Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 132 (1.01 seconds)
Documents citing Paramjeet Singh Patheja vs Icds Ltd on 31 October, 2006

Ankur Drugs & Pharma Ltd. & Anr. vs S.E. Investment Limited on 25 February, 2015

As already noticed, the later decision in Paramjeet Singh Patheja (supra) is clearly applicable to the facts of the present case as it answers in the affirmative the precise question that arises, i.e., whether the expression „suit‟ in Section 22 (1) SICA includes arbitral proceedings, whereas the decision in Kailash Nath Agarwal (supra) does not answer that question.
Delhi High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 4 - S Muralidhar - Full Document

Sh. Naveen Kohli vs Icds on 18 July, 2008

7 It is further stated that the insolvency proceedings instituted by issuance of insolvency notice against the guarantors cannot be stayed under the provisions of SICA as Section 22 of the said Act is not applicable to the proceedings initiated against the guarantors, as the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that Section 22 of SICA is not applicable to the criminal prosecution U/S 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and there are various judgment to the same effect and the judgment relied upon by the petitioners AIR 2007 SC 168 titled as Paramjit Singh Patheja Vs. ICDS, is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
Delhi District Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Amazon.Com Nv Investment Holdings Llc vs Future Retail Limited on 6 August, 2021

Paras 39 and 42 of the judgment in Paramjeet Singh Patheja v. ICDS Ltd., (2006) 13 SCC 322] read as: (SCC pp. 345-46) 85 “39. Section 15 of the Arbitration Act, 1899 provides for “enforcing” the award as if it were a decree. Thus a final award, without actually being followed by a decree (as was later provided by Section 17 of the Arbitration Act of 1940), could be enforced i.e. executed in the same manner as a decree. For this limited purpose of enforcement, the provisions of CPC were made available for realising the money awarded. However, the award remained an award and did not become a decree either as defined in CPC and much less so far the purposes of an entirely different statute such as the Insolvency Act are concerned.
Supreme Court of India Cites 131 - Cited by 21 - R F Nariman - Full Document

M/S. Kwality Spinning Mills Ltd vs The Cotton Corporation Of India Ltd on 20 September, 2021

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 19/26 CMA No.2492 of 2011 d. The decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant in Paramjeet Singh Patheja vs ICDS Limited reported in (2006) 13 SCC 322 does not apply to the facts of the instant case in view of the fact that the said decision relates to the issue of initiation of insolvency proceedings to execute an Arbitral Award, whereas in the case on hand no execution proceedings have been initiated and the Arbitrator has only proceeded with the arbitration and has passed an Arbitral Award. Since, there is no coercive, distress or like proceedings involved against the assets of the Appellant Company, the aforementioned decision has got no bearing to the facts of this case.
Madras High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - A Quddhose - Full Document

P. Uma Maheshwara Sastry, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 5 October, 2021

7. Two principles can be extracted, from the above judgement. Firstly, a legal fiction creates a fact situation which is not in actual existence and that fact situation has to be taken to its logical conclusion. Secondly, while construing a legal fiction, it must always be remembered that the purpose for which such a legal fiction is being created must be considered and the said legal fiction must be limited to the purpose for which, it was created. The Judgments cited by Sri K.Madhava Reddy, learned standing counsel, in State of Karnataka Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors., (4 supra) and Paramjeet Singh Patheja Vs. ICDS Limited (3 supra) would also support this understanding of the above passage in the Judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court.
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - R R Rao - Full Document

Mr Manel Vaman Nayak vs Mr Manel Venkatraya Nayak on 31 October, 2025

31. Having regard to the judgments of the Supreme Court in Paramjeet Singh Patheja case [Paramjeet Singh Patheja v. ICDS Ltd., (2006) 13 SCC 322] , Morgan Securities & Credit (P) Ltd. v. Modi Rubber Ltd. [Morgan Securities & Credit (P) Ltd. v. Modi Rubber Ltd., (2006) 12 SCC 642] , Vedanta Ltd. case [Union of India v. Vedanta Ltd., (2020) 10 SCC 1] , this Court is in complete agreement with the view expressed in L&T Ltd. case [L&T Ltd. v. Maharaji Educational Trust, 2010 SCC OnLine All 1866] as well as State of Tripura and in view of the said authoritative pronouncements, it is clear that the petitioner cannot take recourse of Section 47CPC in the 35 execution proceedings initiated by the respondent."
Karnataka High Court Cites 58 - Cited by 0 - M Nagaprasanna - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next