| First | Prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | Next | Last |
| Documents Found: 376 |
| Title |
Forum |
Year |
Legend Technologies India (P) Ltd. and Ors. vs B.V. Reddy and Anr.
[LexDoc Id : 436826]
|
HC (Karnataka) |
2011 |
Kirti D. Shah and Ors. vs Deluxe Roadlines (P) Ltd.
Filing of winding up petition: Petition also filed under s.397 and s.398-Allegations or averments made in support of winding up on same set of facts or allegations made in petition filed under s.397 and s.398, Winding up petition dismissed-The petitioners were shareholders of the respondent and held 65.52 percent of the paid-up share capital of the respondent. They had filed a petition s [LexDoc Id : 433612]
|
HC (Karnataka) |
2011 |
S. Thangaraj and Ors. vs Tamilnad Pigments (P) Ltd. and Ors.
[LexDoc Id : 433509]
|
CLB |
2011 |
Anitha Suresh and Ors. vs New Tech Industries (Karnataka) (P) Ltd. and Ors.
[LexDoc Id : 431840]
|
CLB |
2011 |
Narpat Singh vs Company Law Board and Ors.
Maintainability of writ petition: Territorial jurisdiction-Place where registered office of company located not decisive with the lis or the dispute involved, No part of cause of action arising within territorial jurisdiction of Gauhati High Court, Petition dismissed on ground of non-maintainability-The only ground upon which the petitioner sought to confer territorial jurisdiction upon the Gauhati High Court to entertain the writ petition was dir [LexDoc Id : 421624]
|
HC (Gauhati) |
2011 |
Kimsuk Krishna Sinha, DLF Ltd., In re and Ors.
[LexDoc Id : 436650]
|
SEBI |
2011 |
Nareshchandra Agarwal and Kedarnath P. Agarwal vs GOI
[LexDoc Id : 418634]
|
HC (Bombay) |
2011 |
Umashankar vs OL of Rai Bahadur Shreeram Durgaprasad Co. Ltd. (In Liquidation)
Grant of permission to bring on record legal representatives-No defences of legal representatives vitiated or prejudiced by granting permission-Mere grant of permission to bring them on record legal representatives of deceased did not mean and could not be construed to mean that any of their d [LexDoc Id : 419096]
|
HC (Bombay) |
2011 |
Sahara India Real Estate Corpn. Ltd., Ashok Roy Choudhary, Ravi Shankar Dubey, Vandana Bhargava and Subrata Roy Sahara vs SEBI and UOI
[LexDoc Id : 425690]
|
SAT (Mumbai) |
2011 |
Sahara India Real Estate Corpn. Ltd. vs SEBI
[LexDoc Id : 418497]
|
SAT (Mumbai) |
2011 |
Hyderabad Cricket Association vs Visaka Industries Ltd.
[LexDoc Id : 426279]
|
HC (Andhra Pradesh) |
2011 |
Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd. vs UOI
[LexDoc Id : 430460]
|
HC (Gujarat) |
2011 |
Nirulata Sadh and Ors. vs Arsh Fashions (P) Ltd. and Ors.
[LexDoc Id : 421630]
|
CLB |
2011 |
Ralli Brothers and Coney vs Official Liquidator of the Swadeshi Mills Co. Ltd.
Winding up: Application to stay winding up-Application filed not for revival of company’s business or to smoothen liquidation process but to take over the company itself in an indirect and oblique manner, Application dismissed-The applicants were shareholders, secured and unsecured creditors of the company in liquidation. Both the applicants were part of a group, which was i [LexDoc Id : 418758]
|
HC (Bombay) |
2011 |
Richa Industries Ltd. and Ors. vs ICICI Bank Ltd. and Anr.
[LexDoc Id : 418151]
|
HC (Delhi) |
2011 |
Forbes and Co. Ltd. and Grand View Estates (P) Ltd. vs Official Liquidator of Swadeshi Mills Co. Ltd.
Suits stayed on winding up order: Application seeking permanent stay of winding up order-Application filed to take over the company itself in an indirect and oblique manner, No grounds enabling exercise of discretion under s.466 made out, Application dismissed-The applicants prayed that the winding up order of the company in liquidation be permanently stayed. The high court held that even though the applican [LexDoc Id : 418140]
|
HC (Bombay) |
2011 |
P.V. Rathnam vs OL
Avoidance of transfers, etc. after commencement of winding up: Application seeking confirmation or recognition of transfer of shares made before order of winding up but after filing of petition-Application filed after more than 18 years barred by limitation, No explanation for lapse, Claim disputed, Civil suit pending with regard to transfer, Application dismissed-The applicant had prayed for confirmation or recognition of transfer of fully paid-up equity shares in the company in liquidation made before order of [LexDoc Id : 421618]
|
HC (Bombay) |
2011 |
Mohan Rajaram Kavlekar vs UOI, Goa Shipyard Ltd. and Gokeda Sanjeevi Naidu
[LexDoc Id : 418015]
|
HC (Bombay) |
2011 |
Indo Brine Industries Ltd. vs Neeraj Agarwal and Ors.
[LexDoc Id : 435000]
|
HC (Rajasthan) |
2011 |
Canara Bank vs Shimoga Steels Ltd. and Ors.
[LexDoc Id : 434725]
|
HC (Karnataka) |
2011 |
Poddar Finance (P) Ltd. vs OL
[LexDoc Id : 432139]
|
HC (Rajasthan) |
2011 |
Podar Finance (P) Ltd. vs OL
Winding up: Avoidance of transfers, etc. after commencement of winding up-Transaction of transfer of share or other disposition not required to be annulled by court, Transaction void unless court ordered otherwise-Under s.536(2) of the Companies Act 1956 transaction of transfer of share or other disposition was not required to be annulled by court. It was void u [LexDoc Id : 422035]
|
HC (Rajasthan) |
2011 |
Shivaji Dnyandeo Patil and Anr. vs Medical Council of India and Ors.
[LexDoc Id : 418208]
|
HC (Bombay) |
2011 |
Gyan Dev Sadh and Ors. vs Parmeshwar Exports (P) Ltd. and Ors.
[LexDoc Id : 421629]
|
CLB |
2011 |
Seagull Buildwell (P) Ltd. and Ors. vs Ansal Seagull SEZ Developers Ltd. and Ors.
[LexDoc Id : 428792]
|
CLB |
2011 |
| |
| First | Prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | Next | Last |
| |
