Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 36 (0.21 seconds)Section 130 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Section 433 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Divya Export Enterprises vs Producin Private Ltd. on 10 March, 1990
In Divya Export Enterprises v. Producin (Pvt.) Ltd. [1991] 70 Comp Cas 692 (Karn), it was held :
Section 176 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Madhusudan Gordhandas & Co vs Madhu Woollen Industries Pvt. Ltd on 29 October, 1971
In Madhusudan Gordhandas and Co. v. Madhu Woollen Industries P. Ltd., , it was held by the apex court that once a prima facie case is made out by the petitioner for admission of the company petition, the company court will have to examine, as to whether the respondent has, prima facie, put forth a substantial defence. The principles, on which the company court acts in this regard are first that the defence of the company is in good faith and one of substance, secondly, the defence is likely to succeed in point of law, and, thirdly, the company adduces prima facie proof of the facts on which the defence depends.
B.O.I. Finance Ltd vs The Custodian & Ors on 19 March, 1997
In support of this submission, he placed reliance on the judgments in Howrah Trading Co. Ltd. v. CIT , B. O. L Finance Ltd. v. Custodian [1997] 89 Comp Cas 74 (SC), A. M. P. Arunachalam v. A.R. Krishnamurthy [1979] 49 Comp Cas 662 (Mad), Jagdishchandra Champaklal Parekh v. Deccan Paper Mills Co. Ltd. [1994] 80 Comp Cas 159 (CLB) and Hindustan Dorr Oliver Ltd. v. A.K. Menon [1994] 80 Comp Cas 384 (Special Court).
A.M.P. Arunachalam vs A.R. Krishnamurthy And Ors. on 7 April, 1977
In support of this submission, he placed reliance on the judgments in Howrah Trading Co. Ltd. v. CIT , B. O. L Finance Ltd. v. Custodian [1997] 89 Comp Cas 74 (SC), A. M. P. Arunachalam v. A.R. Krishnamurthy [1979] 49 Comp Cas 662 (Mad), Jagdishchandra Champaklal Parekh v. Deccan Paper Mills Co. Ltd. [1994] 80 Comp Cas 159 (CLB) and Hindustan Dorr Oliver Ltd. v. A.K. Menon [1994] 80 Comp Cas 384 (Special Court).
Jagdishchandra Champaklal Parekh vs Deccan Paper Mills Co. Ltd. And Ors. on 31 January, 1991
In support of this submission, he placed reliance on the judgments in Howrah Trading Co. Ltd. v. CIT , B. O. L Finance Ltd. v. Custodian [1997] 89 Comp Cas 74 (SC), A. M. P. Arunachalam v. A.R. Krishnamurthy [1979] 49 Comp Cas 662 (Mad), Jagdishchandra Champaklal Parekh v. Deccan Paper Mills Co. Ltd. [1994] 80 Comp Cas 159 (CLB) and Hindustan Dorr Oliver Ltd. v. A.K. Menon [1994] 80 Comp Cas 384 (Special Court).
Hindustan Dorr Oliver Ltd. vs A.K. Menon And Ors. on 16 August, 1993
In support of this submission, he placed reliance on the judgments in Howrah Trading Co. Ltd. v. CIT , B. O. L Finance Ltd. v. Custodian [1997] 89 Comp Cas 74 (SC), A. M. P. Arunachalam v. A.R. Krishnamurthy [1979] 49 Comp Cas 662 (Mad), Jagdishchandra Champaklal Parekh v. Deccan Paper Mills Co. Ltd. [1994] 80 Comp Cas 159 (CLB) and Hindustan Dorr Oliver Ltd. v. A.K. Menon [1994] 80 Comp Cas 384 (Special Court).