Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 219 (4.21 seconds)
Documents citing Dale And Carrington Invt. P. Ltd. And ... vs P.K. Prathapan And Others on 13 September, 2004

Shri Ashok Bampto Pagui vs Agencia Real Canacona Pvt. Ltd., A ... on 8 June, 2007

10. The Apex Court in M/s. M.M.T.C. Ltd. and Anr. v. M/s. Medchl Chemicals & Pharma(P) Ltd. and Anr. (supra) was dealing with the case at the initial stage of quashing the proceedings and considering that the Apex Court observed that even presuming that initially there was no authority, still the Company can, at any stage, rectify that defect. As far as the present case is concerned the defect has never been rectified by the Complainant Company by passing any resolution in favour of the said Prashant Shirodkar and authorizing him to file the complaint. There is no dispute that in this case it is the Complainant, a Company was the payee. On the contrary it can be seen from the power of attorney produced on behalf of the Complainant that if at all there was a resolution the same was in favour of the said Pednekar in whose favour the said power of attorney was given. Shri Prashant Shirodkar had none in his favour and none was produced. It is therefore obvious that the said Prashant Shirodkar had no authorization from the Complainant Company to lodge the complaint. As stated by the Apex Court in Dale & Carrington Invt.
Bombay High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 16 - Full Document

Prudence Maynard vs Punjab Terminals Private Limited on 11 April, 2017

257. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Dale & Carrington Invt. (P) Ltd. & Another vs. P.K. Prathapan & Ors., (2005) 1 SCC 212 and in particular paragraph 38. Relying upon the said judgment, learned counsel for the appellant submits that if the High Court under section 10-F of the Companies Act, 1956 comes to the conclusion that allotment of shares in favour of a party is by committing manipulation and fraud and if the shares are transferred not for a proper price, the Court can set aside such transaction. She submits 133 ::: Uploaded on - 11/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 12/04/2017 01:07:00 ::: coapp18-12g that wrongdoer cannot be rewarded and the oppressed party cannot be penalized.
Bombay High Court Cites 63 - Cited by 0 - R D Dhanuka - Full Document

Prudence Maynard And Anr vs Mundhra Container Freight Station Pvt ... on 11 April, 2017

257. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Dale & Carrington Invt. (P) Ltd. & Another vs. P.K. Prathapan & Ors., (2005) 1 SCC 212 and in particular paragraph 38. Relying upon the said judgment, learned counsel for the appellant submits that if the High Court under section 10-F of the Companies Act, 1956 comes to the conclusion that allotment of shares in favour of a party is by committing manipulation and fraud and if the shares are transferred not for a proper price, the Court can set aside such transaction. She submits 133 ::: Uploaded on - 11/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 12/04/2017 01:06:43 ::: coapp18-12g that wrongdoer cannot be rewarded and the oppressed party cannot be penalized.
Bombay High Court Cites 63 - Cited by 0 - R D Dhanuka - Full Document

Ram Parshotam Mittal vs Hotel Queen Road Pvt.Ltd. Andors. on 10 May, 2019

In some respects, they resemble managing partners in others they do not.” The said judgment quotes from Principles of Equity by Lord Kames. In one sentence the entire concept is conveyed. The sentence runs: (All ER p. 391 H) "Equity prohibits a trustee from making any profit by his management, directly or indirectly.” Ultimately the issue in each case will depend upon the facts of that case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 78 - Cited by 1 - A Mishra - Full Document

Nekkala Usha Rani, Dr. Manjula Sridhar, ... vs Visakha Imagings And Medical Private ... on 31 December, 2007

P. Ltd. and Ors. v. P.K. Prathapan and Ors. (supra) and the principles re-iterated in Goldmark Enterprise Ltd. v. Pondy Metal and Roiling Mills P. Ltd. and Ors. (supra) that the directors must exercise then power bonafide and with utmost good faith for the benefit and interest of the Company, ensuring fair play in the corporate management, by analysing the pros and cons of conversion of the unsecured loans given by the directors into share capital of the Company.
Company Law Board Cites 40 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sunil Sharma vs Irfan Malik on 25 September, 2023

2023.09.25 16:14:08 +0530 Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dale And Carrington Invt. P. Ltd. & Anrs vs P.K. Prathapan And Others (2005) 1 Supreme Court Cases 212 and Bhupesh Rathod Vs. Dayashankar Prasad Chaurasia & Anr. Crl. Appeal No. 1105 of 2021 of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. There is no authorization as per the section 142 of NI Act. As the complaint has not been filed by the person who is duly authorized by the company to institute the proceedings or the holder in due course. The complainant in the present case was at liberty to file letter of authority at any stage of trial but he has failed to do the same. The present complaint does not fulfill the criteria mentioned in section 138 NI r/w 142 NI Act. The counsel for the complainant has confronted the accused with documents DW1/C1 running into 8 pages and DW1/C2 running into 9 pages but he has not placed on record any certificate u/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act. Even if these documents are to be relied then it has been mentioned in the Email dated 25.07.2009 by Sunil Sharma in which the complainant himself has requested the accused that the payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- is pending, which also disapproves the theory that the accused was liable for the amount of Rs. 7,12,000/-. Another contradiction is that the complainant in his complaint and evidence by way of affidavit has stated that accused had borrowed 7,12,000/- from the complainant for personal need, whereas in his cross-examination of DW-1, Ld. Counsel for the complainant are putting the documents regarding the business transactions.
Delhi District Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Prudence Maynard vs Punjab Terminals Pvt. Ltd on 11 April, 2017

257. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Dale & Carrington Invt. (P) Ltd. & Another vs. P.K. Prathapan & Ors., (2005) 1 SCC 212 and in particular paragraph 38. Relying upon the said judgment, learned counsel for the appellant submits that if the High Court under section 10-F of the Companies Act, 1956 comes to the conclusion that allotment of shares in favour of a party is by committing manipulation and fraud and if the shares are transferred not for a proper price, the Court can set aside such transaction. She submits 133 ::: Uploaded on - 11/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 12/04/2017 01:06:32 ::: coapp18-12g that wrongdoer cannot be rewarded and the oppressed party cannot be penalized.
Bombay High Court Cites 63 - Cited by 0 - R D Dhanuka - Full Document

Prudence Anthony Maynard And Anr vs Mundhra Container Freight Station Pvt. ... on 11 April, 2017

257. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Dale & Carrington Invt. (P) Ltd. & Another vs. P.K. Prathapan & Ors., (2005) 1 SCC 212 and in particular paragraph 38. Relying upon the said judgment, learned counsel for the appellant submits that if the High Court under section 10-F of the Companies Act, 1956 comes to the conclusion that allotment of shares in favour of a party is by committing manipulation and fraud and if the shares are transferred not for a proper price, the Court can set aside such transaction. She submits 133 ::: Uploaded on - 11/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 12/04/2017 01:06:52 ::: coapp18-12g that wrongdoer cannot be rewarded and the oppressed party cannot be penalized.
Bombay High Court Cites 63 - Cited by 0 - R D Dhanuka - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next