Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.80 seconds)
Documents citing Dr. G.N. Byra Reddy And Ors. vs Arathi Cine Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. And ... on 4 April, 1997

A.J. Coelho vs South India Tea & Coffee Estates Ltd. on 20 April, 2001

Tungabhadra Machinery Tools Ltd's case (supra) T.G. Veera Prasad v. Sree Rayalaseema Alakalies & Allied Chemicals Ltd. CP 2/111/SRB of 1991 Tungabhadra Machinery & Tools Ltd.'s case (supra) G.N. Byra Reddy's case (supra) "...to state that "if a right to sue had become barred by the provisions of the Limitation Act then in force on the date of the coming into force of a new Act or amendment then such a barred right is not revived by the application of the new enactment. It cannot be said in such a case that because the remedies are barred but the rights are not extinguished, such rights can be deemed to be enforceable in a Court of law."
Company Law Board Cites 33 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Dr. Mahesh Batra vs Gajaraj Beverages (P.) Ltd. on 6 September, 2002

24. This Board has also in the case of Dr. G.L. Byra Reddy v. Arathi Cine Enterprises (P.) Ltd. [1997] 89 Comp. Cas. 745 has held that where a large number of complicated and disputed questions of facts like the date of executing the alleged transfer deeds, whereabouts of transfer deeds, alleged payment of consideration, persons to whom the alleged payments have been made and the time at which the petitioner actually came into the knowledge of the impugned transfer etc. could not be decided on the basis of the affidavits and the matter requires to be tried by leading evidence.
Company Law Board Cites 20 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

S. Kanthimathy, S. Lakshmi, S. ... vs The Woodlands Estates Limited And Ors. on 20 August, 2007

Whether in a particular case relief should he granted or not would depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case This Board in Bipin K. Jain's case (supra) and A. Akilandan and A. Nagalakshmi Co's case (supra) held that it complicated questions of facts or law arise in a Section 111 petition, which cannot he adjudicated on basis of the available documents, the CLB would relegate the controversies to a civil suit.
Company Law Board Cites 113 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

India Switch Company Private Limited, ... vs Aci (India) Inc. on 5 October, 2005

Shri Krishna Srinivasan, learned Counsel pointed out that the Companies Act while defining "Court" refers to the High Court and District Court only. The CLB is a body constituted by the Central Government having administrative powers. Under Sub-section 4-C of Section 10-E, only some powers under the CPC have been conferred on the CLB and is defined as a Civil Court under Sub-clause 4 only for certain provisions of the Cr.PC and the IPC. Under Sub-clause 5, the CLB in exercise of its powers to discharge of its functions is to act on the principles of natural justice and the power to regulate its own procedure. These provisions show that the CLB does not have the trappings of a Court but only some of them. This Board till the year 1997 had consistently taken the view that the Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply to applications under Section 111 of the Act, on the premise that the CLB is not a "Court" within the provisions of the Limitation Act and accordingly held in Dr. G.N. Byra Reddy v. Arathi Cine Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (1997) 89 CC 745 that the Tribunals are not courts for all purposes. The Limitation Act is not applicable to Tribunals, including the CLB and, therefore, the CLB is not covered by the provisions of the Limitation Act.
Company Law Board Cites 51 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1