Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 28 (0.28 seconds)Section 16 in The Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Section 15 in The Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Haryana Financial Corporation & Anr vs M/S Jagdamba Oil Mills & Anr on 28 January, 2002
10.11. The AAIFR in its order dated 9.5.2003 while confirming the
order of the BIFR dated 24.2.2003 held that the assets of the petitioner
company should be sold only by way of public auction through advertisement,
referring to the decisions of the Apex Court in Chairman and Managing
Director, SIPCOT, Madras-8, and Ors. Vs. Contromix Pvt. Ltd., rep. by its
Director (Finance) Seetharaman, Madras and another, reported in JT 1995 (6) SC
283 as followed in Haryana Financial Corporation & another Vs. Jagadamba Oil
Mills and another reported in JT 2002 (1) SC 482, in order to procure the best
price for the sale of public property, the property should be brought on
public auction. The reliance place on the said decisions is not tenable in
law as the assets proposed to be sold by the petitioner company are not public
properties.
The Chairman And Managing ... vs Contromix Pvt.Ltd. By Its ... on 12 May, 1995
10.11. The AAIFR in its order dated 9.5.2003 while confirming the
order of the BIFR dated 24.2.2003 held that the assets of the petitioner
company should be sold only by way of public auction through advertisement,
referring to the decisions of the Apex Court in Chairman and Managing
Director, SIPCOT, Madras-8, and Ors. Vs. Contromix Pvt. Ltd., rep. by its
Director (Finance) Seetharaman, Madras and another, reported in JT 1995 (6) SC
283 as followed in Haryana Financial Corporation & another Vs. Jagadamba Oil
Mills and another reported in JT 2002 (1) SC 482, in order to procure the best
price for the sale of public property, the property should be brought on
public auction. The reliance place on the said decisions is not tenable in
law as the assets proposed to be sold by the petitioner company are not public
properties.
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
U.P. State Sugar Corpn. Ltd vs U.P. State Sugar Corpn. Karamchari ... on 2 May, 1995
In any event, as observed by the Apex Court i U.P.STATE SUGAR
CORPN. LTD. Vs. U.P.S.S.CORPN. KARAMCHARI ASSOCIATION, referred supra,
prior consent contemplated under Section 22A of the SIC Act should not be
construed as a power to prohibit the sale of assets itself as it would run
counter to the express terms under Section 22A of the SIC Act.