Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.19 seconds)
Jenson & Nicholson (India) Ltd. vs Industrial Investment Bank Of India And ... on 27 February, 2002
cites
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
The Companies Act, 1956
Section 13 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 22 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Sree Jain Setambar Terapanthi Vid (S) vs Phundan Singh And Ors on 9 February, 1999
He has further placed reliance on a case reported in 1999, Vol II Supreme Court, Page 377, 5Ari Jain Swetambar Terapanthi Vid v. Phundan Singh and Ors. where also the question of grant of interim order was considered by the Court then he placed reliance on a case reported in 1925 Calcutta, Page 817, where the Court considered the point of appointment of Receiver of a Company under Order 40 Rule 1 of the C.P.C. submitted that there is no jurisdiction in a Court to appoint a Receiver of a company the except in debentures matters when the business and the assets of the company are charged with payment of claim of debentures holder. He placed reliance on a case reported in 71 C.W.N Page 383. Relevant portion is in paragraphs 15 and 16 of judgment on the point that when the application for injunction and Receiver was filed the material point that the talk of compromise was going on was suppressed from the Tribunal and ex pane order was obtained on 18.10.2001.
Section 29 in The State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 [Entire Act]
Haryana Financial Corporation & Anr vs M/S Jagdamba Oil Mills & Anr on 28 January, 2002
I Supreme Page 404, Haryana Financial Corporation and Anr. v. Jagadamba Oil Mills and Anr. Relevant paragraph is paragraph 6 of the judgment where it has been laid down that corporation is an instrumentality of the State and deals with the public money. Learned Counsel for the respondent further submitted that from the documents available on the record, it was apparent that at least appellants are not running in loss rather it had earned profit and had shown his income in the statement which is on the record. Therefore, these documents have been considered by the learned Presiding Officer in considering the point of prima facie case of balance of convenience and the point of just and convenient while appointing a Receiver, he has submitted that the Receiver has not been authorised to sell any property but he has been simply directed to supervise and monitor the business and submit report as per direction issued by the Presiding Officer and if something is done by this Receiver beyond his authority given by the Tribunal then that the parties may have right to approach the Tribunal or other forums available under the law. He further submitted that when the applications were filed no doubt ex parte order was passed but subsequently when the appellants appeared by filing application for recall of the order. The matter was fully considered at length and proper order has been passed by the Tribunal. The order does not suffer from any error in law.
Section 19 in The Recovery Of Debts Due To Banks And Financial Institutions Act, 1993 [Entire Act]
The Industrial Credit & Investment ... vs Karnataka Ball Bearings Corpn.Ltd. & ... on 31 August, 1999
9. He further placed reliance on a case reported in VII (1999) SLT 197=(1999) 7 Supreme Court Cases 488, Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation of India Ltd. and Ors. v. Karnataka Ball Bearings Corporations Ltd. and Ors. He further submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the applicability of Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 in a case reported in 2000 Vol.
1