Winding-up and registered office of the company

Kotak Mahindra Bank v. Hermonite Associates Ltd, [2011] 105 SCL 421 (Delhi)

"While examining the words 'has served on the company, b y causing it to be delivered at the registered office, by registered post or otherwise in section 434(1)(a), reference must be made to Section 51. The word 'served' in section 434(1)(a) is followed by the words 'by causing it to be delivered at its registered office.' The latter words have to be given due effect .... The document which includes notice under Section 434(1)(a) may be treated as served if it is 'sent' in the manner specified under Section 51.... Otherwise, by keeping the registered office closed and locked, service of notice under Section 434(1)(a) or documents under Section 51 cannot be effected...  Any other interpretation would make the provisions of the Act unworkable and will be detrimental to third parties, creditors or the members."


also  (1989) 1 SCC 264 - sending by (R) post is sufficient compliance.

winding-up should not be a method to arm twist

See IBA Health (I) P Ltd v. Info Drive Systems Sdn Bhd., [2010] 104 SCL 367 (SC)

A company court therefore should be guarded from such vexatious abuse of the process and cannot function as a Debt collecting agency and should not permit a party to unreasonably set the law in motion, especially when the aggrieved party has a remedy elsewhere.

misstatement in prospectus

Dharmendra Kumar Lila v. ROC, [2010] 104 SCL 275 (Delhi)

SARFAESI Act, challenge to deposit requirement

Condition of pre-deposit of 25% is not unreasonable.

courts cannot substitute legal provisions nor can can they legislate.

Consumer - Admission of Complaint

Admission of complaint filed under the Act should be rule and dismissal thereof should be exception - but if complaint is barred by time, the forum is bound to dismiss the same unless consumer makes out a case for condonation of delay. AIR 2011 SC 212

Appeal and 227

Power under Section 115 CPC and that under Art 227 are different and not inter changeable. When there is a remedy available by way of 115, the court should not exercise power under 227 except in exceptional cases. AIR 2011 Gau 1.

Bar Council Resolution to not defend accused is illegal

AS Mohammad Rafi v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2011 SC 308