Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 23 (2.13 seconds)
Documents citing M/S Dove Investments Pvt. Ltd. & Ors vs M/S Gujarat Industrial Inv. ... on 2 February, 2006

Afr vs Odisha Water Supply & on 28 October, 2022

24. In Done Investments (P.) Ltd. v. Gujarat Industrial Investment Corpn., (2006) 2 SCC 619, the apex Court held that ordinarily a procedural provision would not be mandatory even if the word 'shall' is employed therein unless a prejudice is caused. Therefore, the use of word "shall" though prima facie means mandatory and even if in this case for eligibility criteria contained in Clause-5.2 of the DTCN the use of the word "shall" may be mandatory, but use of the words "should have" in Clause-6 of the DTCN has to be construed as "must have".
Orissa High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - B R Sarangi - Full Document

Dr. Ambedkar Cooperative House ... vs State Of Punjab And Others on 17 March, 2023

Similarly, in Dove Investments Pvt. Ltd. And others Vs. Gujarat Industrial Investments Corporation Ltd. and another (2006) 2 SCC 619, the Hon'ble Supreme Court refused to interfere with the order passed by the High Court while applying the same principle. In the said case, appellant-company refused to register remaining shares against the security for loan of Rs.4.5 crores on the ground that the same were presented two months after the period specified in Section 108 of the Companies Act, 1956, though the appellant-company had already registered 3 lakh shares. Therefore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court refused to interfere with the order passed by the High Court as the appellant-company had already waived off the right of refusal by already registering 3 lakh shares and setting aside of the order of the High Court would have caused revival of an illegal order.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 45 - Cited by 0 - J Thakur - Full Document

Shakura Prime Tanning Co. And Anr. vs Central Bank Of India And Anr. on 27 April, 2006

12. Per contra, the learned Advocate for the respondent No. 1-Bank has argued that the provisions of the Second and Third Schedules to the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the Income Tax Rules, 1962, are governed and controlled by Section 29 of the RDDBFI Act, which states, "The provisions of the Second and Third Schedules to the Income Tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961) and the Income Tax (Certificate Proceedings) Rules, 1962, as in force from time-to-time shall, as far as possible, apply with necessary modifications as if the said provisions and the rules referred to the amount of debt due under this Act instead of to the Income Tax Act" thereby meaning that those provisions could be made applicable as far as possible and the Recovery Officer has got every power to permit the auction purchaser to pay the balance of the said consideration beyond 15 days as prescribed under Rule 57, and the same is not illegal. To strengthen their contention, they relied upon the case of Dove Investments Pvt. Ltd. v. Gujarat Industrial Inv. Corporation II , wherein it was held, "Whether a statute would be directory or mandatory will depend upon the scheme thereof. Ordinarily a procedural provision would not be mandatory even if the word 'shall' employed therein unless a prejudice is caused".
Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal - Madras Cites 17 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Mr. Narinder Batra vs Union Of India on 2 March, 2009

In this connection, reference may be made to the observations of Sagnata Investments Ltd. v. Norwich Corporation 1971 2 QB 614 and p. 626 Also the 97 observations in British Oxygen Co. v. Board of Trade 1971 AC 610. See also Foulkes' Administrative Law, 6th Ed. at page 181-184. In Ex P. Khan (1981 1 All. E.R. page ), the Court held that a circular or self made rule can become enforceable of the application of persons if it was shown that it had created legitimate expectation in their minds that the authority would abide by such a policy/guideline. However, the doctrine of legitimate expectation applies only when a person had been given reason to believe that the State will abide by the certain policy or guideline on the basis of which such applicant might have been led to take certain actions. This doctrine is akin to the doctrine of promissory estoppel.
Delhi High Court Cites 124 - Cited by 6 - G Mittal - Full Document
1   2 3 Next