Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.23 seconds)

Wimco Ltd. vs Sidvink Properties (P.) Ltd. on 15 March, 1994

Referring to the judgment of this court in the case of Wimco Ltd. v. Sidvink Properties (P) Ltd. reported in (86) 1996 Company Cass 610 (Delhi), he submitted that merely because the company did not reply to the communication or the statutory notice, it would not amount to admission of liability and it was still obligatory on the part of the petitioner to establish that the debt exits.
Delhi High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Resham Singh & Co. P. Ltd. vs Daewoo Motors India Ltd. on 13 November, 2002

16. In the light of these circumstances appearing against the company, no credence can be given to the two certificates of the Chartered Accountants produced by the respondent company at this stage and, therefore, I am of the prima facie view that the company is indebted to the petitioner. The defense of the company to the effect that it is a solvent company will also be no assistance to it at this stage in view of the judgment of this court in the case of Resham Singh and Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Daewoo MotorsIndia Ltd., 102 (2003) DLT 188 wherein it was held as under :
Delhi High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 18 - V Sen - Full Document

Balkrishan Gupta And Ors vs Swadeshi Polytex Ltd. And Anr on 12 February, 1985

In Balkrishan Gupta (supra), the Supreme Court held that for any other person, who becomes a member, two conditions must be fulfillled. (1)There is an agreement to become a member; and (2) that his name is entered in the register of members of the company. Both the conditions are cumulative. The word `inriting' which were added in sub-section (2) of Section 41 by amendment Act of 1960 indicate, by necessary implication, that an application for allotment of shares should be made in writing.
Supreme Court of India Cites 40 - Cited by 78 - E S Venkataramiah - Full Document

Manabendra Shah vs The Official Liquidator, Indian ... on 5 May, 1975

That is the interpretation given by this court as well in the case of H.H.Manabendra Shah (supra). Clause 4.6.7 of SEBI guidelines also provides that security for which a specific written consent has not been obtained from the respective shareholders for inclusion of their subscription in the minimum promoters contribution subject to lock-in shall not be eligible for promoters contribution.
Delhi High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1   2 Next