Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 566 (8.47 seconds)
Documents citing Rohitash Kumar & Ors vs Om Prakash Sharma & Ors on 6 November, 2012

Hamlin Trust And Ors vs Lsf10 Rose Investments S.Ã R.L. And Ors on 7 September, 2022

Insofar as the judgments cited in the matters of Rohitash Kumar and Ors. vs. Om Prakash Sharma and Ors. (supra) and Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and Ors. Ahmedabad Green Belt Khedut Mandal & Ors. (supra) are concerned we find that the sections 184 and 189 of the Act give the opportunity to the newly-appointed CFO to bring the information relating to his interests in other companies to the knowledge of the company within 30 days (under section 189) and relinquish position as a KMP in any other company within six Company Appeal (AT) No. 77 of 2022 Page 29 of 31 months of taking over as CFO. Thus there does not appear to be a strict requirement to resign from all positions held in other companies before being appointed as CFO.
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Hamlin Trust And Ors vs Lsf10 Rose Investments S.Ã R.L. And Ors on 7 September, 2022

Insofar as the judgments cited in the matters of Rohitash Kumar and Ors. vs. Om Prakash Sharma and Ors. (supra) and Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and Ors. Ahmedabad Green Belt Khedut Mandal & Ors. (supra) are concerned we find that the sections 184 and 189 of the Act give the opportunity to the newly-appointed CFO to bring the information relating to his interests in other companies to the knowledge of the company within 30 days (under section 189) and relinquish position as a KMP in any other company within six Company Appeal (AT) No. 77 of 2022 Page 29 of 31 months of taking over as CFO. Thus there does not appear to be a strict requirement to resign from all positions held in other companies before being appointed as CFO.
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dhananjay Kumar Mishra And Ors. vs Airports Authority Of India And Anr. on 26 February, 2020

In the given factual conspectus, the reliance placed on 'Rohitash Kumar vs. Om Prakash Sharma' (2013) 11 SCC 451 by Mr. Rai, ld. Sr. Counsel for AAI to invoke the 'rule of contemporanea expositio' to contend that due deference is to be given to the Executive interpretation, is misplaced. In the W.P.(C) 9687/2019 & Connected matters Page 25 of 32 said context, it may only be said, the administrative view has to be within the conscience of law, which should not adversely affect a person or a class of persons on strict technicalities.
Delhi High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - A K Chawla - Full Document

Alamdeep Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 5 August, 2019

(9) It was thus submitted that the petitioner having a certificate from the FAI was fully eligible and the said Association was a unit of IOA. It is further submitted that FAI was affiliated since 1985 as per the letter received on 22.12.2014 (P14). Reliance has been placed also on correspondence dated 11.07.2011 (R4/2) issued by IOA that the affiliated National Sports Federation and State Olympic Associations were members and there shall be no category of recognized members henceforth in view of the amended Constitution of IOA which was done in the Annual General Assembly held on 12.02.2011. It was pointed out that certificate dated 7 of 27 ::: Downloaded on - 25-08-2019 01:51:29 ::: CWP No.12155 of 2013 -8- 22.07.2013 (R4/3) had been issued by IOA that recognition had been given to the SGFI in the Annual General Meeting held on 26.10.1998. However, the same had been withdrawn in AGM held on 12.02.2011. Accordingly, reliance has been placed upon another certificate dated 12.11.2014 (Mark A) which both the sides have relied upon and thus it was taken on record on 19.07.2019. The said letter would show that the affiliated Associations were entitled to attend and vote at the General Body Meeting of IOA whereas the recognized Associations are the Sports Bodies which control that particular sport and conduct/participate at the National/International events. Counsel for the private respondents have relied upon the same in context that the SGFI was thus a recognized Association controlling the particular sport at that level and conducting the events at the national/international level and therefore the private respondents having participated in the games conducted by SGFI could not be ousted on the ground that it was not affiliated to IOA. (10) Mr. Rajiv Atma Ram, Sr. Advocate relied upon Rohitash Kumar & Ors. vs. Om Prakash Sharma & Ors. (2013) 11 SCC 451 that once there was a statutory provision, the Court would have no choice but to enforce the meaning of the Rule even if it was inequitable, unjust or harsh. The relevant portion reads as under:-
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - G S Sandhawalia - Full Document

Bobindra Kumar vs Union Of India on 27 August, 2019

7) The promotee sub-inspectors challenged the seniority placing the direct recruits senior to them, inter alia, on the ground that they were appointed earlier in point of time to the direct recruits and, therefore, in terms of Rule 8(e) of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 19552, the promotees should rank senior. The High Court accepted the claim of the promotee sub-inspectors relying upon judgment of this Court in Rohitash Kumar & Ors. v. Om Prakash Sharma & Ors.3 and also Office Memorandum dated November 4, 1992; and para 11.2(2)(iii)(e) of Chapter XI of the CRPF Establishment Manual.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - H Gupta - Full Document

Nusli Neville Wadia vs Ivory Properties on 4 October, 2019

76. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents urged that the Court cannot twist the clear language of the enactment to avoid any real or imaginary hardship which such literal interpretation may cause. Reliance has also been placed on Rohitash Kumar and others v. Om Prakash Sharma and others, (2013) 11 SCC 451, in which following observations have been made:
Supreme Court of India Cites 127 - Cited by 107 - A Mishra - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next