Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 26 (0.30 seconds)
Gramercy Emerging Market Fund vs Essar Steel Limited on 20 March, 2002 cites

Narotamdas Trikamdas Toprani vs Bombay Dyeing And Manufacturing Co. ... on 22 August, 1986

In the said Bombay case, Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sujata V. Manohar held that where the debenture holder sues the company or takes steps against the company for recovery of his money claim under the debenture certificate, he is entitled to do so, but the situation is different when the suit is for some other reliefs like maintenance of securities by the company for the protection of debenture holders. The instant case falls in the former category and not in the latter category.
Bombay High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 2 - S V Manohar - Full Document

Vijayalakshmi Art Productions vs Vijaya Productions Pvt. Ltd. on 10 November, 1995

42. It is true that in Vijayalakshmi Art Productions v. Vijaya Productions Pvt. Ltd. [1997] 88 Comp Cas 353, the Madras High Court has held that winding up proceedings under Section 433 of the Companies Act cannot be the subject matter of an arbitration agreement and that that view is also now confirmed by the apex court in Haryana Telecom Ltd.'s case [1999] 97 Comp Cas 683. It is also true that in ITC Agro Tech ltd.'s case [1998] 4 Comp LJ 18 (All), the Allahabad High Court has held that the right to file a winding up petition cannot be obliterated by an agreement between the parties. The company court has to determine whether debt is due and whether the company is unable to pay the same and whether the defence taken in the winding up petition was bona fide and likely to succeed on a point of law.
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 10 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next