Search Results for "arbitration mandate"

668 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 668 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Considers Winding Up Petition Under the Companies Act, 1956, on Grounds of Loss of Substratum and Insolvency Due to Quashing of 2G Licenses; Final Disposition Not Extracted. Allegations of Dysfunctional Board and Insolvency Form Basis of Just and Equitable Winding Up Claim.

This Company Petition was filed by Etisalat Mauritius Ltd. (Petitioner), a wholly owned subsidiary of Emirates Telecommunications Corporation, seeking...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 499 OF 2012

The appeal before the High Court arose out of an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dismissing the assessee's appeal and upholdi...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Upholds Admission of Winding-Up Petition Against Telecom Company Due to Substratum Erosion and Deadlock. Cancellation of 2G Licences and Irreconcilable Differences Between Equal Shareholders Justify Winding-Up Under Section 433(f) of the Companies Act, 1956.

The appeal arose from an order of the company judge admitting a petition for winding up of Etisalat D.B. Telecom Limited (the company) under Section 4...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Judicature at Bombay Adjudicates Letter of Credit Dispute in Common Judgment for Two Suits Arising from Alleged Discrepant Documents. Bank's Liability for Wrongful Debit Examined Under UCP 290 with Emphasis on Strict Compliance and Discrepancy in Shipping Documents.

Two suits were filed arising from a documentary import Letter of Credit facility granted by State Bank of India to Dadlani Silk Stores. Suit No. 1012 ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Judicature at Bombay Dismisses Builder’s Writ Petition Challenging NCDRC’s Rejection of Condonation of 1132-Day Delay; No Perversity Found. Delay in Appeal Against State Commission Order Not Sufficiently Explained Under Section 23 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

The petitioners, a construction firm and its partners, launched a real estate project and received an investment of Rs. 6,50,000/- from the respondent...