Search Results for "Section 452 Companies Act"

Trending :

Bombay High Court Allows Appeals by Acquiring Body in Land Acquisition Compensat...
Bombay High Court Dismisses NHAI Appeals in Land Acquisition Compensation Disput...
Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging Concurrent Findings in Sui...
Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal in Compulsory Retirement Case Based on Declining ...
Supreme Court Disposes Appeal by Consent Appointing Arbitrator in MSME Dispute, ...

Search Results for "Section 452 Companies Act"

125 result(s) found

Home Search Results

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 125 result(s)

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Allows Workman's Appeal on Distribution of Company Assets in Liquidation. Holds that Secured Creditors Have Pari Passu Charge Only Over Properties Specifically Charged, Not All Assets; Workmen Have Priority for Uncharged Properties Under Sections 529 and 529A Companies Act, 1956.

1 Aug 2026

The dispute arose from the winding up of U.M.I. Special Steel Limited, a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. The company became sick, an...

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Allows Appeal by Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India in Jurisdictional Dispute Over Trial of IBC Offences. Held that Reference to Special Court under Chapter XXVIII of Companies Act, 2013 in Section 236(1) IBC is Legislation by Incorporation, Not Affected by Subsequent Amendment.

29 Apr 2024

The appeal arises from a challenge by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) against the judgment of the Bombay High Court quashing the o...

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Reverses High Court in SICA Case on Unsecured Creditor Rights - Sanctioned Rehabilitation Scheme Binding on All Creditors. Court held that under Sections 18(8) and 32 of Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, unsecured creditors cannot opt out of scaled-down payments and must accept scheme terms for company revival.

17 Mar 2023

The Supreme Court addressed a group of appeals concerning the binding effect of rehabilitation schemes sanctioned under the Sick Industrial Companies ...

High Court

Bombay High Court Quashes Process in IBC Complaint for Lack of Jurisdiction — Sessions Court Cannot Try Offences Under IBC Without Notification Under Section 435 CrPC. The court held that the Additional Sessions Judge lacked jurisdiction to take cognizance of a complaint under Sections 73(a) and 235A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, as no notification under Section 435 of the CrPC had been issued conferring such jurisdiction.

14 Feb 2022

The petitioners, Satyanarayan Bankatlal Malu and Ramesh Satyanarayan Malu, filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read w...

High Court

High Court of Karnataka Allows Appeal in Companies Act Case — Acquittal Set Aside for Non-Prosecution of Director. Section 452 of Companies Act, 2013 requires that a director must be prosecuted for the company's default; acquittal of director without trial on merits is illegal.

14 Nov 2019

The appellant, M/s. P.M. Granites Exports Pvt. Ltd., filed a complaint under Section 452 of the Companies Act, 2013 against the respondent, T. Manohar...

High Court

Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Arbitral Award in Security Deposit Dispute. Court upholds arbitrator's finding that the amount was a refundable security deposit and not a loan, rejecting challenge under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

23 Jul 2019

The petitioners, A. S. Patel Trust and its trustees, challenged an arbitral award dated 12 October 2018 under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Concil...

High Court

High Court of Bombay Admits Appeal Against Order Vacating Ex-Parte Stay on NCLT Proceedings in Corporate Insolvency Case. Company Petition for Winding Up Admitted Prior to IBC Application; Court to Determine Jurisdiction Overlap Between Winding Up and Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process.

26 Jul 2018

...

High Court

KAHC010159832015_1

15 Dec 2017

...

High Court

Bombay High Court Dismisses Revision Against Eviction Decree — Court Receiver Need Not Seek Separate Leave to Sue When Appointed with Full Powers Under Order 40 Rule 1(d) CPC. Notice Under Section 106 T.P. Act Demanding Immediate Possession Is Not Invalid If Suit Filed After Notice Period.

16 Sep 2010

The plaintiff, the Court Receiver appointed by the High Court in Suit No.234 of 1987, was the receiver of the suit property 'Dev Ashish' at Peddar Roa...

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Dismisses Revenue Appeal in Income Tax Limitation Case Under Section 144C. Nagarathna J. Holds That Section 144C Does Not Extend Limitation Under Section 153 of Income Tax Act, 1961.

1 Jan 1970

This separate opinion by Nagarathna J. arises from civil appeals filed by the Revenue against a common order of the Bombay High Court. The High Court ...

1 2 3

Full Name * Username * Mobile Number * Email Address * State/UT * City * Password * Confirm Password * Referral Code (Optional)