Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.25 seconds)Section 398 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 397 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
The Companies Act, 2013
The Companies Act, 1956
Assistant Commnr., Income Tax, Rajkot vs Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd on 15 September, 2008
12.1 NCLT considering these provisions and making reference to
Judgement in the matter of "Assistant Commissioner, Income Tax,
Rajkot vs. Saurashtra Kutch, South Exchange Limited reported in
(2008) 14 SCC 171, which had been cited before it, referred to para - 25
of that Judgement where Hon'ble Supreme Court discussed the
Judgement in the matter of "Patel Narvi Thakersh vs. Pradyuman Singhji
reported in 1971 3 SCC 844 and extracted the following portions:-
Section 399 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 402 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
The Limitation Act, 1963
Syed Yakoob vs K.S. Radhakrishnan & Others on 7 October, 1963
16.1 The learned NCLT then referred to para - 29 of the Judgement in
the matter of Assistant Commissioner, Income Tax where the Hon'ble
Supreme Court referred to the Judgement of "Syed Yakoob vs K.S.
Radhakrishnan" reported in AIR 1964 Supreme Court 477. The portion
extracted by the Hon'ble Supreme has been reproduced by NCLT in its
judgement to discuss as to what would be an error of law which is apparent
on the face of record and which can be corrected by a writ but not an error
of fact, however grave it may appear to be. We will reproduce para - 30 of
the Judgement in the matter of Assistant Commissioner, Income Tax for
beneficial reading. In para - 30, Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:-