Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (4.27 seconds)
Documents citing Snowcem India Ltd. And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 24 September, 2004

G.Vasudevan vs Union Of India on 2 December, 2019

17. A perusal of the above extract reveals that the Bombay High Court in Snowcem India Ltd & Ors Vs. Union of India, has held that Section 274(1)(g) of the Companies Act 1956, would not violate Article 19 or 14 of the Constitution of India as it does not restrict an individual's freedom to carry on his business, trade or occupation, does not create any unreasonable classification and merely acts as a penal measure in cases where a Director has failed to carry out his duties. Additionally it held that Section 274(1)(g) of the Companies Act 1956, was a necessary provision as it was in the interest of ensuring good corporate governance and transparency.
Madras High Court Cites 58 - Cited by 1 - S Prasad - Full Document

Satya Narayan Banik & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 11 February, 2022

17. A perusal of the above extract reveals that the Bombay High Court in Snowcem India Ltd. v. Union of India, has held that Section 274(1)(g) of the Companies Act 1956, would not violate Article 19 or 14 of the Constitution of India as it does not restrict an individual's freedom to carry on his business, trade or occupation, does not create any unreasonable classification and merely acts as a penal measure in cases where a Director has failed to carry out his duties. Additionally it held that Section 274(1)(g) of the Companies Act 1956, was a necessary provision as it was in the interest of ensuring good corporate governance and transparency.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 39 - Cited by 1 - R Mantha - Full Document

Jai Shankar Agrahari vs Union Of India And Another on 16 January, 2020

57. The provisions of Section 274 (1) (g) of Act, 1956 were considered on the anvil of Articles 14 and 19 (1) (g) of Constitution of India by Bombay High Court in Snowcem India Ltd (supra) and Gujarat High Court in Saurashtra Cement Ltd. (supra) and same was upheld. Section 164 (2) of Act, 2013 broadly contains similar provision and no argument has been advanced before us so as to make out a distinction in the logic and rationality given for upholding Section 274 (1) (g) of Act, 1956, earlier in above judgments so as not to apply to Section Section 164 (2) of Act, 2013. We also do not find any per se illegality, irrationality, arbitrariness or lack of intelligible classification, hence, we find no force in the submission that Section 164 (2) of Act, 2013 is ultra vires. This question, therefore, is answered against petitioners.
Allahabad High Court Cites 143 - Cited by 54 - Full Document

Invesco Developing Markets Fund And Anr vs Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd. And ... on 22 March, 2022

35. Mr. Chinoy further submitted that after an amendment to the CPC 14 Snowcem India Ltd. Vs. Union of India [2005] 124 CompCas 161 (Del) , Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. vs. Canara Bank [Co.A.(B) 8/2003] , Kothari Industrial Corporation Ltd. vs. Lazor Detergents Private Ltd. [1994] 81 CompCas 699 (Mad), The Indian Cable Co. Ltd. vs. Lodna Colliery Co. (1920) Ltd. AIR 1977 Cal 402 , Anantha R. Hegde vs. T S Gopalakrishna 1998 91 ComCas 312 (Kar) 15 AIR 1964 Kant 185 SSP 37/74 appl 25420 of 2021 March 18, 2022.doc which was effective on and from 1 st February, 1977, Order 36 Rule 6 expressly provides that "No appeal shall lie from a decree passed under Rule 5."
Bombay High Court Cites 75 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1