Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 46 (0.25 seconds)
India Switch Company Private Limited, ... vs Aci (India) Inc. on 5 October, 2005 cites

Canara Bank vs Nuclear Power Corporation Of India Ltd. ... on 6 March, 1995

4. Shri Ramanathan, learned Counsel representing the petitioner, in his rejoinder, submitted that the Supreme Court in Canara Bank v. Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd. found that the CLB has limited powers and further pointed out that when the Constitution speaks of "Courts" in Article 136 and other articles, it contemplates Courts of civil judicature, but not tribunals, other than such Courts. The CLB cannot be brought under "Courts" as contemplated in the Constitution. The Company ought to have allotted shares in terms of the joint venture agreement. The Company is delaying to incorporate the petitioner's name in the register of members in respect of the impugned shares constituting 30% of the paid-up capital of the Company and, therefore, the relief claimed must be granted by the CLB. Though the petitioner agreed for refund of the share application money by the Company, yet, the same has not been returned till date, in which case the question of limitation would not arise.
Supreme Court of India Cites 36 - Cited by 91 - S P Bharucha - Full Document

Saurashtra Cement Chemical Industries ... vs Esma Industries Pvt. Ltd. on 16 June, 1994

The preliminary issue of limitation belatedly raised by the Company is an after-thought. The issue of limitation involves mixed questions of law and facts and, therefore, cannot be adjudicated as a preliminary issue. Order 14 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure envisages that a suit must be tried as a whole on all issues and trial of preliminary issues is permissible only where it is a pure issue of law touching upon the question of jurisdiction of the court or raising a question that the proceedings are barred by any provision of law, as re-enforced by the Gujarat High Court in Saurashtra Cement and Chemicals Industries Ltd. v. Esma Industries P. Ltd.(1990) 69 CC 372. In all other cases, where preliminary objections are taken about the maintainability of the proceedings, even if they are issues either of pure law or issues raising mixed questions of law and fact, they cannot be tried as a preliminary issue. The present company petition involves the question of law and facts and hence the question of limitation cannot be raised as a preliminary issue. While Sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of Section 111 dealing with appeal to the CLB specifies the period, Clause (b) of Sub-section (4) of Section 111 does not prescribe any period of limitation, while applying to the CLB for rectification of the register of members of the company. The Notes on clauses in the Bill which preceded the Companies Amendment Act, 1988 relating to Section 111 states that there is no limitation period provided for making the application for rectification of register of members under Sub-section (4).
Gujarat High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 13 - M B Shah - Full Document

M/S. Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd vs Shyam Sundar Jhunjhunwala And Others on 25 April, 1961

In Canara Bank v. Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd. - (1995) 84 CC 70, the Supreme Court while dealing with a petition for rectification of the register of members in respect of transactions involving notified person under the Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992 after discussing the difference between Tribunals and Courts as discussed the Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Shyam Sunder Jhunjhunwala came to the conclusion that the CLB is a permanent body constituted under statute. It is difficult to see how it can be said to be anything other than a Court, particularly for the purposes of Section 9A of the Special Court Act.
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 266 - J C Shah - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next