Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 21 (4.19 seconds)
Gopal Krishna Daw vs Official Liquidator on 3 April, 2001 cites

Sudarsan Chits (I) Ltd vs O. Sukumaran Pillai & Ors on 16 August, 1984

45. The Apex Court in the said decision explained the provisions of Section 446(2) of the Companies Act and held that undoubtedly looking into the language of Sections 446(1) and (2) and its setting in Part VII which deals with winding up proceedings, would clearly show that the jurisdiction of the Company Court to entertain and dispose of proceedings set out in Sub-clauses (a) to (d) of Sub-section (2) could be invoked in the Court which is winding up the company.
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 81 - D A Desai - Full Document

Vidyadhar Upadhyay vs Sree Sree Madan Gopal Jew And Ors. on 9 September, 1987

46. Lastly, Mr. Mitra cited a Bench decision of this Court in the case of Vidyadhar Upadhyay v. Sree Sree Madan Gopal Jew [1990] 67 Com. Cas. 394, where the Division Bench considered the said provisions and held that whether the Official Liquidator was in actual possession of the premises or not was immaterial. In view of Section 446, he would be deemed to have been in possession, as the premises was, admittedly, an asset of the company and, that the proceedings under Section 446 of the said Act were 'due process of law'.
Calcutta High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 10 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next