Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.40 seconds)
Documents citing John Herbert & Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs Pranay Kumar Dutta on 30 March, 1966

Mannesmann Rexroth (India) Limited vs National Engineering Industries ... on 28 July, 2006

16. We fail to appreciate how the said decision can have any application to the facts of the present case where the learned Company Court has rejected the application for winding up after a finding that there is genuine scope of detailed enquiry as to the claim of the petitioning creditor in view of the defence taken by him. Therefore, the said decision cannot have any application to the facts of the present case.
Calcutta High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 1 - B Bhattacharya - Full Document

The Rajputana Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs Malaya Trading Agency on 27 August, 1970

In support of this contention a Division Bench decision in Jagannath Gupta & Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Mulchand Gupta, 72 Cal WN 872 = (AIR 1968 Cal 363) has been cited which did not follow a previous Division Bench decision of this Court in John Herbert & Co. Pvt Ltd v. Pranay Kumar Dutta. (1966) 70 Cal WN 516, which had decided that order made in a company matter refusing to stay the advertisement of a winding up petition was not appealable.
Calcutta High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Jagannath Gupta And Co. Private Ltd. vs Mulchand Gupta on 26 July, 1968

15. Counsel on behalf of the respondent contended that an appeal was incompetent for three reasons: First, that the order is made in the exercise of inherent power of the Court and, therefore, it is not appeal able. Secondly, that the order is not a judgment within the meaning of the word in Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. Thirdly, Section 483 of the Companies Act cannot be invoked in the present case because there is yet no winding up. Section 483 was construed by counsel for the respondent to be attracted only where a winding up order had been made. Counsel for the respondent relied on the Bench decision in John Herbert and Co. Private Ltd. v. Pranay Kumar Dutta, reported in (1966) 70 Cal WN 516. That was a decision on an appeal from an order refusing to stay proceedings on a Company Petition No. 22 of 1965. It was held that in rejecting such an application, the Court merely decided that there was a prima facie case for enquiry and it could not then and did not in fact adjudicate upon the rights of the parties and therefore it was not a judgment under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent
Calcutta High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Eastern Paper Mills Limited vs The Board For Industrial And Financial ... on 9 August, 1999

16. The court may exercise any of these alternative powers. The observation of the Division Bench of this court in Join Herbert v. Pranay Kumar Dutta : 70 CWN 516, that the court forms a prima facie view at the time of the admission must mean a prlma facie view as to whether the company should be wound up under section 443. It cannot be said, having regard to the practice of this court, that the court, forms a prlma facie view as to the ground on which the winding up petition is admitted. Thus if a petitioning creditor files a winding up petition on the ground that the company is unable to pay its debts and the company opposes the application by filing an affidavit seeking to establish before the court that the debt was a disputed one and the court comes to a conclusion that the company's dispute is not a bonafide one, it must be held that the finding as to the existence of the debt by the court is final one.
Calcutta High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 4 - S B Sinha - Full Document
1