| First | Prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | Next | Last |
| Documents Found: 454 |
| Title |
Forum |
Year |
Profin Capital Services Ltd. vs Natco Pharma Ltd.
[LexDoc Id : 383203]
|
CLB |
2009 |
Actimus Biosciences (P) Ltd. and Ors. vs C. Ananta Satyavati and Anr.
[LexDoc Id : 380209]
|
CLB |
2009 |
Gul Kriplani vs Regency Hotels (P) Ltd. and Ors.
[LexDoc Id : 388902]
|
CLB |
2009 |
DCL Maritech Ltd. vs Government of Andhra Pradesh and Anr.
[LexDoc Id : 386017]
|
HC (Andhra Pradesh) |
2009 |
Akshaya Textiles Ltd. vs S. Martin
[LexDoc Id : 385086]
|
CLB |
2009 |
S. Peer Mohamed vs S.M. Mohideen Ahamed Shaw and Ors.
[LexDoc Id : 383521]
|
CLB |
2009 |
Hotel Vellore Royal (P) Ltd. and Ors. vs P.V. Chandra Sekar and Anr.
[LexDoc Id : 383411]
|
CLB |
2009 |
Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Ltd. vs R.K. Dhall and Ors. (No. 2)
Powers of Company Law Board: Interim orders-Board not empowered to grant interim reliefs pertaining to matters not forming part or subject matter of petition-The Company Law Board could not grant interim reliefs pertaining to matter/s, which was or were not a part or subject matter of the petition. Further, [LexDoc Id : 371278]
|
HC (Bombay) |
2009 |
Zenit Mataplast (P) Ltd. vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.
[LexDoc Id : 371199]
|
SC |
2009 |
Nu-Line India (P) Ltd., Swati Storwel (P) Ltd. and Sturdy Industries Ltd., In re
[LexDoc Id : 393393]
|
HC (Himachal Pradesh) |
2009 |
Maa Tapeshwari Construction (P) Ltd. vs UOI
Restoration of name of company-Company not defunct when name struck off-The high court, considering the financial statements of the company, observed that the company was not defunct and had not become defunct at the time [LexDoc Id : 386098]
|
HC (Patna) |
2009 |
Vashisht Industries Products vs OL and Anr.
BIFRs recommendation to wind up the company-Dismissal of petition by company judge-The BIFR had recommended winding up of the company. However, the company judge dismissed the petition on the ground that the claim of the only secured [LexDoc Id : 383690]
|
HC (Punjab and Haryana) |
2009 |
Technova Tapes India (P) Ltd. vs Regional Director, Ministry of Company Affairs and Anr.
[LexDoc Id : 386020]
|
HC (Karnataka) |
2009 |
TCI Distribution Centres Ltd. vs OL and Ors.
[LexDoc Id : 400236]
|
HC (Chennai) |
2009 |
B.F.L. Software Ltd. and Anr. vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.
[LexDoc Id : 388888]
|
HC (Rajasthan) |
2009 |
Arvind Ltd., In re
[LexDoc Id : 386427]
|
HC (Gujarat) |
2009 |
Shailesh P. Mehta vs Reliance Petroleum Ltd.
[LexDoc Id : 386102]
|
HC (Gujarat) |
2009 |
Wellman Wacoma Ltd. vs Tivoli Park Apartments (P) Ltd. and Anr.
[LexDoc Id : 386099]
|
HC (Calcutta) |
2009 |
ICICI Bank Ltd. vs Saurav Chemicals Ltd.
[LexDoc Id : 400235]
|
HC (Punjab and Haryana) |
2009 |
Tata Donnelly Ltd. vs Anupam Global Soft Ltd.
Winding up: Inability to pay debts-Change of name of petitioner-The petitioner had sought winding up of the respondent on account of its inability to pay debts. The respondent acknowledged the statutory notice issu [LexDoc Id : 386021]
|
HC (Gujarat) |
2009 |
Karthik Service Station vs OL, A.P.S.S. Industrial Development Corpn. Ltd. and Ors.
OLs failure to maintain transparency in conducting sale-Failure to ensure that decision making process was fair and proper-The appellant had approached the first respondent-OL on its own with an offer of Rs.3,230 per square meter to buy the property in dispute. The OL evid [LexDoc Id : 386431]
|
HC (Andhra Pradesh) |
2009 |
Kitti Steels Ltd. vs Sanghi Industries Ltd.
Winding up: Powers of court on hearing petition for winding up-Discretion of court to refuse winding up-The court, notwithstanding s.433(e) read with s.434(l)(a) of the Companies Act 1956, should be slow in ordering winding up, even if it was shown that [LexDoc Id : 386429]
|
HC (Andhra Pradesh) |
2009 |
Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. and Anr. vs Delta Classic (P) Ltd.
[LexDoc Id : 377654]
|
HC (Gauhati) |
2009 |
OL of Alliance Leathers (P) Ltd. (In Liquidation) vs Nishath Patel and Anr.
Winding up of company-Misfeasance by directors-The high court held that the directors of the company were not liable for misfeasance. The records of the company had been seized by the State Financi [LexDoc Id : 377009]
|
HC (Karnataka) |
2009 |
Gujarat Kamgar Panchayat vs Gujarat Industrial Investment Corpn. Ltd.
[LexDoc Id : 388355]
|
HC (Gujarat) |
2009 |
| |
| First | Prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | Next | Last |
| |
