Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 24 (1.06 seconds)Section 392 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Firdous Omer (D) By Lrs. & Ors vs Bankim Chandra Daw (D) By Lrs.& Ors on 28 July, 2006
In Firdous Omer vs. Bankim Chandra Daw
(supra) the Supreme Court considered the Rules of the Original Side of
the Calcutta High Court and the provisions of the Limitation Act and
held that on the expiry of thirty days from the date of dismissal of a suit,
the Court does not become functus officio although the order was drawn
up, completed and filed.
Sudhansu Kanta vs Manindra Nath on 5 October, 1964
35. Great emphasis has been placed by Mr.
Mookherjee on the judgment of the Patna High Court in the case of
Sudhansu Kanta vs. Manindra Nath (supra) on the ground that any
violation of Rule 37 of the Mineral Concession Rules which is mandatory
results in a void contract for transfer of the mining lease and therefore
the maxim in pari delicto is not applicable.
Nanalal M. Varma And Co. (Gunnies) P. ... vs Gordhandas Jerambhai And Ors. on 22 May, 1964
Thus the only way to modify a Scheme of Arrangement which has been
sanctioned by the Company Court is to first have the modifications
approved by a general meeting of the shareholders of the company and
then to submit the modified scheme under Section 391 of the Companies
Act to the Court for sanctioning the same. Similarly in the case of
Unique Delta Force Security P. Ltd. reported in (2012) 175 Company
Case 318 (Bom) it has been held that Section 392 is a complete code so
far as the power of the Court to deal with a scheme after it has been
sanctioned is concerned. The Court has further held that though the
Company Court is empowered to give directions and allow modifications
of a compromise or arrangement, no powers have been conferred on the
Court to recall/ rescind/cancel an order sanctioning the compromise or
arrangement.
S.C. Sons (P) Ltd. vs Sm. Brahma Devi Sharma And Ors. on 24 March, 1986
In the case of S.C. Sons (P) Ltd. vs.
Smt. Brahma Devi Sharma and Others (supra) a suit was dismissed
for non-prosecution. An application was filed for recalling and/or setting
aside the order dismissing the suit under Order 9 Rule 9 of the C.P.C.
The Division Bench of this Court held that it had an inherent right to
recall an order before it is completed and filed. It observed further that
ordinarily no Court can modify or recall any final order after it was
drawn up completed and file. The Court held that an application made
before the Trial Court for setting aside the order dismissing a suit for
non-prosecution, which was not barred by limitation, cannot be
disallowed, only because it was made after the order was drawn up and
completed. However, when such an application for recalling the order by
which the suit was dismissed for non-prosecution was barred by the law
of limitation, it was not open to the Court to allow such an application in
the exercise of its inherent right merely because the order had not been
drawn up completed and filed.
Sesa Industries Ltd vs Krishna H. Bajaj & Ors on 7 February, 2011
26. This view has been reiterated in Sesa
Industries Ltd. vs. Krishna H. Bajaj & Ors. (supra). The submission of
the Learned Counsel Mr. Mookherjee, was that by applying the ratio of
the aforesaid judgments to the present case, it is apparent that the
Scheme of Arrangement had been sanctioned by the competent Court
although it was in breach of the Mineral Concessions Rules which
requires the prior sanction of the Government to transfer a mining lease.
According to him the Scheme of Arrangement envisaged the transfer of
the mining lease which was issued on the application made by C.T.L. in
favour of C.M.L. He submitted, therefore as the Government had not
issued any such order sanctioning the transfer of the mining lease the
Scheme itself was not valid.
B.O.I. Finance Ltd vs The Custodian & Ors on 19 March, 1997
A similar view has been expressed in Sajan Singh vs. Sardara Ali
(supra) and the Supreme Court has applied the same principles in B.O.I.
Finance Ltd. vs. Custodian & Ors. (supra).
The Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd. vs Upper Ganges Sugar Mills Ltd. And ... on 12 January, 1990
15. This Court in the case of The Ganganagar
Sugar Mills Ltd. vs. Upper Ganges Sugar Mills Ltd. and another
(supra) held that the Court had the jurisdiction to entertain an
application even after the period of limitation had expired when a prayer
for condoning the delay was sought, irrespective of whether the decree
had been drawn up completed and filed.