Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (1.76 seconds)
Documents citing Mayar Traders Ltd. vs Akhil Services Ltd. on 27 October, 1993

Madhya Pradesh Iron & Steel Company vs G.B. Springs (P) Ltd. And Mohta Bright ... on 11 December, 2002

6. I shall first deal with the consequences of the Respondent's failure to send a Reply to the Statutory Notice. A perusal of the precedents on this point do not indicate that such failure inexorably leads to the conclusion that Winding-up orders must unvariably be passed. From my understanding of the judgments of my Learned Sister Hon'ble Ms. Usha Mehra in Mayar Traders Ltd. Vs. Akhil Services Ltd., 52 (1993) Delhi Law Times 577 and G.K.W. Ltd. Vs. Shriram Bearings Ltd., , she had taken the failure to reply to the notice as an important factor in determining whether a bona fide defense had been put forward. In the circumstances of both the cases, she preferred to view the defense as an afterthought and as being bereft of bona fide.
Delhi High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 7 - V Sen - Full Document

Venkatesh Coke And Power Ltd. vs Simplex Concrete Pils (India) Ltd. on 27 October, 2004

26. We agree with the reasoning and conclusions given by the learned Single Judge placing reliance on the judgments of this Court and other High Courts, namely, (i) GKW Ltd. v. Shriram Bearings Ltd. ; (ii) Mayar Traders Ltd. v Akhil Services Ltd. reported at 52 (1993) DLT 577; (iii) Rishi Pal Gupta v. M/s S.L. Knitline and Finishing Mills Pvt. Ltd. ; (iv) Westinghouse Sanby Farmer Ltd. reported at 1982 (52) Comp. Cas. 479; (v) United Western Bank Ltd. reported at 1978 (48) Comp. Cas.
Delhi High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 1 - M Sharma - Full Document

Fortune Metals Ltd vs Messrs Kanwar Enterprises Pvt Ltd on 23 February, 2015

In Court, he then takes the position that such a denial by the respondent constitutes a bald denial on the basis of one line in a decision of a Single Judge by this Court in the case of Mayar Traders (supra), and invites this Court to conclude that such a bald denial is no denial and that it, therefore, follows that the amount claimed by the petitioner in his notice of demand stands admitted, and the respondent is precluded from saying anything to the contrary in his reply to the winding up petition filed later on disclosing the relevant particulars for the first time.
Delhi High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 1 - S K Misra - Full Document
1