Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.88 seconds)
In Re: Sakow Industries P. Ltd. (In ... vs Unknown on 6 March, 1986 cites

Ravindra Ishwardas Sethna And Anr vs Official Liquidator, High Court, ... on 19 August, 1983

In the case of Ravindra Ishwardas Sethna v. Official Liquidator [1983] 54 Comp Cas 702 (SC), it was held by the Supreme Court that it was not the case of the liquidator that he was carrying on the business of the company which was being wound up with the permission of the court under Section 457 of the Companies Act. We may point out that that is also not the case before us. The Supreme Court pointed out that the language of the section is unambiguous and clear. It is clear that the liquidator with the sanction of the court could carry on the business of the company only to the extent that such carrying on of the business is necessary for the beneficial winding-up of the company. After recording that there is no order of the court to give such sanction, the Supreme Court held that giving premises on lease, licence or under caretaker's agreement was not the business of the company. It was pointed out that the company was a statutory tenant under the Rent Act. It was further pointed out that the statutory tenancy conferred the right to be in possession but if the tenant did not any more require the use of the premises, the provisions of the Rent Act and specially Sections 13 and 15 completely prohibited giving possession of the premises on licence or on sub-lease. The learned company judge could not have permitted holding on to the possession of the premises not needed for efficiently carrying on the winding-up proceedings. The only course open to him was to direct the liquidator to surrender the possession to the landlord and save the recurring liability to pay rent.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 46 - D A Desai - Full Document

Namdeo Lokman Lodhi vs Narmadabai And Others on 27 February, 1953

In this context, he has drawn our attention to the decision of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Namdeo Lokman Lodhi v. Narmadabai, . He has further submitted that the official liquidator can exercise his right to the option for renewal and such right can be exercised and assignment or sub-lease can be done. However, it is admitted, as has also been recorded in the said judgment, the business of the company has been closed down long time back. Various attempts for sale of the lease were made from time to time but they had all. become infructuous. Plant machineries and other assets cannot be utilised. The learned judge himself has recorded that it may not be worthwhile for a purchaser to venture into a project which will necessarily be of a limited duration.
Supreme Court of India Cites 31 - Cited by 49 - M C Mahajan - Full Document

Ganpat Ladha vs Sashikant Vishnu Shinde on 21 February, 1978

The Division Bench thereafter considered various decisions of the Supreme Court including the decision in the case of Ganpat Ladha v. Sashikant Vishnu Shinde, , and pointed out that the object of the said Tenancy Act also is not to deprive the landlord altogether of his rights in the property. The Act has given the tenant and the heirs living with him some protection. The Act, however, has not armed the statutory tenant with any right to transfer or assign his protected right of possession.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 124 - M H Beg - Full Document

Ganapati Sitaram Balvalkar And Another vs Waman Shripad Mage (Since Dead) Through ... on 10 August, 1981

13. Thereafter, the Division Bench considered the question as to whether it was really a case of court sale and whether even though the company voluntarily could not sell or transfer the assets, the official liquidator acting under the direction and control of the court, in exercise of the statutory power could effect such sale. It was contended on behalf of the appellant that the official liquidator was merely acting as an agent of the company and could not sell what the company was not empowered to transfer. The Division Bench accepted this contention of the appellant and held that the corporate existence of a company does not come to an end as soon as an order for winding-up of the company is passed. The assets in the custody of the liquidator continue to be the assets of the company. It was pointed out that the sale that was made in that case was by the official liquidator under the provisions of Section 456 on behalf of the company and was made in the name of the company. It was pointed out that the property of the company after the winding-up order did not vest in the official liquidator and that under Section 456 of the Companies Act, the liquidator merely had custody and control of the assets of the company.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 58 - A D Koshal - Full Document

Parasram Harnand Rao vs Shanti Prasad Narinder Kumar Jain & Anr on 10 April, 1980

In this context, the Division Bench referred to a decision in the case of Parasram Harnand Rao v. Shanti Parsad Narinder Kumar Jain, , and held that according to the Supreme Court, the sale by the official liquidator of the tenancy right of a company under the orders of the court is a voluntary sale. It was further held that even if the sale was an involuntary one, it was an assignment by the official liquidator and came within the mischief of Section 14(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. It was pointed out that the answer to the question whether the sale by the liquidator is a voluntary sale on behalf of the company or a sale by operation of law does not depend on any provisions of the said Tenancy Act but is dependent on the provisions of the Companies Act regarding the power and the position of the liquidator. It also referred to a judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Globe Associates (P.)
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 20 - S M Ali - Full Document
1   2 Next