Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (3.18 seconds)
Documents citing Akkadian Housing And Infrastructure ... vs Pantheon Infrastructure Private ... on 3 July, 2006

Prudence Anthony Maynard And Anr vs Mundhra Container Freight Station Pvt. ... on 11 April, 2017

128. It is submitted that the respondents cannot be allowed to be unjustly enriched. She also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Akkadian Housing and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. vs. Pantheon Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and Ors., (2016) 197 Comp Cas 316 (Bom) and more particularly on paragraphs 12 and 17 to 26 and would submit that in that case, delay was condoned by the Company Law Board. This Court did not interfere with the said order. He submits that in the said order, the Company Law Board has shifted the valuation date.
Bombay High Court Cites 63 - Cited by 0 - R D Dhanuka - Full Document

Prudence Maynard vs Mundhra Container Freight Station Pvt ... on 11 April, 2017

105. Learned senior counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 6 placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in case of Akkadian Housing & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. vs. Pantheon Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (2016) 197 Company Cases, 316 and in particular paragraphs 17 to 26 of the said judgment. He submits that Special Leave Petition against the said judgment delivered by this Court is pending. It is submitted that the said judgment applies to the facts of this case. In the said judgment, the High Court approved the order passed by the Company Law Board 58 ::: Uploaded on - 11/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 12/04/2017 01:07:07 ::: coapp18-12g not fixing the date of the valuation as the date of the petition but considering the pendency of the petition for about three years, for default of none, fixing a 50% mark - up on the share of profit determined as on the date of the petition to compensate one of the party for delay between the presentation of the petition and order. It is submitted that in this case the appellant herself was fully responsible for the gross delay in the valuation process on one or other ground.
Bombay High Court Cites 63 - Cited by 0 - R D Dhanuka - Full Document

Prudence Maynard vs Punjab Terminals Private Limited on 11 April, 2017

105. Learned senior counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 6 placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in case of Akkadian Housing & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. vs. Pantheon Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (2016) 197 Company Cases, 316 and in particular paragraphs 17 to 26 of the said judgment. He submits that Special Leave Petition against the said judgment delivered by this Court is pending. It is submitted that the said judgment applies to the facts of this case. In the said judgment, the High Court approved the order passed by the Company Law Board 58 ::: Uploaded on - 11/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 12/04/2017 01:06:56 ::: coapp18-12g not fixing the date of the valuation as the date of the petition but considering the pendency of the petition for about three years, for default of none, fixing a 50% mark - up on the share of profit determined as on the date of the petition to compensate one of the party for delay between the presentation of the petition and order. It is submitted that in this case the appellant herself was fully responsible for the gross delay in the valuation process on one or other ground.
Bombay High Court Cites 63 - Cited by 0 - R D Dhanuka - Full Document

Prudence Maynar And Another vs Mundhra Container Freight Station Pvt. ... on 11 April, 2017

105. Learned senior counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 6 placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in case of Akkadian Housing & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. vs. Pantheon Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (2016) 197 Company Cases, 316 and in particular paragraphs 17 to 26 of the said judgment. He submits that Special Leave Petition against the said judgment delivered by this Court is pending. It is submitted that the said judgment applies to the facts of this case. In the said judgment, the High Court approved the order passed by the Company Law Board 58 ::: Uploaded on - 11/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 12/04/2017 01:06:20 ::: coapp18-12g not fixing the date of the valuation as the date of the petition but considering the pendency of the petition for about three years, for default of none, fixing a 50% mark - up on the share of profit determined as on the date of the petition to compensate one of the party for delay between the presentation of the petition and order. It is submitted that in this case the appellant herself was fully responsible for the gross delay in the valuation process on one or other ground.
Bombay High Court Cites 63 - Cited by 0 - R D Dhanuka - Full Document

Prudence Maynard vs Punjab Terminals Pvt. Ltd on 11 April, 2017

105. Learned senior counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 6 placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in case of Akkadian Housing & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. vs. Pantheon Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (2016) 197 Company Cases, 316 and in particular paragraphs 17 to 26 of the said judgment. He submits that Special Leave Petition against the said judgment delivered by this Court is pending. It is submitted that the said judgment applies to the facts of this case. In the said judgment, the High Court approved the order passed by the Company Law Board 58 ::: Uploaded on - 11/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 12/04/2017 01:06:29 ::: coapp18-12g not fixing the date of the valuation as the date of the petition but considering the pendency of the petition for about three years, for default of none, fixing a 50% mark - up on the share of profit determined as on the date of the petition to compensate one of the party for delay between the presentation of the petition and order. It is submitted that in this case the appellant herself was fully responsible for the gross delay in the valuation process on one or other ground.
Bombay High Court Cites 63 - Cited by 0 - R D Dhanuka - Full Document

Prudence Maynard And Anr vs Mundhra Container Freight Station Pvt ... on 11 April, 2017

105. Learned senior counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 6 placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in case of Akkadian Housing & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. vs. Pantheon Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (2016) 197 Company Cases, 316 and in particular paragraphs 17 to 26 of the said judgment. He submits that Special Leave Petition against the said judgment delivered by this Court is pending. It is submitted that the said judgment applies to the facts of this case. In the said judgment, the High Court approved the order passed by the Company Law Board 58 ::: Uploaded on - 11/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 12/04/2017 01:06:38 ::: coapp18-12g not fixing the date of the valuation as the date of the petition but considering the pendency of the petition for about three years, for default of none, fixing a 50% mark - up on the share of profit determined as on the date of the petition to compensate one of the party for delay between the presentation of the petition and order. It is submitted that in this case the appellant herself was fully responsible for the gross delay in the valuation process on one or other ground.
Bombay High Court Cites 63 - Cited by 0 - R D Dhanuka - Full Document

Spray Engineering Devices Ltd. vs Shree Saibaba Sugars Ltd. And Sh. ... on 17 March, 2008

Hence, application under Section 8 for referring the dispute to arbitration cannot be allowed; Akkadian Housing and Infrastructure (P) Ltd. and Ors. v. Pantheon Infrastructure (P) Ltd. [2007] 137 CC 523 (CLB) - If allegations can be examined without reference to arbitration agreement, then the same cannot be referred to arbitration; Gautam Kapur and Ors. v. Limrose Engineering and Ors. [2007] 137 CC 513 (CLB) - If the allegations of oppression and mismanagement can be adjudicated without reference to the terms of the arbitration agreement, then the question of refereeing the matter to arbitration does not arise even if the agreement covers the same matter; Akshay Kapur v. Rishav Kapur 2003 (2) Arbitration Law Report 508 (Delhi) - The Court took the view that the subject matter of an agreement is different from the question raised in the suit, Section 8 would have no application; Altek Lammertz Needles Ltd. v. Lammertz Industrienadel Gmbh [2006] 129 CC 108 (CLB) - The Hon'ble Company Law Board held that the test to determine, as to whether the matter in a petition under Section 397/398 is to be relegated to arbitration is to examine as to whether the allegations of oppression and mismanagement contained therein can be adjudicated without reference to the terms of the arbitration agreement.
Company Law Board Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1