Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.92 seconds)
Doris Chung Gim Lian And Anr. vs Shantanu Prakash & Ors. on 24 January, 2023 cites

Raffles Design International India ... vs The Chairman And President, Jai Radha ... on 27 February, 2019

ii. CS (OS) 197 of 2018: Raffles Design International India Pvt. Ltd. v. The Chairman and President, Jai Radha Raman Education Society (suit before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court for reimbursement of INR 5,39,82,435/- along with interest for various expenses of the Society borne by Raffles including salaries of staff, payments to vendors etc.
Delhi High Court - Orders Cites 1 - Cited by 1 - J Nath - Full Document

Smt.Kalpana Kothari Appellant vs Smt.Sudha Yadav & Ors. Respondents on 31 October, 2001

38. The Supreme Court in Kalpana Kothari v. Sudha Yadav, (2002) 1 SCC 203 has observed that there is no bar on the Court to appoint a party receiver for allowing them to carry on day-to-day activities of the business, subject to strict and effective control and accountability to the Court. In the present case, in the affidavit filed on behalf of the plaintiff no.1, it has specifically been stated that the administrator shall submit quarterly progress reports outlining the steps undertaken during the relevant period in the interest of maintaining transparency and to enable the Court to have oversight over the affairs of the Society. It is further stated that the administrator shall also place on record financial accounts of the defendant no.9 Society as and when prepared and audited.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 81 - Full Document

Ashok Kumar Gupta vs M/S Sitalaxmi Sahuwala Medical Trust on 3 March, 2020

i. Defendant no.4 is the Director in eight companies of the Educomp Group and is nothing but a proxy of the defendant no.1. He entered appearance in the present suit only after personal insolvency proceedings were initiated against the defendant no.1, in terms of which the defendant no.1 would not be eligible to continue being a member of the defendant no.9 Society as per its rules. ii. The present suit has been filed bona fide under Section 92 of the CPC in view of the deadlock in management of the defendant no.9 Society. Merely because the public purpose as envisaged under Section 92 of the CPC aligns with the objective of the Raffles Group--to revive an education institution--it would not take the present application beyond the scope of Section 92 of the CPC. Reliance in this regard is placed on Ashok Kumar Gupta v. Sitalaxmi Sahuwala Medical Trust and Others, (2020) 4 SCC 321.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 6 - U U Lalit - Full Document

Mr. Hua Seng Chew (Chairman Of Jai Radha ... vs Jai Radha Raman Education Society ... on 18 August, 2022

iv. Arbitration between Millennium Infradevelopers Limited and the Jai Radha Raman Education Society, Through its Chairman and President (arbitration seated in Delhi for recovery of a sum of INR 59,79,54,761/- along with interest under and in relation to the Project Management and Construction Agreement dated 17.02.2010 and its Addendum); v. Arb. A (Comm). 53 of 2022: Mr. Hua Seng Chew v. Jai Radha Raman Education Society, Through its Chairman and President & Ors. (appeal before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court against the arbitral tribunal's interim order permitting Mr. Shantanu Prakash to solely represent the Society). vi. Arb. A (Comm.)
Delhi High Court - Orders Cites 4 - Cited by 1 - A J Bhambani - Full Document
1