Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.77 seconds)
Documents citing M/S. Ashok Commercial Enterprises vs Parekh Aluminex Ltd on 11 April, 2017

Ashok Kumar & Sons (Huf) vs Brahma City Private Ltd. on 9 April, 2019

16. This Court is unable to agree with the above submission. The Supreme Court in Forech India Ltd. v. Edelweiss Assets Reconstruction Co. Ltd. (supra) paraphrased the ratio of the judgment of the Bombay High Court in M/s Ashok Commercial Enterprises v. Parekh Aluminax Ltd. (supra) as holding that "all winding up petitions where pre-admission notices were issued and served on the respondent will be retained in the High Court". The Supreme Court did not hold that merely providing a copy of the petition to the Respondent, without a notice being issued, would satisfy the requirement of Rule 26 of the 1959 Rules.
Delhi High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - S Muralidhar - Full Document

Indowind Energy Limited vs Union Of India on 5 August, 2019

"15. Shri Sen pointed out to us that there was a divergence of views in the interpretation of the aforesaid rules. The Bombay High Court in Ashok Commercial Enterprises v. Parekh Aluminex Limited, (2017) 4 Bom. CR 653, stated that the notice referred to in Rule 26 was a pre- admission notice and hence, held that all winding up petitions where pre-admission notices were issued and served on the respondent will be retained in the High Court.
Madras High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - S Manikumar - Full Document

Spicejet Limited vs Credit Suisse Ag on 5 August, 2019

"15. Shri Sen pointed out to us that there was a divergence of views in the interpretation of the aforesaid rules. The Bombay High Court in Ashok Commercial Enterprises v. Parekh Aluminex Limited, (2017) 4 Bom. CR 653, stated that the notice referred to in Rule 26 was a pre-admission notice and hence, held that all winding up petitions where pre-admission notices were issued and served on the respondent will be retained in the High Court.
Madras High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - S Manikumar - Full Document

Forech India Ltd. vs Edelweiss Assets Reconstruction Co. ... on 22 January, 2019

15. Shri Sen pointed out to us that there was a divergence of views in the interpretation of the aforesaid rules. The Bombay High Court in Ashok Commercial Enterprises vs. Parekh Aluminex Limited, (2017) 4 Bom. CR 653, stated that the notice referred to in Rule 26 was a pre-admission notice and hence, held that all winding up petitions where pre-admission notices were issued and served on the respondent will be retained in the High Court. On the other hand, the Madras High Court in M/s. M.K. & 12 Sons Engineering v/s. Eason Reyrolle Ltd. in CP/364/2016 has held that the notice under Rule 26 is referable to a post-admission position of the winding up petition and accordingly held that only those petitions where a winding up order is already made can be retained in the High Court. For this purpose, the Madras High Court strongly relied upon Form No. 6 appended to Rule 27 and the expression “was admitted” occurring in the Notice of Petition contained in the said Form.
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 53 - R F Nariman - Full Document

C.V.Shailandhran vs Union Of India on 5 August, 2019

"15. Shri Sen pointed out to us that there was a divergence of views in the interpretation of the aforesaid rules. The Bombay High Court in Ashok Commercial Enterprises v. Parekh Aluminex Limited, (2017) 4 Bom. CR 653, stated that the notice referred to in Rule 26 was a pre- admission notice and hence, held that all winding up petitions where pre-admission notices were issued and served on the respondent will be retained in the High Court.
Madras High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - S Manikumar - Full Document

Cs (Comm) No. 147/19 vs Mr. B.N.V. Lalith Krishna on 6 February, 2023

Ld. Counsel for plaintiff submits that defendant admitted the cheque but, raised the plea of security cheque but not able to substantiate the said fact (relied upon Ashok Commercial Enterprises vs. Parekh Aluminex Ltd, III (2014) BC 361(Bom) MANU/MH/1296/2014, Shantanu Acharya vs. Whirlpool of India Pvt. Ltd. 2012 VIII AD (Delhi) 645 MANU/DE/5284/2012). The defendant not entitled for leave to defend and decree be passed against the defendant.
Delhi District Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1