Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.32 seconds)
Shri Sunil Agarwal And Ors. vs Laxmi Ventures (India) Ltd. And Ors. And ... on 20 July, 2004 cites

Shanti Prasad Agarwalla And Others vs Union Of India And Others on 5 September, 1990

In Shanti Prasad Jain v. Union of India (1973 CC 778 ), it has been held that before enforcing an agreement, it should be examined whether there was a concluded complete agreement. In the present case, as is evident from the draft agreement given by the respondents which contains a number of contested issues, until and unless they are resolved and made as a part of an overall and complete settlement, the order dated 29.1.2004 cannot be worked out. His client is not disputing the consent order and he stands by that order. However, to work out this order, various other issues have to be settled and if the respondents are willing to do so, the petitioner is prepared to comply with the terms of the settlement.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 52 - Full Document

Satish Chand Sanwalka And Ors. vs Tinplate Dealers Association Pvt. Ltd. ... on 30 December, 1997

The decision in Tinplate case is not applicable in the present case because neither the applicants therein nor their counsel were present when the terms of compromise were arrived at nor they had signed the compromise terms. In the present case, the counsel for all the petitioners were parties to the order dated 29.1.2004 and therefore, the 2nd and 3rd petitioners cannot now contend that since they had not authorized the 1st petitioner to compromise, the same is not binding on them.
Company Law Board Cites 13 - Cited by 13 - Full Document

Mrs. Michelle Jawad-Al-Fahoum vs Indo Saudi (Travels) Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. on 10 February, 1998

In case of Mrs Michelle Jawad Al-Fahoum v. Indo Saudi Travels Pvt Ltd (1998 30 CLA 42) the parties therein, like in the present case, discussed terms of compromise in my chamber along with their counsel and the terms agreed to by them were recorded as an order. Later on, the respondent therein raised a similar issue that there was no consensus ad-idem and sought for recall of the consent order or sought to make certain amendments. This Board declined the request on the ground that the order was recorded with the consent of all the parties and as was binding and no amendments could be made without the consent of all the parties.
Company Law Board Cites 7 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Kshounish Chowdhury And Ors. vs Kero Rajendra Monolithics Ltd. And Ors. on 23 June, 1999

In Kshounish Choudhury v. Kero Rajendra Monolitthis Limited (CA 192/98 in CP 88/97), the issue as to whether the consent given by an authorized agent of a party was binding on his clients arose, when the client claimed that he had not authorized the agent to compromise. In that case, the authority of an advocate to enter into a compromise was also examined. After considering the decisions in Sheonamdan Prasad Singh v.(AIR 1935 PC 119) and Smt Jamilabai Abdul kadir v. Shankar Lal Gulab Chand (AIR 1975 SC 2202), this Board held that even without a specific authority of a client, an advocate has the implied authority to enter into a compromise on behalf of his client, as long as the same is in the interest of his client. In the present case, the 2nd and 3rd petitioners, other than stating the compromise terms would be against their interests, have not elaborated the same. Therefore, since Shri Krishna Kumar was the common counsel for all the petitioners including the 2nd and 3rd petitioners and since he was a party to the terms of compromise, he should be deemed to have had the implied authority of the 2nd and 3rd petitioners to enter into the compromise, and as such the same is binding on the 2nd and 3rd petitioners.
Company Law Board Cites 17 - Cited by 12 - Full Document
1