Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.79 seconds)Kailash Prasad Mishra And Ors. vs Medwin Laboratory P. Ltd. And Ors. on 17 December, 1985
23. As already noticed there can be hardly any dispute to the legal proposition but it is the application of these well enunciated principles to the circumstances of the present case which is of importance. Even in the case of Kailash Prasad Mishra v. Medwin Laboratory P. Ltd. [1988] 63 Comp Cas 810 (MP) the court itself restricted the application to the facts of the case, i.e., their Lordships found that the company was able to meet its liabilities as and when they arise and, secondly, it was against the public interest. In this very judgment the court said that the liquidator could be appointed where the court was satisfied that it was necessary to do so or it was just and equitable. In the present case, nothing has been brought on record to show as to what public interest is involved and how the company could clear its admitted liabilities. The liabilities are admittedly much more than its assets. The properties are mortgaged to the financial institutions. In addition thereto there are huge amounts due to the unsecured creditors including even the landlord and the petitioner. No manufacturing or assembling unit was found to be working practically. The units were lying closed for more than a year and the plea of 800 workers on the face of it has been found to be false and incorrect.
The Companies Act, 1956
Town House Building Co-Operative ... vs Special Deputy Commissioner on 11 February, 1988
In the alternative while relying upon the Full Bench of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Town House Building Co-operative Society Ltd. v. Special Deputy Commissioner, AIR 1988 Kar 312, he contended that even on the facts of the case the review application is not maintainable.
Sri Chamundi Theatre Mysore Talkies ... vs S. Chandrasekara Rao on 8 January, 1974
27. In the event of appointment of a provisional liquidator the company neither loses its legal entity nor is the company divested of its properties in spite of pendency of the winding up petition and the appointment of the provisional liquidator. The properties are not vested in the liquidator which would require divesting at future time unless the company is finally wound up. All provisions of the Companies Act per se do not become applicable to the appointment of the provisional liquidator and the court can always restrict and regulate the powers exercised by a provisional liquidator. Reference in this regard may be made to Sri Chamundi Theatre Mysore Talkies Ltd. v. S. Chandrasekara Rao [1975] 45 Comp Cas 60 (Mad).
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
1