Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 60 (1.58 seconds)
Documents citing Jay Engineering Works Ltd vs Industry Facilitation Council And Anr on 14 September, 2006

M/S Garha Gears Limited Thru.Parmal ... vs Govinda Mundra on 15 May, 2018

It is correct that in case of Jay Engineering Works Ltd. Vs. Industry Facilitation Council and Another, reported in AIR 2006 SC 3252, the apex Court has held that provisions of Section 22 of the SICA shall prevail for the Section 10 of the Act of 1993 but now the situation has changed as the entire SICA Act 1985 has been repealed w.e.f 01.12.2016 and BIFR and AIFR have been dissolved, therefore, the decree in favour of the respondent under Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 can be executed against the petitioner without any impediment.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Goyal Mg Gases Pvt. Ltd. vs Sbq Steels Ltd. on 29 August, 2016

A similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jay Engineering Works Ltd. v. Industry Facilitation Council, 2006 (3) Arb LR 594 (SC) and Morgan Securities & Credit Pvt. Ltd. v. Modi Rubber Ltd., 2006 (4) Arb LR 394 (SC) (supra). In view of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned cases, the objection raised by the learned Counsel for the Respondent, that the Petition for enforcing the Arbitration clause and seeking appointment of an Arbitrator is not maintainable in view of the fact that the proceedings under the SICA are pending before the BIFR, cannot be accepted."
Delhi High Court Cites 55 - Cited by 0 - M Singh - Full Document

Goyal Mg Gases Pvt. Ltd. vs Sbq Steels Ltd. on 29 August, 2016

A similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jay Engineering Works Ltd. v. Industry Facilitation Council, 2006 (3) Arb LR 594 (SC) and Morgan Securities & Credit Pvt. Ltd. v. Modi Rubber Ltd., 2006 (4) Arb LR 394 (SC) (supra). In view of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned cases, the objection raised by the learned Counsel for the Respondent, that the Petition for enforcing the Arbitration clause and seeking appointment of an Arbitrator is not maintainable in view of the fact that the proceedings under the SICA are pending before the BIFR, cannot be accepted."
Delhi High Court Cites 55 - Cited by 0 - M Singh - Full Document

Goyal Mg Gases Pvt. Ltd. vs Sbq Steels Ltd. on 29 August, 2016

A similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jay Engineering Works Ltd. v. Industry Facilitation Council, 2006 (3) Arb LR 594 (SC) and Morgan Securities & Credit Pvt. Ltd. v. Modi Rubber Ltd., 2006 (4) Arb LR 394 (SC) (supra). In view of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned cases, the objection raised by the learned Counsel for the Respondent, that the Petition for enforcing the Arbitration clause and seeking appointment of an Arbitrator is not maintainable in view of the fact that the proceedings under the SICA are pending before the BIFR, cannot be accepted."
Delhi High Court Cites 55 - Cited by 0 - M Singh - Full Document

Nehal T. Bhimjyani vs Union Of India & Ors on 2 June, 2023

100. The Supreme Court held that the aforesaid decisions in Gram Panchayat & Anr. v. Shree Vallabh Glass Works Limited & Ors (supra), Jay Engineering Works Ltd. v. Industry Facilitation Council & Ors. (supra), and Deputy Commercial Tax Officer & Ors. v. Corromandal Pharmaceuticals Ltd & Ors. (supra) had to be read in the context of the facts and there was no conflict in the views expressed.
Delhi High Court Cites 45 - Cited by 0 - V Bakhru - Full Document

Decree Holder vs . on 22 January, 2016

the company are not closed down or the company is not barred from doing its business; in fact the reference is made before the BIFR to help the company to come out of the sickness and for making efforts for its rehabilitation. Thus, the JD was not debarred from conducting any business after the Modi Industries Ltd. was declared a sick company. Even the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jay Engineering Works Ltd. Vs. Industry Facilitation Council & Anr. (supra) has held that the execution proceedings cannot be proceeded with in view of Sec.22 SICA and the fact that debt was incurred by the company after being declared sick is not relevant. Hence, in view of the aforesaid analysis, the application of JD U/Sec.22 SICA is allowed and the proceedings of present execution petition are stayed till the pendency of the proceedings before the BIFR or till the permission is sought from the BIFR by the DH for continuation of proceedings of this execution petition.
Delhi District Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Madras Petrochem Ltd. vs Bifr . on 29 January, 2016

In Jay Engineering Works Ltd. v. Industry Facilitation Council and Anr., (2006) 8 SCC 677, this time this Court had to deal with the Interest on Delayed Payment to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Act, 1993 vis-à-vis the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. Both Acts contained non obstante clauses. This Court referred to the 1994 amendment to the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 and stated that the amending Act being later than the 1993 Act, the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 would, therefore, prevail. (See paragraph
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 77 - Cited by 0 - R F Nariman - Full Document

Pramod Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 April, 2021

The learned Single Judge has relied on the judgments of Supreme Court in Sarwan Singh (supra), Jain Ink Mfg. & Co. v. LIC of India and another, AIR 1981 SC 670, Sanwarmal Kejriwal vs. Vishwa Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. and others, AIR 1990 SC 1563, Ashoka Marketing Ltd. v. Punjab National Bank, AIR 1991 SC 855, A.P. State Financial Corporation v. Official Liquidator, AIR 2000 SC 2642, Allahabad Bank v. Canara Bank and another, (2000) 4 SCC 406, Maruti Udyog Ltd. v. Ramlal & others, (2005) 2 SCC 638 and in Jay Engineering Works v. Industry Facilitation Council and another, AIR 2006 SC 3252, in all of which the Supreme Court has laid down the guidelines for resolving the conflict of two non-obstante clauses contained in two different statutes and held that when two or more laws operate in same field and each contained a non obstante clause indicating that the provisions have been given overriding effect over any other law, the cases shall be decided with reference to the object and purpose of the law under [11] Criminal Appeal No.5189/2020 consideration by applying the test that the latter enactment must prevail over the earlier one.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 68 - Cited by 0 - S A Bobde - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 Next