Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.53 seconds)
Documents citing Techno Metal India (P.) Ltd. vs Prem Nath Anand on 17 August, 1973

Madanlal Patodia And Ors. vs Luxminarayan Cotton Mills Ltd. And Ors. on 13 November, 1975

Ltd. v. Prem Nath Anand [1973] 43 Comp Cas 556 (Cal), dealing with the question of limitation in an application under the Companies Act and submitted that the application cannot be said to be barred by limitation. He further submitted that the decisions cited by Mr. P. N. Chatterjee appearing on behalf of the company have no application to the facts of this case as the application before the Company Law Board under Section 111 of the Companies Act, 1956, by way of appeal against the refusal by the company to register the shares, is an alternative remedy to an application for registration of shares. He submitted that in the facts of this case the application should be allowed.
Calcutta High Court Cites 41 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

In Re: Modiluft Ltd. (Now Known As Royal ... vs Unknown on 29 July, 2003

(e) The scheme cannot be stalled at the initial stages on the ground of time bound debts being excluded in view of the settled positions of law as elucidated by the judgment in Techno Metal India (P) Ltd. vs. Prem Nath Anand reported as (1973) 43 Co. Cases 556 (Cal) as well as the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Diwan Chand Kapoor vs New Rialto Cinema (P) Ltd. reported as (1987) 62 Comp. Cases 810.
Delhi High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - M Mudgal - Full Document

In Re: Echjay Industries (P.) Ltd. vs Unknown on 16 April, 2004

It is next contended that the applicants were seeking execution of the order dated 3rd September, 1986 and that order was in the nature of a decree, for which reason, recourse to execution proceedings ought to have been taken by the Applicants within the period provided for by Article 136, or, for that matter, Article 137 of the Limitation Act. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Re : Nilesh Lalit Parekh , which has clearly held that Section 634 of the Companies Act, 1956, applies to any order made by the Court under that Act and for which reason, it will have to be enforced in the same manner as a decree made by a Court in a suit pending therein. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Techno Metal India (P.) Ltd, v. Prem Math Anand [1973] 43 Comp. Cas. 556, wherein it was held, inter alia, that the petition filed under the Companies Act, having been filed within 12 years as provided by Article 136 of the Limitation Act, it was within time. Reliance is placed on those observations to contend that the provisions of the Limitation Act apply with full force to application, such as the present one. It was thus contended that the present application having been filed 12 years after the date of the order dated 3rd September, 1986, the same was barred not only by Article 136, but also by Article 137 of the Limitation Act. It was next contended that the applicants have taken recourse to parallel proceedings. It is submitted that the Applicants having filed proceedings before the Authority under the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act cannot seek the same relief by way of present application. Even on this count, the maintainability of the present application was questioned. It was lastly contended that the parties were governed by the directions issued by the two experts, who were appointed by the Family Arrangement dated 27th May, 1983 and the Supplemental Family Arrangement dated 6th June, 1984. It was contended that even the Scheme of compromise or Arrangement as sanctioned by this Court dated 3rd September, 1986 recognises that position. In other words, the decision of the two experts as to the construction of the scheme or as to any account, valuation, apportionment to be taken or made of any property or liability to be transferred or as to anything contained in the Scheme shall be decided by the two experts, whose decision shall be final and binding on all concerned. It is the case of the Respondents that the said two experts, in fact, gave directions from time to time, which were forwarded to the parties under covering letter dated 12th September, 1986. The relevant directions are item Nos. 2 and 3 of the letter dated 11th September, 1984 and 13th June, 1985. Relying on the said directions, it was contended that the Applicants were not entitled for the reliefs as claimed in this application.
Bombay High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - A M Khanwilkar - Full Document

500 003 And Zonal Office At Unit No. 5 vs Atcom Technologies Ltd on 26 March, 2014

10. That is not the case here. The petition is based entirely on the decretal debt, not the underlying cause of action. Limitation would be governed not by Article 137 but by Article 136, and that provides a period of 12 years from the date when the decree is enforceable. 5 It is also settled that winding up is an equitable mode of execution. 6 4 (2002) ILR 1 Cal 31 5 Techno Metals India (P) Ltd v Prem Nath Anand, [1973] 43 Comp Cas 556 (Cal) 6 Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd. v M.W. Pradhan, [1966] 36 Comp Cas 426 (SC) : AIR 1966 SC 1707
Bombay High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - G S Patel - Full Document

Daddy S. Mazda And Ors. vs K.R. Irani on 28 May, 1974

26. Before concluding, however, we should note one other contention on behalf of the appellants, namely, that the application is barred by limitation. Counsel for the respondent sought to repel this contention by relying upon a Bench decision of this court in Techno Metal India (P.) Ltd. v. Prem Nath Anand [1973] 43 Comp Cas 556 (Cal) We do not wish to express any opinion on this question as we propose to remand this matter to the trial court to be tried on evidence and we accordingly leave the question of limitation urged on behalf of the appellants open. It will be for the trial court to deal with this question when the matter will be heard and disposed of on remand.
Calcutta High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 9 - Full Document
1