Manibhai Tulsibhai Patel v. MCGM, 1965 MhLJ 458: (1964) 66 BomLR 677
Saturday, August 21, 2010
BMC 'person' required to take license
Stamp Duty at Interim Stage is relevant
K.B. Jayram v. Navineethamma, AIR 2003 Kant 241 (para 4)
the court below would have been justified in first insisting upon the payment of the stamp duty and the penalty on the agreement to sell before it could issue an injunction in favour of the appellant on that basis.
Also see
Conwood Agencies v. Namdeo Pandurang, 2005(1)ALLMR335, (2005)107BOMLR319
[A] Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 18, Rule 4 - Order 7, Rules 3, 4 -- Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 - Sections 33, 34, 37 -- Registration Act, 1908 - Sections 17, 18, 49 -- Admissibility of document in evidence - Admissibility objected to on the ground that it is insufficiently stamped - Court must at the outset determine the question of its admissibility before allowing the party to rely on such document even for collateral purpose.
the court below would have been justified in first insisting upon the payment of the stamp duty and the penalty on the agreement to sell before it could issue an injunction in favour of the appellant on that basis.
Also see
Conwood Agencies v. Namdeo Pandurang, 2005(1)ALLMR335, (2005)107BOMLR319
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Company court and civil court
CDS Financial Services v. BPL communications, 2004 121 comp cas 374
If the right is traceable to the general law of contracts or it is a common law right, it can be enforced through the civil court, even though the forum under the statute also will have jurisdiction to enforce that right.
Section 397/398 provide a convenient remedy for minority shareholders under certain conditions and the provisions therein are not intended to exclude all other remedies.
If the right is traceable to the general law of contracts or it is a common law right, it can be enforced through the civil court, even though the forum under the statute also will have jurisdiction to enforce that right.
Section 397/398 provide a convenient remedy for minority shareholders under certain conditions and the provisions therein are not intended to exclude all other remedies.
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Arbitrability of landlord tenant dispute
Follows nataraj studio and central warehousing
2010 (4) Bom C. R. 394
Ravindra Vithalrao
2010 (4) Bom C. R. 394
Ravindra Vithalrao
Monday, August 9, 2010
Scrutiny of scheme of arrangement
*(2008) 3 Comp LJ 345 (AP): [2007] 80 SCL 496 (AP)*
*
*
*Magnaquest Solutions (P) Ltd.*
while exercising powers under section 391(2), company court should examine whether proposed scheme of arrangement is violative of any provision of law and is not contrary to public policy, and for ascertaining real purpose underlying the scheme, the court if necessary can pierce veil of apparent corporate purpose underlying scheme and can judiciously x-ray same.
It should not be unfair / unconscionable or contrary to public policy.
Latest auditors report connotes the latest auditors report available or which should normally be available at the time of filing of the petition. --thats the one that should be filed.
*
*
*Magnaquest Solutions (P) Ltd.*
while exercising powers under section 391(2), company court should examine whether proposed scheme of arrangement is violative of any provision of law and is not contrary to public policy, and for ascertaining real purpose underlying the scheme, the court if necessary can pierce veil of apparent corporate purpose underlying scheme and can judiciously x-ray same.
It should not be unfair / unconscionable or contrary to public policy.
Latest auditors report connotes the latest auditors report available or which should normally be available at the time of filing of the petition. --thats the one that should be filed.
Notice in scheme of arrangement
LG Electronics System India Ltd. 2003 42 SCL 554 (Delhi)
When under rule 75 a copy of the scheme is not provided, normally such a conduct by the transferor and transferee companies would immediately invite suspicion in the mind of the judge and may even lead to the rejection of the proposed scheme on this short ground.
When under rule 75 a copy of the scheme is not provided, normally such a conduct by the transferor and transferee companies would immediately invite suspicion in the mind of the judge and may even lead to the rejection of the proposed scheme on this short ground.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)