plaint for the infraction of the
provisions of the law contained in Section 20 of C.P.C.
Mr. Mukherjee, learned advocate appearing ... submits that the court below has been
swayed away by the misquoting of section and thereby
forgetting to consider the specific disclosure made in
paragraph
point raised in the petition under Section
151 C.P.C., and has mechanically rejected the prayer
under Section 151 C.P.C.
Per contra ... advocate for the petitioner
submits that nomenclature of the petitioner or
misquoting of section would hardly matter, and
proposes for decision of the petition
Order IX Rule 4 read with Section 151 of the CPC was rejected on
the ground of misquoting of the relevant provision.
I have heard ... approach have rejected the said application on the ground
of misquoting of the Section. Further to that, the learned counsel for the
petitioner further submits
Electrotherm (India) Limited vs Mukesh B. Bhandari on 28 January, 2022
National Company Law Appellate
Electrotherm (India) Limited vs Mukesh B. Bhandari on 28 January, 2022
National Company Law Appellate
Electrotherm India Limited vs Mukesh B Bhandari & Ors on 28 January, 2022
National Company
note that the information
received from VMF under section 133(6) has been misquoted by the Ld. TPO.
The assesee has also demonstrated that this ... order is reproduced
below:-
"12.12 ...Notice issued u/s 133(6) , the company qualifies 25% of employee
cost filter...Further the company is paying
Therefore the entire URD
purchases can be disallowed under explanation to section
37(1) of IT. Act 1961.
Since it was illegally extracted iron ... evident that the assessee is trying to misquote the exceptions
to section 40(A)(3) which is mentioned in the form of rule
ÔDD
long as
the power is present, non-quoting or misquoting of the Section is not
fatal. A harmonious construction thus requires that the direction
should
Appellant regarding disqualification of the
Resolution Applicant under Section 164(2)(b) and Section 88 of Indian Trust
Act, 1882 is turned down ... there is a violation of Section 166(4) of
Companies Act, 2013 is baseless; the Appellant is trying to misquote a
particular clause
