Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.66 seconds)
Documents citing Andhra Cement Co. Ltd. vs Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board on 4 April, 1991

Keshri Steels And Anr. vs M.P. Electricity Board And Ors. on 6 January, 1998

25. Shri P.B.S. Nair, learned counsel for Respondent/Board, has placed reliance on the judgments reported in AIR 1991 Andh Pra 269, (Andhra Cement Company v. A. P. Electricity Board); (1992) 74 Com Cas 256 (Karnataka High Court) (Assistant Executive 'Engineer (Electrical), Karnataka Electricity Board v. Reyhan Minerals and Chemicals (Pvt. Ltd.); AIR 1992 All 247, (Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. U. P. State Electricity Board);
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 5 - D Verma - Full Document

A.S. Nizar Ahmed & Company Ltd. Rep. By ... vs The Collector Of Vellore District, ... on 1 April, 2002

13. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the pronouncement in ANDHRA CEMENTS LTD., VS. ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD , where the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that non-supply of further goods under a contract cannot in its view be equated with the kind of proceedings contemplated by Section 22(1) of The Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. The Andhra Pradesh High Court also held that non-supply of goods in future cannot amount to action proposed against the property of the company.
Madras High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Assistant Executive Engineer ... vs Reyhan Minerals And Chemicals (Pvt.) ... on 29 November, 1991

5. It was submitted on behalf of the Board that the provisions of section 22(1) had no application to a case such as this for the Board was not proceeding against the property of the writ petitioner to recover its dues but was only stopping supply of electricity. Attention was drawn by the learned Government advocate appearing for the Board to the judgment of the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Andhra Cement Company Ltd. v. A. P. State Electricity Board, . This was also a case in which an Electricity Board had disconnected or threatened to disconnect the supply of power to a sick company. The Division Bench held that section 22 contemplated that no proceedings either for winding up or for execution, distress or the like against any of the properties of the company or for appointment of a receiver in respect thereof would "lie or be proceeded with". Further, the words "against the properties" of the company therein clearly implied that the action ought to be against the property of the company and non-supply of goods in future did not amount to action against the property of the company.
Karnataka High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1