Search Results for "statutory notice requirements"

3594 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 3594 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Karnataka Examines Challenges to State Guidelines on Appointment of Pollution Control Board Chairman. Court Considers Whether Executive Guidelines Violate Water Act and Binding Supreme Court Precedent.

The High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru heard a batch of eight writ petitions, six of which were filed in public interest litigation jurisdiction. Th...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging FEMA Show Cause Notices Against BCCI President. Section 42 of FEMA applies to persons in charge of and responsible for the conduct of business of a company, and the petitioner as President is covered.

The petitioner, Shashank Vyankatesh Manohar, was the President of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) from 2008 to 2011. During this peri...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Winding Up Petition Based on Ex-Parte US Default Judgment — Foreign Decree Not a Debt Under Section 433(e) Companies Act, 1956 Without Satisfying Conditions for Enforcement in India.

The petitioner, Marine Geotechnics LLC, an American company, obtained an ex-parte default judgment against the respondent, Coastal Marine Construction...

© 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

Bombay High Court Holds Respondents in Contempt for Breach of Injunction Order. Resolutions Increasing Authorised Capital and Alloting Shares While Restrained from Exercising Rights on Shares Amount to Wilful Disobedience.

The appeal arose from Suit No.3121 of 2004, where the appellants (original plaintiffs, Gopal L. Raheja & Anr.) claimed that the respondents (original ...