Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.30 seconds)
Documents citing Messers Duke Offshore Limited vs Burns Standard Company Ltd. & Another on 2 September, 1998

Trackparts Of India Ltd. vs Cosmos Co-Operative Bank Ltd. And Ors. on 25 February, 2004

19. The decision of the learned single judge in Duke Offshore Ltd. was delivered on September 2, 1998, i.e., prior to the decision in Patheja Bros.'s case . The decision in Duke Offshore's case was in the facts of the said case. In the said case, the industrial company was seeking to enforce the bank guarantee given by the third party--the petitioner in the said case. In other words, the petitioner therein was seeking to restrain the industrial company from initiating the proceedings at the original stage. The matter in the said case did not pertain to the proceedings at the appellate stage or at the stage "further" to the stage on conclusion of the one at the stage of the proceedings initiated by others against the industrial company.
Bombay High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 2 - R M Khandeparkar - Full Document

In Re: Gontermann-Piepers (India) Ltd. vs Unknown on 10 June, 2004

In Duke Offshore Ltd.'s case (supra), the Industrial Company was seeking to enforce the Bank guarantee given by the third party the petitioner in that case. In other words, the petitioner therein was seeking to restrain the industrial company from initiating the proceedings at the original stage. The decision in that case was delivered on September 2, 1998, i.e., prior to the decision of the Apex Court in Patheja Bros.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - L S Panta - Full Document

Goyal Mg Gases Ltd. vs Prestige H.M. Poly Containers Ltd. on 29 September, 2003

"This judgment nowhere lays down that the company against which the proceedings have been initiated is prohibited from taking legal steps for the enforcement of its rights. However, by placing reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Cornet Filaments (India) Ltd. (1988 ALL LJ 1246) (supra), it is contended that once a company is declared to be sick, the property of the company remains under the direct control of the BIFR and no proceedings in respect of the property could be proceeded with except with the Board's consent. From the said observation it is impossible to hold that the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court has taken a view that as the property vests in the Board, the Company, though not wound up, is barred from taking steps for realisation of its legal dues. At the highest all that can be said in such a case is that the moneys recovered cannot be disposed of by the company, which still is in existence, from carrying out its operations. The said contention, therefore, must be rejected."
Delhi High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - M Sarin - Full Document
1