Facts - The petitioner by way of Agreement transferred land to the respondent - the Collector, Porbander , Revenue Department, State of Gujarat said lands were transferred to the respondent without prior permission of the Collector and as such the p..
The Arbitrator commenced proceedings and a statement of claim was filed on behalf of the respondent. The appellant filed its defence statement-cum-counter claim and, the case was listed for admission / denial of documents on 30.04.2003. The appellant..
The petitioner had entered into an agreement dated 28.02.2000 titled “Petrol / HSD Pump Dealer Agreement for Corporation Owned / Leased Pumps” with the respondent No.1 IOC, where under the respondent No.1 IOC had appointed the petitioner as its deale..
The disputes in the present case centre around the election to Sports Working Committee of the Delhi District and Cricket Association (DDCA). Sports Working Committee is a smaller body within the DDCA‟s Executive Committee...
It is the say of the petitioner that they applied for a certified copy of the order on the same date, which was received on 12.11.2010 but filed the appeal on 31.1.2011. Thus, it is not in dispute that the appeal is barred by time and is even beyond ..
The Companies (Amendment) Ordinance, 1998 (No.19 of 1998) sub-section (5) of Section 205A of the Companies Act (hereinafter referred to as the „Act‟), 1956 was amended as regards transfer of unpaid dividend account of a company to the fund establishe..
These two companies entered into a joint venture agreement on 14th July, 2003 for setting up a project in the State of Mizoram. After sometime, the company pulled out of it. They entered into a different relationship. The petitioning creditor agreed,..
After considering the rival submissions and perusing the relevant material on record, it is observed that similar disallowance was made by the AO in the immediately preceding assessment year i.e. 2005-06. The Tribunal, vide its order dated 31-01-2012..
This company was incorporated in 1948 with registered office at Calcutta. The authorized capital of the company was Rs. 10 lacs consisting of 4000 6% tax free redeemable cumulative preference shares of Rs. 100/-each and 6000 ordinary shares of Rs. 1..
These two applications were heard on 1.3.2001. The learned Sr.Counsel for the petitioners, Shri Mitra, submitted as follows: At the time when the petition was heard, there was no document available with the petitioners to support their claim that t..
The facts of the instant case, in brief, are that the petitioner incorporated a company in the year 1995 under the name and style of Maha Bhairav Plantation Pvt. Ltd. having its registered office at 308, Vinay Place, 11, Ashoka Marg, Lucknow-226001. ..
The brief facts are that the Respondent/ Complainant i.e. Registrar of Companies (ROC) received a complaint regarding the affairs of M/s. Tianjin Tianshi India Pvt. Ltd. (the Company) being irregular and illegal. A letter dated 24.02.2004 was issued ..
Though some merit is found in the contention of the petitioner employer that the award does not render any finding of parity in educational qualification, method of recruitment, duties and responsibilities of the Assistants/Stenographers/Hindi Transl..
The respondent filed the suit for recovery of `5,89,434/- towards agent commission against the appellants claiming himself to be an agency of defendant No.3 (in the suit) an Italian Company, in India. Appellants floated a global tender for purchase o..
A. The grievance relatable to IFCI Ltd. (appointed as the operating agency by BIFR vide order dated 08.08.2005 with a mandate to prepare a scheme for revival of the „Company‟) that it being one of the five secured creditors of the „Company‟, IFCI Ltd..
Heard Mr. Manish Bhatt, learned senior counsel, appearing with Mrs. Mauna Bhatt, learned advocate for the applicant, Ms. Yajnik, learned advocate for the respondent No.1-OL and Mr. Rutvij Bhatt, learned advocate for the respondent No.2. 2. From ..
Write Petition No 19760/2011 & Write Petition No 20485-89/2011 are filed under Article 226 & 227 of the constitution of India, praying to quash the notice dated 23.05.2011issued by the 2nd Respondent vide D, D1, D2, D3, D4 and D5 dated 15.03.2011an..
The relevant facts are that in terms of the VOC dated 26th November 2010 the Petitioner was to provide range of services at three locations i.e., The Hague, Amsterdam and Rotterdam. These included distribution of visa/OCI card/PIO card/passport appli..
A notice under Section 13 (2) was issued to the Petitioners on 20 January 2011 demanding an amount of Rs. 268 crores. The Petitioners raised objections on 14 March 2011 which were disposed of on 12 May 2011. Symbolic possession of the secured assets ..
In the present case, the Petitioner had first issued a legal notice to the MCD through its lawyer on 27th April 2010 in which, inter alia, the MCD was asked to appoint an Arbitrator in terms of the Agreement dated 12th October 2009 within seven days...
© 2024 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
