Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.30 seconds)
Project And Equipment Corporation Of ... vs Aluminium Industries Ltd. And Anr. on 23 May, 2000
cites
Section 22 in The Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Maharashtra Tubes Ltd vs State Industrial And Investment ... on 29 January, 1993
That decision is of no assistance to the appellant as it runs counter to the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in Maharashtra Tubes Ltd. v. State Industrial and Investment Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. [1993] 78 Comp Cas 803 ; [1993] 2 SCC 144 wherein it has been held that Section 22(1) cannot be given a narrow or restricted meaning as such a narrow meaning would run counter to the scheme of the law and frustrate the very object and purpose of Section 22(1) of
the Act.
Madalsa International Ltd. & Others vs Central Bank Of India on 11 December, 1997
10. The aforesaid decision on the rule of interpretation assumes importance in the context of the contention of the appellant that only a suit is barred and that the invocation of the bank guarantee is not barred. In the light of the rule of interpretation which is now noticed and construing the section in its setting, it can be seen that an interpretation excluding bank guarantee from the purview of the section would lead to manifest contradiction of the apparent purpose and intendment of the enactment. The court in its competence can adopt a construction by ironing out creases but will stop short of altering the material with which the Act is woven. Thus interpreted any proceeding for the winding up of the company or for execution, distress or the like against any of the properties of the company and any proceeding or suit for the recovery of money or for the enforcement of any security against the company or of any guarantee in respect of any loans or advance granted to the company will also be barred except with the consent of the Board. Of course, learned counsel for the appellant would rely on the decision in Madalsa International Ltd. v. Central Bank of India [2000] 99 Comp Cas 153, 167 (Bom); AIR 1998 Bom 247 wherein it has been held in paragraph 22 that "restrictions will have to be read on strict interpretation as they affect the valuable rights".
Keshri Steels And Anr. vs M.P. Electricity Board And Ors. on 6 January, 1998
Likewise, the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Keshari Steels v. M. P. Electricity Board [1999] 98 Comp Cas 180 ; AIR 1999 MP 83 is also of no assistance since it has been decided applying the law which governs the invocation of bank guarantee.
Section 15 in The State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 [Entire Act]
Section 29 in The State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 [Entire Act]
The State Financial Corporations Act, 1951
Section 29 in The Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Tirath Singh vs Bachittar Singh And Others on 15 September, 1955
In the ruling in Tirath Singh v. Bachittar Singh, AIR 1955 SC 830, 833 it has been held that "where the language of a statute, in its ordinary meaning and grammatical construction, leads to a manifest contradiction of the apparent purpose of the enactment, or to some inconvenience or absurdity, hardship or injustice, presumably not intended, a construction may be put upon it which modifies the meaning of the words, and even the structure of the sentence".