Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 64 (1.15 seconds)
Documents citing Ganapati Sitaram Balvalkar And Another vs Waman Shripad Mage (Since Dead) Through ... on 10 August, 1981

Lovepreet Singh vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 27 January, 2021

Reference is also made to Ganapati Sitaram Balvalkar and another v. Waman Shripad Mage AIR 1981 Supreme Court 1956, and State of Orissa and others v. Titaghur Paper Mills Company Limited and another, 1985 (Supp.) SCC 280. It will be seen that none of the cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners dealt with a case where the latter Benches may have analysed and explained the earlier judgment of the larger Bench of the Supreme Court. The abstract proposition that where there is a conflict between the law declared by a larger Bench and a smaller Bench, the former will prevail, does not help in resolving the present problem. In the present case, the smaller Benches analysed and explained the earlier Judgment of the Constitution Bench.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 5 - H S Sethi - Full Document

In Re: Sakow Industries P. Ltd. (In ... vs Unknown on 6 March, 1986

13. Thereafter, the Division Bench considered the question as to whether it was really a case of court sale and whether even though the company voluntarily could not sell or transfer the assets, the official liquidator acting under the direction and control of the court, in exercise of the statutory power could effect such sale. It was contended on behalf of the appellant that the official liquidator was merely acting as an agent of the company and could not sell what the company was not empowered to transfer. The Division Bench accepted this contention of the appellant and held that the corporate existence of a company does not come to an end as soon as an order for winding-up of the company is passed. The assets in the custody of the liquidator continue to be the assets of the company. It was pointed out that the sale that was made in that case was by the official liquidator under the provisions of Section 456 on behalf of the company and was made in the name of the company. It was pointed out that the property of the company after the winding-up order did not vest in the official liquidator and that under Section 456 of the Companies Act, the liquidator merely had custody and control of the assets of the company.
Calcutta High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S. Subbhash Chander Kamlesh Kumar vs State Of Punjab And Others on 9 March, 1990

Reference is also made to Ganpati Sitaram Belvakar v. Waman Shripad Mage, AIR 1981 SC 1956, and State of Orissa v. Titaghur Paper Mills Company Limited, 1985 Supp SCC 280: (AIR 1985 SC 1293). It will be seen that none of the cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners dealt with a case where the latter Benches may have analysed and explained the earlier judgment of the larger Bench of the Supreme Court. The abstract proposition that where there is a conflict between the law declared by a larger Bench and a small Bench, the former will prevail, does not help in resolving the present problem. In the present case, the smaller Benches analysed and explained the earlier judgment of the Constitution Bench.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 63 - Cited by 42 - Full Document

Atlas Trading Co. vs Official Assignee Of Bombay And Ors. on 13 October, 1982

13. Mr. Romer has invited out attention to an order of the Supreme Court dismissing of a petition for special leave against a decision of this Court arising out of the Bombay Rent Act. That order of the Supreme Court is reported in Ganapati v. Waman . We has sent for the original judgment to the learned single Judge against which the special leave petition was made before the Supreme Court.
Bombay High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Union Of India (Uoi) vs All India Services Pensioners' ... on 14 January, 1988

It has been repeatedly laid down by the Supreme Court that the decision of the larger Bench prevails over the decision of the smaller benches vide Ganapati Sitaram Balvalkar v. Waman Shripad Mage (; Mattulala v. Radhe Lal (A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 1569); Union of India v. K.S. Subramanian (A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 433). Even assuming that some aspects have not been taken into account by the Supreme Court, no Court or Tribunal of India can take a view different from that taken by the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 1 - E S Venkataramiah - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 Next