Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 68 (2.27 seconds)
Documents citing Ksl & Industries Ltd vs M/S. Arihant Threads Ltd. & Ors on 25 August, 2008

Nirajkumar Dubey vs Addl. Commissioner, Konkan Division, ... on 30 January, 2024

In the case of KSL Industries v. Arihant Threads [(2008)9 SCC 763] the Apex Court has held that in case of two or more enactments containing similar non-obstante clause operating in the same or similar direction, the Court must attempt to find out the intention of the Legislature by examining the nature of controversy, object of the Act, proceedings initiated, relief sought and several other relevant considerations. The contention of Dr. Tulzapurkar is that while considering the provisions of section 24 of the Act of 1999, learned Single Judge has failed to consider the object and effect of the non-obstante clause. The submission even if accepted would render the process of reasoning flawed which can be corrected only by the superior forum.
Bombay High Court Cites 57 - Cited by 0 - S U Deshmukh - Full Document

National Textile Corporation (Apkk & M) ... vs Deputy Commissioner on 6 October, 2023

In these circumstances, as already directed by the two-Judge Bench [KSL and Industries Ltd. v. Arihant Threads Ltd., (2008) 9 SCC 763] of this Court, the judgment and order dated 23-2-2006 [Arihant Threads Ltd. v. Stressed Assets Stabilisation Fund, WPs (C) Nos. 2041-42 of 2006, decided on 23- 2-2006 (Del)] of the High Court of Delhi is set aside. As far as the writ petitions are concerned, whether on the ground that Section 22 of SICA acts as a bar to the recovery proceedings under the RDDB Act or whether the protection of SICA is not available to the appellant Company since the recovery proceedings under the RDDB Act had been concluded, the writ petitions would have to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed. The present appeal is allowed."
Karnataka High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sri. Sharath Rukmangada vs Cauvery Papers Limited on 22 April, 2016

17. I have also perused the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Civil Appeal No.5225 of 2008 decided on 27.10.2014 in the case of 35 KSL & Industries Ltd. Vs. Arihant Threads Ltd., Their Lordships have laid down the proposition in the said decision that the provisions of SICA, in particular, Section 22 shall prevail over the provision for the recovery of debts in the RDDB Act. It is further observed that in these circumstances as already directed by the two Judge Bench of this Court, the judgment and order dated 23.02.2006 of the High Court of Delhi is set-aside.
Karnataka High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - B R B - Full Document

M/Sunflag Iron And Steel Co. Ltd., ... vs Ms J. Poonamchand And Sons, Mumbai on 5 June, 2023

In view of what has been held in Indus Biotech (supra) that, the triggering of a petition under Section 7 of the IB Code to consider the same as a proceeding in rem, it is necessary that the Adjudicating Authority ought to have applied its mind, recorded a finding of default and admitted the petition, Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited Vs. Amit Gupta and others (2021) 7 SCC 209 and KSL and Industries Limited Vs. Arihant Threads Limited and others, (2008) 9 SCC 763 are of no assistance, for a contrary argument, to be acceptable.
Bombay High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 1 - A G Gharote - Full Document

Pramod Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 April, 2021

Criminal Appeal No.5189/2020 "70. I am thus at a point where two statutes employ non obstante clause having "overriding effect". Such a conflict, as laid down in several cases, may be resolved by judiciary on various considerations: such as the policy underlying the enactments, the language used, the object intended to be achieved; or mischief sought to be remedied, etc. One of the tests applied by Courts is that normally a later enactment should prevail over the former. The Courts would also try to reconcile both Acts by adopting harmonious interpretation and applying them in their respective fields so that both may operate without coming into conflict with each other. In resolving the clash, the Court may further examine whether one of the two enactments is "special" and the other one is "general". There can also be a situation in law where one and the same statute may be held to be a "special" statute vis-a`-vis one legislation and "general" statute vis-à-vis another legislation. On the basis of one or more tests, the Court will try to salvage the situation by giving effect to non obstante clause in both the legislations."
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 68 - Cited by 0 - S A Bobde - Full Document

Pramod Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 April, 2021

Criminal Appeal No.5189/2020 "70. I am thus at a point where two statutes employ non obstante clause having "overriding effect". Such a conflict, as laid down in several cases, may be resolved by judiciary on various considerations: such as the policy underlying the enactments, the language used, the object intended to be achieved; or mischief sought to be remedied, etc. One of the tests applied by Courts is that normally a later enactment should prevail over the former. The Courts would also try to reconcile both Acts by adopting harmonious interpretation and applying them in their respective fields so that both may operate without coming into conflict with each other. In resolving the clash, the Court may further examine whether one of the two enactments is "special" and the other one is "general". There can also be a situation in law where one and the same statute may be held to be a "special" statute vis-a`-vis one legislation and "general" statute vis-à-vis another legislation. On the basis of one or more tests, the Court will try to salvage the situation by giving effect to non obstante clause in both the legislations."
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 68 - Cited by 60 - S A Bobde - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 Next