji and Ors. v. Ashok Iron Works Private Limited and Ors. (Supra) it is not the legality or illegality of an action which has to be examined, but it is the probity and fairness in relation to the transaction must be considered.
M/S Majbat Tea Estate Ltd vs State on 5 July, 2013
Learned counsel for petitioners have given further reference in the case of Claude-Lila Parulekar (Smt) versus Sakal Papers (P) Ltd & ors reported in (2005) 11 SCC 73. My attention was drawn towards para 48 of the said judgment. It was a case where transfer of of 3417 shares was made contrary to the appellant's right of pre-emption. It was in violation of section 108 of the Companies Act, 1956. The decision therein was given on its facts where terms of contract were altogether different. There non-payment was for want of determination of sale price. The case in hand is not of similar nature rather not only the facts but legal position in reference to it is quite different.
Hemant Priyadarshi vs State on 5 July, 2013
Learned counsel for petitioners have given further reference in the case of Claude-Lila Parulekar (Smt) versus Sakal Papers (P) Ltd & ors reported in (2005) 11 SCC 73. My attention was drawn towards para 48 of the said judgment. It was a case where transfer of of 3417 shares was made contrary to the appellant's right of pre-emption. It was in violation of section 108 of the Companies Act, 1956. The decision therein was given on its facts where terms of contract were altogether different. There non-payment was for want of determination of sale price. The case in hand is not of similar nature rather not only the facts but legal position in reference to it is quite different.
Sushila Sharma vs Cw on 5 July, 2013
Learned counsel for petitioners have given further reference in the case of Claude-Lila Parulekar (Smt) versus Sakal Papers (P) Ltd & ors reported in (2005) 11 SCC 73. My attention was drawn towards para 48 of the said judgment. It was a case where transfer of of 3417 shares was made contrary to the appellant's right of pre-emption. It was in violation of section 108 of the Companies Act, 1956. The decision therein was given on its facts where terms of contract were altogether different. There non-payment was for want of determination of sale price. The case in hand is not of similar nature rather not only the facts but legal position in reference to it is quite different.
Mrs. Kusum Lata Agarwal vs State And Anr on 5 July, 2013
Learned counsel for petitioners have given further reference in the case of Claude-Lila Parulekar (Smt) versus Sakal Papers (P) Ltd & ors reported in (2005) 11 SCC 73. My attention was drawn towards para 48 of the said judgment. It was a case where transfer of of 3417 shares was made contrary to the appellant's right of pre-emption. It was in violation of section 108 of the Companies Act, 1956. The decision therein was given on its facts where terms of contract were altogether different. There non-payment was for want of determination of sale price. The case in hand is not of similar nature rather not only the facts but legal position in reference to it is quite different.