Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.32 seconds)
Total Sports & Entertainment India Pvt. ... vs Premier Brands Private Limited - ... on 6 June, 2017
cites
The Companies Act, 1956
Section 434 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 138 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
M/S.Iba Health (India) Private Ltd vs M/S.Info Drive Systems Sdn Bhd on 21 October, 2009
Insofar as the judgment of the Supreme Court in case if
IBA Health (I) Pvt. Ltd. (supra) relied upon by the respondent is
concerned, the Supreme Court in the said judgment has held that the
dispute would be specific and genuine if it is bonafide and not
spurious, speculative, illusory or misconceived. It is held that the
31/33
::: Uploaded on - 06/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/06/2017 01:04:26 :::
cp210-12
grounds of dispute, of course, must not consist of some ingenious
mask invented to deprive a creditor of a just and honest entitlement
and must not be a mere wrangle.
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
K. Bhaskaran vs Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan And Anr on 29 September, 1999
11. By an order dated 24th November, 2016, this Court
observed that the notice issued to the company at its registered
address must be deemed to be delivered even if it is returned
unclaimed. This Court adverted to the judgment of the Supreme
Court in case of K.Bhaskaran vs. Sankaran Vidhyan Balan, (1999)
Supp.(3) SCR 271 and held that just as notice at the correct address
of the addressee refused by the addressee is presumed to be served
on him, a notice returned as unclaimed also similarly raises a
presumption under section 27 of the General Clauses Act that the
notice is duly served on the addressee.