Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 26 (0.28 seconds)
Dwarka vs Writers cites

S. K. Gupta & Anr vs K. P. Jain & Anr on 30 January, 1979

[6.17] Now so far as the reliance placed upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.K. Gupta and Anr. (Supra) on the locus of the applicant, it is submitted by Shri Chaudhary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 that the said decision would not be applicable to the facts of the present case. It is submitted that assuming that the locus of the applicant i.e. either M/s. Dwarka Prasad Agarwal and Brothers or Smt. Kishori Devi is not relevant, in that case also, no such relief which is sought in the present application can be granted in an application under Section 392(1) of the Act, 1956. It is submitted that admittedly the present application is under Section 392(1) of the Act, 1956 seeking "modification" of the sanctioned Scheme of Arrangement. It is submitted that proposed modifications or directions are not specified. It is further submitted that as such in addition to not specifying the modifications, there is no pleading that the proposed modifications are necessary "for the proper working of the sanctioned Scheme of Arrangement"
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 104 - D A Desai - Full Document

Punjab National Bank Limited vs Bikram Cotton Mills & Anr on 17 September, 1969

[8.24] Now, so far as reliance placed upon the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Spice Communications Ltd & Anr. (Supra) by which the Delhi High Court entertained the application to recall the order sanctioning the Scheme of Amalgamation filed after a delay of 13 months is concerned, it is required to be noted that even the Delhi High Court did not recall the order of sanctioning the Scheme of Amalgamation in its entirety.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 41 - J C Shah - Full Document
1   2 3 Next