Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.26 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
The Companies Act, 1956
The Central Sales Tax Act, 1956
Nepc India Ltd. vs Indian Airlines Limited on 21 August, 2002
In NEPC Vs. Indian Airlines, 100 (202) Delhi Law Times 14, I had attempted to distil the
observations of the Apex Court in PIICUP case (supra) by
setting down the following proposition:
Wimco Ltd. vs Sidvink Properties (P.) Ltd. on 15 March, 1994
In Wimco Ltd. Vs. Sidvink Properties
(P) Ltd., 1996 Vol.86 Company Cases 610, it has been held
by P.K. Bahri, (sic) that where a bona fide dispute had been
shown to the Court, the question of applying the deeming
provision should not automatically arise. I am in
respectful agreement with this view.
Section 442 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Haryana Telecom Ltd vs Sterlite Industires (India) Ltd on 13 July, 1999
As has been held in Haryana Telecom
Ltd. Vs. Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd., , "the claim in a petition for
winding up is not for money. The petition filed under
the Companies Act would be to the effect that the
company has become commercially insolvent and,
therefore, should be wound-up. The power to order
winding-up of a company is contained under the Companies
Act and is conferred on the court." Even if an
Arbitration Clause submits between the parties, this
Court has unfet(sic)er powers to entertain these winding-up
petitions. The position would be appreciably different
if the party fi(sic)ing the winding-up petition is also the
very party which initiates the arbitration on the
adjudication and quantification of its Claims.
Mayar Traders Ltd. vs Akhil Services Ltd. on 27 October, 1993
6. I shall first deal with the consequences of the
Respondent's failure to send a Reply to the Statutory
Notice. A perusal of the precedents on this point do not
indicate that such failure inexorably leads to the
conclusion that Winding-up orders must unvariably be
passed. From my understanding of the judgments of my
Learned Sister Hon'ble Ms. Usha Mehra in Mayar Traders
Ltd. Vs. Akhil Services Ltd., 52 (1993) Delhi Law Times
577 and G.K.W. Ltd. Vs. Shriram Bearings Ltd., , she had taken the failure to reply to the notice
as an important factor in determining whether a bona fide
defense had been put forward. In the circumstances of both
the cases, she preferred to view the defense as an
afterthought and as being bereft of bona fide.
G.K.W. Ltd. vs Shriram Bearings Ltd. on 8 October, 1998
6. I shall first deal with the consequences of the
Respondent's failure to send a Reply to the Statutory
Notice. A perusal of the precedents on this point do not
indicate that such failure inexorably leads to the
conclusion that Winding-up orders must unvariably be
passed. From my understanding of the judgments of my
Learned Sister Hon'ble Ms. Usha Mehra in Mayar Traders
Ltd. Vs. Akhil Services Ltd., 52 (1993) Delhi Law Times
577 and G.K.W. Ltd. Vs. Shriram Bearings Ltd., , she had taken the failure to reply to the notice
as an important factor in determining whether a bona fide
defense had been put forward. In the circumstances of both
the cases, she preferred to view the defense as an
afterthought and as being bereft of bona fide.