Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.71 seconds)
Documents citing Walnut Packaging Private Limited vs The Sirpur Paper Mills Limited And Anr. on 18 March, 2008

Priyaraj Electronics Limited vs Motorola India (Priviate) Limited on 17 April, 2009

12. The effect of provision for payment in the balance sheet would be the next key point for consideration. The learned counsel for the petitioner refers me to the accounting standard already detailed above where it is more in keeping with probity of the financial dealings and making available to people the knowledge of the contingent liabilities. This point has been answered according to the learned counsel for the respondent in Walnut Packaging Private Limited vs. The Sirpur Paper Mills Limited and Anr. reported in 2008 (144) Company Cases 454 (AP) where the Andhra Pradesh High Court considered the effect of the statement and balance sheet and found that even for the purpose of extending the period of limitation under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, it could not be termed as acknowledgment of liability.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 1 - K Kannan - Full Document

M/S. Mauritius Commercial Bank Ltd vs M/S. Sujana Universal Industries ... on 28 July, 2015

On the other hand Sri S. Niranjan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that, in view of Section 128 of the Indian Contract Act, a liability of a surety is co-extensive with that of the borrower; it is not necessary for the lender to first proceed against the borrower, before proceeding against the surety; the moment there is a default on the part of the borrower, a right accrues in favour of the lender to recover the outstanding dues either from the borrower or from the surety or from both; on the borrower defaulting in repayment of the amounts due, a debt is owed to the lender both by the borrower and the surety; the amount due from the surety to the lender is a debt under Section 433 and 434 of the Companies Act; it is open to the lender, therefore, to proceed against the guarantor instead of the borrower; in the present case, the respondent-company had also specifically stated in the agreement that they were co-obligants to the loan facility; they had also admitted their liability, and had sought time to repay the amount due to the petitioner; and it is, therefore, not open to them to now contend that they cannot be held liable for repayment of the amount borrowed from the petitioner by HHL, their wholly owned subsidiary. Learned counsel would rely on Ram Bahadur Thakur & Co., v. Sabu Jain Ltd. ; Bank of Bihar Ltd. v. Dr. Damodar Prasad ; Coventry Spring & Engineering Co. Ltd. v. I.C.I.C.I. Bank Ltd. ; Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd. v. Sea Rock Investments Ltd. ; Videocon Industries Ltd. v. Intesa Saupaolo S.P.A. ; Walnut Packing Pvt. Ltd. v. Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd. ; and Krishna Kilaru v. Maytas Properties Ltd. .
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 67 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Sew Realty Limited Through Authorised ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 November, 2024

In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the High Court Kerala in the case of Walnut Packaging Private Limited vs. The Sirpur Paper Mills Limited decided on 18.03.2008. He referred para-33 of the said judgment wherein it Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 11/25/2024 6:08:40 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:33214 5 WA-590-2023 has been held that the holding and subsidiary company are separate and distinct and, therefore, they cannot be treated to be the same. Therefore, the learned Single Judge has erred in dismissing the writ petition on the ground that the petition involves disputed question of facts and the sale certificate confirmed by the authority in favour of the auction purchaser cannot be quashed in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - V K Shukla - Full Document
1