Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.81 seconds)Section 398 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 402 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 52 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Section 403 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
B.R. Kundra And Ors. vs Motion Pictures Association And Ors. on 3 May, 1977
34. Learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 4 has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of B.R.Kundra and others vs. Motion Pictures Association and others, (1978) Vol.48 Comp.Cases. 564 to contend that the Company Law Board is competent to deal with the situation arising from events occurring during pendency of petition to contend, that Court can take into the transfer qua property of the company in favour of the appellant, during proceedings.
Kamal Kumar Dutta & Anr vs Ruby General Hospital Ltd. & Ors on 11 August, 2006
28. Learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 4, thereafter, placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kamal Kumar Dutta and another vs. Ruby General Hospital Ltd and others, (2006) 74 CLA 91 (SC) to contend that the Directors of a Company are in a position of trustee. They should conform to probity and their conduct should be above suspicions.
Narayana Venkatachalamiah vs Putika Venkatiah And Ors. on 14 August, 1941
In support of this contention, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 4 placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Narayana Venkatachalamiah vs. Putika Venkatiah and others, AIR 1942 Madras 24, wherein, this Court was pleased to hold that the word "Court" in Section 52 of Transfer of Properties Act, is comprehensive enough to include the Registrar or the arbitrator appointed by him under the Madras Act. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 4, therefore, was that the Company Law Board would also be the "Court", and the principles of lis pendense will be applicable.