Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 27 (0.29 seconds)Section 271 in The Companies Act, 2013 [Entire Act]
The Companies Act, 1956
Section 273 in The Companies Act, 2013 [Entire Act]
Section 272 in The Companies Act, 2013 [Entire Act]
Bhaurao Dagdu Paralkar vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 22 August, 2005
44. The Learned Counsel for the First Respondent relies on
the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhaurao Dagdu
Paralkar v. State of Maharashtra reported in (2005) 7 SCC at
Page 605, wherein it is observed that 'Fraud' is an act of
deliberate deception with design of securing something by
taking unfair advantage of another. It is a deception in order
to gain by another's loss. 'It is a cheating intended to get an
advantage'.
M/S Sciemed Overseas Inc vs Boc India Limited & Ors on 11 January, 2016
46. The Learned Counsel for the First Respondent points out
the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sciemed Overseas
Inc v. BOC India Limited & others reported in (2016) 3 SCC at
Page 70, wherein it is observed that 'Sanctity of affidavits filed
by parties has to be preserved and protected and at the same
time filing of irresponsible statements without any regard to
accuracy has to be discouraged. Furthermore, it is held that
'Filing of false affidavit should be effectively curbed with a
strong hand to preserve purity of judicial proceedings'.
Second Respondent's pleas:
Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd. vs Raj Kumar Rajinder Singh(D)Thru Lrs on 24 September, 2018
43. The Learned Counsel for the First Respondent cites the
decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam
v. Raj Kumar Rajinder Singh reported in (2019) 14 SCC at Page
449, wherein it is observed that no right can be claimed by a
'Fraudster' on the ground of technicalities.
Smt. Shrisht Dhawan vs M/S. Shaw Brothers on 13 December, 1991
iii) M/s. Shrisht Dhawan v. Shaw Brothers reported in
1992 (1) SCC 535 at Paragraph 20.