Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 24 (1.14 seconds)
Documents citing Gagandeep Pratishthan Pvt. Ltd. And ... vs Mechano And Anr. on 20 November, 2001

Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank, ... vs The Appellate Authority on 16 October, 2020

"9..........However, the proviso to Rule 10 does not show that, if the application is made beyond the period prescribed under Rule 10, an application showing sufficient cause is required to be made. This aspect of the matter is considered by the Bombay High Court replying on the judgment of the Apex Court at para--23 wherein it is held, in absence of condoning the delay, the Controlling Authority to deal with the application on merit could be one without jurisdiction. The Bombay High Court hag relied on a judgment of the Apex Court reported in AIR 2002 SC 204 in the matter of Ganagndeep Pratishthan Pvt. Ltd. Vs Mechano.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 40 - Cited by 88 - P S Bhati - Full Document

M/S Ziqutza Helath Care Ltd. vs Prem Kumar Shrimali on 1 February, 2022

13. It is the submission of learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that in the case in hand since application for condonation of delay was not decided and matter was heard finally and final order has been passed, therefore, illegality has 10 been caused. Unless the delay is condoned writ appeals could not have been heard on merits. He relied upon the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of State of M.P. and another Vs. Pradeep Kumar and another, (2000) 7 SCC 372, Gagandeep Pratishthan Pvt. Ltd. and others Vs. Mechano and another (2002) 1 SCC 475, Mahabir Singh Vs. Subhash and others, (2008) 1 SCC 358 and V.K. Verma Vs. Dawoodi Bohra Masjid Committee, 2008 (I) MPJR 366.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 6 - A Pathak - Full Document

Gujarat Industrial Development ... vs Gujarat Akruti Tcg Bio-Tech Limited on 18 October, 2022

reported in 1995 (1) GLH 549, decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Kala Devi (Smt) Vs. Manager, Punjab National Bank, Shamshabad and Others reported in (1998) 9 SCC 558 as also in the case of Gagandeep Pratishtan Pvt. Ltd. and Others Vs. Mechano and Another reported in (2002) 1 SCC 475 for the proposition to contend that even administrative delay was not considered to be a ground to condone the same as also even a strong case on merit does not require consideration while determining Page 12 of 33 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 20 20:22:45 IST 2022 C/SCA/20198/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/10/2022 application for condonation of delay and without considering preliminary objection as to delay and maintainability of Appeal, the Appeal could not have been disposed of and Court could not have passed an order to appoint receiver having pressed into service.
Gujarat High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - U A Trivedi - Full Document

Shree Vinayak Buildcon Through ... vs Special Secretary (Appeals), Revenue ... on 29 July, 2022

4.8. It is submitted that as regards delay, the issue should have Page 7 of 23 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 22:19:19 IST 2022 C/SCA/11525/2022 ORDER DATED: 29/07/2022 been decided first and then the merits should have been entertained, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Gagandeep Pratishthan Pvt. Ltd. (supra) as well as of this Court in the case of Kalpeshbhai Natwarlal Patel (supra).
Gujarat High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - S K Vishen - Full Document

Wipro Finance Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax on 21 March, 2003

(14) It is submitted that on any decision being rendered by this Hon'ble Tribunal on the issue of maintainability and the applicability of the provisions of Section 158BE(1)(a) or 158BE(1)(b) of the Act to the appellant's case and if it be held that the provisions of Section 158BE(1)(a) of the Act are applicable to the appellant's case on the position that search can be said to have been initiated after 30th June, 1995, but before 1st Jan., 1997, the decision so rendered would be susceptible for review before the higher forum. When such decision so rendered on the question of applicability of the provisions of Section 158BE(1)(a) of the Act are assailed before the higher forum, and if it is held that the provisions of Section 158BE(1)(a) of the Act is not applicable and that the search can be said to have been initiated only after 1st Jan., 1997, in such a situation, the block assessment framed would not be liable to be set aside and it will revive. However, in that situation, the other findings of the Tribunal rendered on merits cannot be gone into and this position is due to the fact that if the provisions of Section 158BE(1)(b) are held to be applicable on the ground that search is initiated after 1st Jan., 1997, the adjudication of any issue on merits, in terms of Section 246A(1)(k) of the Act provides that an appeal against a block assessment order in those cases where search is initiated after 1st Jan., 1997, would lie before the CIT(A). In this view of the matter, when the provisions of Section 246A(1)(k) of the Act provide for adjudication of the legality of the assessment on merits by the CIT(A), In an appeal preferred before such authority, the decision rendered by the Tribunal on merits in the present case cannot be subject-matter of consideration before the higher forum. In other words when it is held by the higher forum that the provisions of Section 158BE(1)(a) of the Act govern the appellant's case and the search can be said to be initiated after 1st Jan., 1998, then the assessment would revive and since the appeal is not decided by the authority envisaged under the provisions of Section 246(1)(k) of the Act, the decision of the Tribunal rendered on merits cannot be gone into at all. In view of this peculiar position of the jurisdiction involved in the present case, it is submitted that the issue on merits cannot be gone into at this stage by this Hon'ble Tribunal. At this stage, it may also be mentioned that in a recent case in the case of Gagandeep Prathisthan (P) Ltd. and Ors. v. Mechano and Anr. AIR 2002 SC p. 204, the Supreme Court has held that the preliminary issue of maintainability should be considered before proceeding with appeal any further. In that context, the Supreme Court has held as under:
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 53 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Sporting Pastime India Ltd. And K.K. ... vs Kasturi And Sons Ltd. [Alongwith C.A. ... on 5 December, 2005

Limited (supra) held that the grievances of a member and reliefs claimed by such aggrieved member, flowing from an agreement, must be agitated in a competent civil court and no relief shall lie for breach of any contractual obligation under Section 397 or 398 before the CLB; (e) M/s Lammertz Industrienadel GmbH v. Altek Lammertz Needles Limited (supra) held that where the grievances of the petitioner before the CLB are directly relating to the rights of or benefits to shareholders in their capacity as member of the company, arising out of the provisions of the Companies Act and articles of association of the company; where the petitioner is enforcing his statutory power which can be adjudicated without reference to the terms of the agreement containing arbitration clause and where the reliefs cannot be granted by an arbitrator and are available under Section 397 and 398 read with Sections 402 and 403 from the CLB, the statutory jurisdiction of the CLB cannot be ousted even by consent of the parties; and (f) Machine Plastics Limited v. Caparo Murti Limited (supra), the prayer of parties to arbitration has been rejected in view of the fact that the parties to the company petition and the agreement are not the same; that reliefs claimed in the petition and in the arbitration proceedings are not similar; that the subject matter of the petition is not totally covered by the agreement; any splitting of subject matter of the petition is not permissible and that all parties to the petition have not signed the agreement.
Company Law Board Cites 21 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

R.P. Dhanda vs Regional Manager, Uco Bank And Anr. on 5 March, 2007

In the above backdrop, turning to the case on hand, after receipt of application under Section 7 along with application for condonation of delay, the Controlling Authority ought to have taken up the application for hearing only upon condonation of delay in preferring application under Section 7 of the Act as per the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Gagandeep Pratishthan Pvt. Ltd. v. Mechano . The petitioner did make an application for condonation of delay. However, the Controlling Authority failed to consider the same. Consequently, the said authority failed to condone delay in preferring the application under Section 7.
Bombay High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 3 - V C Daga - Full Document

Dr. Bratindra Nath Mukherjee vs M/S. Adore Welding Ltd on 13 February, 2017

In support of such contention he relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Gagandeep Pratishthan Pvt. Ltd & Ors. Vs. Mechano & Anr., reported in (2002) 1 SCC 475. The second ground urged by Mr. Banerjee was that in any event, the learned Court below committed an error of law in passing the impugned order directing stay of the execution proceeding, without requiring the opposite party to pay occupation charges for the suit property at the present market rate, as per the valuer's report disclosed by the petitioner in his affidavit-in-opposition, that is, at the rate of Rs.3,25,050/- per month. He urged that it is now well settled that if a tenant having suffered an eviction decree prays for stay of operation the eviction decree, he has to pay the occupation charges at the market rate.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 13 - Cited by 1 - A K Chakraborty - Full Document
1   2 3 Next