Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.41 seconds)
Documents citing State Black Sea Shipping Company And Mr. ... vs Viraj Overseas Pvt. Ltd. on 15 July, 2003

Ifci Factors Ltd. vs Koutons Retail India Ltd. on 13 May, 2013

12. The above submissions have been considered. As regards the notice under Sections 433 and 434 of the Act is concerned extensive reliance was placed by Ms. Dhir on the observations of the Court in State Black Sea Co. Pet. No. 329 of 2011 Page 6 of 13 Shipping Company & Mr. Joydeb Kundu v. Viraj Overseas Pvt. Ltd. In the said decision the Court noted its earlier decision in Kalra Iron Stores v. Faridabad Fabricators (P) Ltd. (1992) 1 Comp. L.J. 310 which drew a distinction between a petition under Sections 433 (e) read with Section 434 (1) (a) and one under Section 433 (e) read with Section 434 (1) (c) of the Act. It was observed that "there cannot be a dispute with regard to the proposition that without even serving a notice as required under Section 434 (1) (a) a creditor can seek for winding up of a company under Section 433
Delhi High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 1 - S Muralidhar - Full Document

N.N. Valechha vs I.G. Petrochemicals Ltd. on 15 September, 2006

10. The submission of Mr. Lawande has been squarely dealt with by the Delhi High Court in the case of State Black Sea Shipping Co. v. Viraj Overseas P. Ltd. [2005] 125 Comp Cas 831 wherein it was held that the fact that a reply was sent by the respondent-company to the statutory notice of the petitioners and the fact that no objection was taken in the said reply could not be taken into account because the statutory fiction had to be strictly construed and if a statutory requirement based on a statutory fiction is to be construed strictly, the petition had to be dismissed as not maintainable.
Bombay High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

M/S. U.S. Infra Developers Private ... vs Rina Singh Alias Reena Singh And Ors on 22 February, 2024

The decision of the Delhi High Court in State Black Sea Shipping Company vs. Viraj Overseas Pvt. Ltd.; 2003 (70) DRJ 6 was under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956; the decision in Monika Oli vs. M/s. CL Educate Ltd.; O.M.P. (Comm) 370/2022 - Single Bench decision of the Delhi High Court - is distinguishable on facts. In that case there was also no reply to the section 21 Notice. The respondents' argument of the invocation Notice being devoid of necessary particulars is hence not acceptable.
Calcutta High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - M Bhattacharya - Full Document
1