Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.23 seconds)Article 137 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Companies Act, 1956
The Limitation Act, 1963
Section 433 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 434 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd vs M. W. Pradhan on 21 March, 1966
10. That is not the case here. The petition is based entirely on the
decretal debt, not the underlying cause of action. Limitation would
be governed not by Article 137 but by Article 136, and that provides
a period of 12 years from the date when the decree is enforceable. 5 It
is also settled that winding up is an equitable mode of execution. 6
4
(2002) ILR 1 Cal 31
5
Techno Metals India (P) Ltd v Prem Nath Anand, [1973] 43 Comp Cas 556
(Cal)
6
Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd. v M.W. Pradhan, [1966] 36 Comp Cas 426
(SC) : AIR 1966 SC 1707
Om Prakash Mohta vs Steel Equipment And Construction Co. ... on 3 May, 1966
8. I am unable to see how Mr. Jumani's reliance on In Re: Steel
Equipment and Construction Co. (P.) Ltd; Om Prakash Mohta v Steel
Equipment and Construction Co. (P.) Ltd.2 is of the slightest
assistance to him. There, the issue was of competence to contract,
and whether a decree that was void or a nullity for that reason could
ever be invoked to sustain a winding up petition.