Sims Metal Management Limited vs Sabari Exim Private Limited on 31 March, 2015
(a) In AIR 1961 Cal 439 (Sarkar Estates (P) Limited Vs. Kusumika Iron Works (P) Limited and others), it is held as under:-
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (1.10 seconds)Documents citing
Sarkar Estates (Private) Ltd. vs Kusumika Iron Works (Private) Ltd. And ... on 30 November, 1960
Sims Metal Management Limited vs Sabari Exim Private Limited on 31 March, 2015
(a) In AIR 1961 Cal 439 (Sarkar Estates (P) Limited Vs. Kusumika Iron Works (P) Limited and others), it is held as under:-
Shyam Narayan Sah vs Raghunath Prasad on 10 November, 1976
In Sarkar Estate (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Kusumika Iron Works (Pvt.) Ltd., (AIR 1961 Cal 439) it was held that a tender by a registered letter which is refused by the addressee is as good a delivery as a letter which is accepted and the refusal precludes the addressee from pleading ignorance of its contents.
The Aluminium Corporation Of India Ltd. ... vs Lakshmi Ratan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. And ... on 28 July, 1969
18. The petitioner's counsel urged, with some vehemence, that law and equity, which are not separable in this country, combine to carry a compelling force when the inability of a company to pay its debts is supported by an unsatisfied judgment debt followed by a failure to pay within the prescribed period after the statutory notice. It was pointed put that it had been held that even the filing of an appeal against a judgment proving a debt, which left no room for a bona fide dispute about liability to pay, could not ward off a winding up order unless a stay order was obtained from the appellate Court. It was, however, conceded that a stay order from the appellate Court would disable the creditor, against whom it was made, from relying upon any neglect or failure of a company to discharge the liability already adjudicated upon to prove inability of the company to meet its obligations. The authorities relied upon were: In re Amalgamated Properties of Rhodesia Ltd., (1917) 2 Ch D 115; Re Douglas (Griggs) Engineering Ltd., (1962) 1 All ER 499; Sarkar Estate (P) Ltd. v. Kusumika Iron Works (P.)
The General Clauses Act
-' x 5. (9.) Sarkar Estates Pvt. Ltd. v. P'.K. Iron works Ltd. A.I.I-1. 1961 Cal. 439, 442, para 3-4 (Refusal to accept)
S.P. Jain vs Union Of India And Ors. on 7 October, 1965
In Sarkar Estates Private Ltd. v. Kusumika Iron Works Private Ltd. [1962] 32 Comp. Cas. 575, a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court has held that:
J.N. Roy Chowdhury (Traders) P. Ltd. vs Jainti Enterprises on 17 June, 1985
19. On the question of counter-claim, Mrs. Pal argues that mere raising of a counter-claim is insufficient. According to her, such a claim must be boda fide, substantial and it should be likely to succeed. She submits that the court has to investigate the counter-claim to determine whether the dispute has, been manufactured to defeat and delay the realisation of the dues of the petitioning-creditor. (Mrs. Pal referred to certain) decisions of this court Bangarsi Ice and Cold Storage Ltd. v. Kali Charan Banerjee, and Sarkar Estates P. Ltd. v. Kusumika Iron Works P. Ltd., .
Ashoka Marketing Ltd. vs Rothas Kumar And Ors. on 28 March, 1966
685; Shaw and Co. v. Sisir Mukherjee, ; Sarkar Estates (Private) Ltd. v. Kusumika Iron Works (Private) Ltd., ; and Kamalamma v. Ismail Ispahani . Now, Order XLIX Rule 3 of the Code excludes certain Orders and rules under such orders from their application to the ordinary and extraordinary jurisdictions of Chartered High Courts. Order XIII of the Code is not, however, so excluded. Nevertheless, I need take notice of certain special rules prescribed for the Original Side in this context. Chapter VII Rule 2B prescribes:
1