Search Results for "Section 100 Companies Act 2013"

931 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 931 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court heard cross-appeals from NCLAT order partly reversing NCLT’s finding on trademark ownership during CIRP; cross-appeal challenged NCLT’s jurisdiction to determine title under Section 60(5) IBC.

The dispute originated in the corporate insolvency resolution process of Fort Gloster Industries Limited (corporate debtor), which was admitted into C...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Judicature at Bombay Adjudicates Company Petition for Winding Up Over Unpaid Derivative Transaction Debts. The Petitioner Bank Claimed Rs.8.74 Crores from the Respondent Company Following Defaults on Forex Options Margin Calls Under ISDA Master Agreement.

The litigation stems from a company petition filed by HDFC Bank Ltd. under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 seeking winding up of Rohan Dyes ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Second Appeal in Property Suit, Upholds Concurrent Findings on Possession and Title. Court holds that plaintiff failed to prove title and possession over suit property, and that the suit was barred by limitation under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

The appellant, Sri B.S. Lakshman, filed a Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the judgment and decre...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Considers Writ Petitions Challenging Labour Court and Industrial Court Orders on Workman Status of Retail Salesmen Under Industrial Disputes Act and MRTU & PULP Act. Petitions Raise Maintainability of Complaints Under Section 28 and Quantum of Backwages.

The dispute arose when Bata India Ltd., a footwear manufacturer and retailer, decided in 2007 to operate its showrooms in Mumbai, Thane and Pune seven...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Hears Petition to Set Aside Arbitral Award Directing Indemnity for Depreciation Disallowance. Petitioners Argue that Clause 14 of Lease Agreement Does Not Cover Income Tax Depreciation Denial and Rely on Identical Clause Interpretation in Prior Judgment.

The dispute arose from a lease agreement executed in 1997 between Borosil Glass Works Limited (lessee/petitioner) and Tata Motors Limited (lessor/resp...