Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.26 seconds)Section 125 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 17 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Mohd. Usman vs Shahzad Begum And Ors. on 27 July, 1988
15. The respondent company has relied upon Shamsher's judgment (supra) which held that under Section 17 of the Evidence Act a party making admission has the right to rebut the same and can plead and prove the admission not to be true. Similar is the judgment of Delhi High Court in Mohd. Usman's case (supra). In my view there are more than one admissions made by the respondent company and in any event, the JTL's averments regarding the circumstances in which the admissions are made are not satisfactory and not capable of belief. The explanation given by the JTL does not show that the admission sought to be disowned was untrue. Accordingly, the aforesaid judgments do not come to the aid of the respondent.
Shamsher vs Rustam And Ors. on 6 May, 1987
9. The confirmation by letter dated 6th July, 1995 was given by a person not connected with and not knowing the accounts in undue haste and this is explainable in law and reliance is placed on Shamsher Vs Rustam and Mohd. Usman Vs Shahzada Begum etc. 1988 RLR 534 for the above preposition. Since the company was negotiating a collaboration agreement with Stanley Works, USA and TISCO being a well-known name, it was necessary to settle the dispute with TISCO as Stanley would have taken such pending disputes with a company such as TISCO adversely. The letter of 17th April, 1997 was written in the above context. The letter dated 17th July, 1997 merely shows that there were disputes between the parties and the respondent company was willing to settle the dispute and does not amount to any admission of the amount due.
1