Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 233 (2.12 seconds)
Documents citing Cotton Corporation Of India vs United Industrial Bank on 19 September, 1983

Horlicks Ltd. And Anr. vs Heinz India (Pvt.) Limited on 23 October, 2009

60. It is also relevant to note that in Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Western Company of North America; (1987) 1 SCC 496, the judgment in Cotton Corporation of India Limited v. United Industrial Bank Limited and Ors‟s case (supra) has been referred and distinguished on the ground that it refers to an anti suit injunction in a domestic forum and the ratio would not be applicable to a foreign forum. The Indian company had entered into a contract with an American company and the parties opted to be governed by the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940. The award rendered by the umpire in London (being the agreed venue) was sought to be enforced by the American company in the New York court. The Indian company instituted proceedings before the Bombay High Court by filing arbitration petition under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 and sought an injunction restraining the American company from enforcing the award.
Delhi High Court Cites 65 - Cited by 19 - S K Kaul - Full Document

Macquarie Sbi Infrastrucutre Pte Ltd vs Sadananda Shetty on 22 June, 2021

"18. In the result we are of the opinion that the facts of this case are eminently suitable for granting a restraint order as prayed by ONGC. It is no doubt true that this Court sparingly exercises the jurisdiction to restrain a party from proceeding further with an action in a foreign court. We have the utmost respect for the American Court. The question however is whether on the facts and circumstances of this case it would not be unjust and unreasonable not to restrain Western Company from proceeding further with the action in the American Court in the facts and circumstances outlined earlier. We would be extremely slow to grant such a restraint order but in the facts and circumstances of this matter we are convinced that this is one of those rare cases where we would be failing in our duty if we hesitate in granting the restraint order, for, to oblige ONGC to face the aforesaid proceedings in the American Court would be oppressive in the facts and circumstances discussed earlier. But before we pass an appropriate order in this behalf, we must deal with the plea that the High Court does not have the jurisdiction to grant such a restraint order even if the proceeding in the foreign Court is considered to be oppressive. Counsel for the Respondent has placed reliance on Cotton Corporation of India v. United Industrial Bank [(1983) 4 SCC 625 : (1983) 3 SCR 962 : (1984) 55 Com Cas 423] in support of this plea.
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 53 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

P.S. Muthuswamy Kounder vs P.S. Ramalingam And 2 Ors. on 14 February, 1997

6. The decree in question obtained by the Bank, indisputably, has been passed by Subordinate Court, Cuddalore, as could be seen from the plaint averments themselves. The present suit for bare injunction has been filed before the District Munsiff Court, Cuddalore. The plaintiffs are not entitled to seek for such a relief in the teeth of the prohibition contained in Section 41(b) of the Specific Relief Act and as laid down by the Apex Court in Cotton Corporation of India v. United Industrial Bank, . Though this objection or ground has not been raised at the earlier stages, since it is not only a question of law but a question which goes to the root of the jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the reliefs of the nature by the trial Court in this case and the relevant facts to appreciate the same are matters of indisputable record the suit is liable to be summarily dismissed on this ground alone as not maintainable before the trial court and in view of the above, it is unnecessary for me to go into even the merits of the claims made or the adjudication or findings recorded thereon by both the courts below, oblivious to the statutory mandate and prohibition contained in Section 41(b) of the Specific Relief Act, which stands in the way of granting any such relief. It is obvious and needs no further elaboration to indicate that the findings, if any, recorded by such a court, in such proceedings will have no efficacy in law. The appeal S.A. No. 953 of 1984, therefore, shall stand allowed and consequently, the decree passed in O.S. No. 1612 of 1978 filed by the respondents 1 and 2, who are the plaintiffs, shall stand dismissed.
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

T.N. Narendra And Ors. vs Lakeside Medical Centre Private ... on 20 October, 2006

15. I have considered the arguments in all the applications. It is on record that this Bench by an order dated 25.08.2005 made in C.P. No. 32 of 2005 restrained the Company from convening and holding the annual general meeting, which however came to be vacated on 02.03.2006 with passing of the order in the main company petition (C.P. No. 32 of 2005). The order dated 02.03.2006 made in C.P. No. 32 of 2005 has been stayed by the Karnataka High Court in an appeal preferred by the respondents and the stay which is enforce is in relation to (i) transmission of 500 shares held by (late) Dr. Balarain in the name of the second petitioner; (ii) cancellation of the allotment of 750 shares made in favour of the second respondent; (iii) refund of the price of shares in favour of the Company paid by the second respondent and reduction of share capital; and (iv) rectification of the register of members of the Company consequent to the directions contained at sl. Nos. (i) & (ii) herein above. It is, therefore, clear that there is no impediment on the part of the Company to convene and hold the annual general meeting for the year ended 31.03.2005, as urged on behalf of the petitioners. The right of the...consenter to vote at the annual general meeting is not an issue in the company petition, as rightly pointed out by Sri Udaya Holla, learned senior Counsel and therefore, the interim relief sought by the applicants falls beyond the scope of the final relief. The Supreme Court categorically held in (a) Cotton Corporation of India Limited v. United Industrial Rank Ltd. and Ors. (supra) that if the final relief cannot be granted, in terms as prayed for, no interim relief in the same terms can be granted; (b) Ritona Comultaney Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. v. Lohia Jute Press and Others (supra) that no interlocutory order can be passed beyond the scope of the suit or against parties before the Court; and (c) State of U.P. and Ors. v. Visiteshwar (supra) that granting of final relief in the form of final relief is not warranted It may be observed that even if the reliefs are granted in terms as praved for in the Company by the petitioners, the relief of permitting the consenter to exercise her right as a shareholder would not arise. Hence, the prayer sought in favour of the consenter to exercise her right as a shareholder at the annual general meeting cannot be adjudicated in the interlocutory application.
Company Law Board Cites 11 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Engineering Projects (India) Limited ... vs Msa Global Llc (Oman) on 25 July, 2025

is no doubt true that this Court sparingly exercises the jurisdiction to restrain a party from proceeding further with an action in a foreign court. We have the utmost respect for the American Court. The question however is whether on the facts and circumstances of this case it would not be unjust and unreasonable not to restrain Western Company from proceeding further with the action in the American Court in the facts and circumstances outlined earlier. We would be extremely slow to grant such a restraint order but in the facts and circumstances of this matter we are convinced that this is one of those rare cases where we would be failing in our duty if we hesitate in granting the restraint order, for, to oblige ONGC to face the aforesaid proceedings in the American Court would be oppressive in the facts and circumstances discussed earlier. But before we pass an appropriate order in this behalf, we must deal with the plea that the High Court does not have the jurisdiction to grant such a restraint order even if the proceeding in the foreign court is considered to be oppressive. Counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on Cotton Corporation of India v. United Industrial Bank [(1983) 4 SCC 625 : (1983) 3 SCR 962 : (1984) 55 Com Cas 423] in support of this plea.
Delhi High Court Cites 55 - Cited by 0 - P K Kaurav - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next