Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.25 seconds)Section 80 in Indian Companies Act, 1913 [Entire Act]
The Court-fees Act, 1870
Sawai Singhai Nirmal Chand vs Union Of India on 24 September, 1965
21. The nature of a suit under Order 21, Rule 63, being entirely different from the nature of a proceeding under Order 21, Rule 58, the Supreme Court in Sawai Singhai's case, , came to the conclusion that in order to institute a suit under Order 21, Rule 63, notice under Section 80 of the Code must be given. We may, incidentally, mention that the language of Section 80, so far as it is relevant for our purpose in this case, bears striking resemblance to that of Section 171 of the Indian Companies Act, 1913.
The Governor General In Council vs Shiromani Sugar Mills Limited (In ... on 11 March, 1946
The Federal Court did not accept this view of the Lahore High Court in the case of Governor-General in Council v. Shiromani Sugar Mills Ltd., [1946] 16 Comp. Cas. 71, 14 I.T.R. 248, A.I.R. 1946 F.C. 16. The Federal Court took the view that the expression " or other legal proceeding " in Section 171 need not and should not be confined to original proceedings in a court of first instance analogous to a suit initiated by means of a petition similar to a plaint. But we are not concerned with that problem in the present case. The Federal Court expressed no opinion whatsoever on the other view of the Lahore High Court, namely, a suit under Order 21, Rule 63, could not be commenced without leave under Section 171 of the Indian Companies Act, 1913.
Rameshwarlal And Ors. vs The Pareek Commercial Bank Ltd. on 18 September, 1968
24. Mr. Sen appearing for the bank in liquidation has relied on the decisions in Rameshwarlal v. Pareek Commercial Bank Ltd., , and Srinivasa Naicker v. Nagappa Chettiar, [1971] 41 Comp. Cas. 550 (Mad.). But in view of the principles the Supreme Court has discussed in the case referred to above, we consider it unnecessary to go into these decisions.
Srinivasa Naicker And Anr. vs A.N. Nagappa Chettiar on 21 December, 1970
24. Mr. Sen appearing for the bank in liquidation has relied on the decisions in Rameshwarlal v. Pareek Commercial Bank Ltd., , and Srinivasa Naicker v. Nagappa Chettiar, [1971] 41 Comp. Cas. 550 (Mad.). But in view of the principles the Supreme Court has discussed in the case referred to above, we consider it unnecessary to go into these decisions.
Rahmat Ali Fatehullah vs Calcutta National Bank Ltd. on 11 November, 1954
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed strong reliance on the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Rahmat Ali Fatehullah v. Calcutta National Bank Ltd., [1955] 25 Comp. Cas. 112, 117, A.I.R. 1955 All. 169.