Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.26 seconds)Section 111 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Canara Bank vs Nuclear Power Corporation Of India Ltd. ... on 6 March, 1995
As far as the first argument is concerned, it has to be borne in mind that the Supreme Court in Canara Bank v. Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd. [1995] 84 Comp Cas 70 interpreted the term "court" with reference to the Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act. While doing so, in para 35, the Supreme Court observed that (at page 90) :
The Special Courts Act, 1979
Section 155 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Km. Kr. Kr. Ramanathan Chettiar By ... vs N.M. Kandappa Goundan (Died) And Ors. on 21 April, 1950
For this he relied on Km, Kr. Kr. Ramanathan Chettiar's case, AIR 1951 Mad 314.
A.V. Sampat, Official Liquidator vs Dunlop India Ltd. And Anr. on 22 May, 1995
In this connection, he also cited the decision of the Company Law Board in A. V. Sampat, Official Liquidator v. Dunlop India Ltd. [1996] 87 Comp Cas 398.
Suresh Kumar Manchanda vs Prakash Roadlines Ltd. And Others on 8 March, 1994
He also cited the decision in Suresh Kumar Manchanda v. Prakash Roadlines Ltd. [1996] 87 Comp Cas 102 (Kar) to state that "the court can in an appropriate case decline to exercise its powers under Section 155, if it finds that the petitioner before it has disentitled himself to the said relief for any reason like . . . acquiescence, delay and laches, etc."