Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.24 seconds)Section 29 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
The State Financial Corporations Act, 1951
S. L. Kapoor vs Jagmohan & Ors on 18 September, 1980
9. Hence relying on the case of Kharavela Industries Pvt. Ltd. (AIR 1985 Orissa 153) (supra) of this Court and the decisions of the Supreme Court in Swadeshi Cotten Mills' case (AIR 1981 SC 818), Section L. Kapoor's case (AIR 1981 SC136) and Olga Teliis' case (AIR 1986 SC 180) (supra), we hold that in accordance with the principles of natural justice it was obligatory on the part of the Corporation to give reasonable time and notice to the petitioners that the Corporation was going to take over the Industrial Concern under Section 29 of the Act so that the petitioners could have had the opportunity to put forth their case before the Corporation.
Haji T.M. Hassan Rawther vs Kerala Financial Corporation on 17 November, 1987
The facts placed on record do not disclose any such grounds so as to justify the sale of the Industrial Concern to opposite party No. 3 through negotiations and so the course adopted by the Corporation deserves to be deprecated in view of the following; observations of the Supreme Court in Hajij T.M. Hassan Rawther v. Kerala Financial Corporation, AIR 1988 SC 157 (para 14) :-
Chenchu Rami Reddy & Anr vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors on 1 April, 1986
In this context it is relevant to remember the following caution administered by the Supreme Court in Chenchu Rami Reddy v. Govt. of A.P., AIR 1986 SC 1158, while dealing with the sale of land belonging to a charitable endowment (Para 6) :--
Article 236 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Kharavela Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs Orissa State Financial Corporation And ... on 5 February, 1985
6. From the arguments advanced by the parties the main point that arises for consideration is whether, in the facts of the case, the Corporation was bound to give a notice to the petitioners that the Corporation was going to take over the Industrial Concern under Section 29 of the Act. The question whether the provisions of Section 29 of the Act contemplates issuance of a notice to the affected party, and whether the principles of natural justice would apply in the case of the takeover proceedings under Section 29 also, came up for consideration before this Court in M s. Kharavela Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Orissa State Financial Corporation AIR 1985 Orissa 153. The relevant facts of that case are : The Financial Corporation before passing the earlier order of taking over dated 6-1-1984 afforded sufficient opportunity to the petitioner-Company in that the Corporation gave due notice to the petitioner as to the default position and further its decision to take over possession on failure of the petitioner to pay the instalments. Subsequently the petitioner made some payments and the said order dated 6-1-1984 was not given effect to. But subsequently the Corporation issued orders under Section 29 of the Act and took over possession of the Industrial Concern on 27-2-2984 without giving further notice to the petitioner-Company though in the meantime there had been some payments made by it as earlier stated.