September 2019

Held; As per S.3 of 1930 Act, Government has to prescribe the format of maintaining and furnishing accounts-Thus, in absence of any such rules being promulgated by Government creditor was not obligated to fulfill the requirement of S.3 of 1930 Act—Appeal dismissed

By | September 17th, 2019|Corporate cases|

Comments Off on Held; As per S.3 of 1930 Act, Government has to prescribe the format of maintaining and furnishing accounts-Thus, in absence of any such rules being promulgated by Government creditor was not obligated to fulfill the requirement of S.3 of 1930 Act—Appeal dismissed

Tender Bid—Blacklisting—Blacklisting of a Company cannot be for an unlimited period—Order of blacklisting has to be passed in accordance with law, after notice and affording an opportunity of hearing to the concerned company/ person

By | September 6th, 2019|Corporate cases|

Comments Off on Tender Bid—Blacklisting—Blacklisting of a Company cannot be for an unlimited period—Order of blacklisting has to be passed in accordance with law, after notice and affording an opportunity of hearing to the concerned company/ person

October 2018

September 2018

August 2018

July 2018

June 2018

May 2018

Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, Section 50 –Penalty–Appeal—Precondition of deposit of 10% of amount—Once, prima facie, on the basis of material produced on record petitioner was not the director in the company on which penalty was imposed, directing her to deposit part of penalty as precondition for hearing an appeal on merits will certainly cause under hardship to her

By | May 21st, 2018|Corporate cases|

Comments Off on Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, Section 50 –Penalty–Appeal—Precondition of deposit of 10% of amount—Once, prima facie, on the basis of material produced on record petitioner was not the director in the company on which penalty was imposed, directing her to deposit part of penalty as precondition for hearing an appeal on merits will certainly cause under hardship to her

Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security interest Act, 2002, S.14–Symbolic Possession-Objection by tenant being in possession for agricultural purpose—Objection held to be not maintainable

By | May 16th, 2018|Corporate cases|

Comments Off on Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security interest Act, 2002, S.14–Symbolic Possession-Objection by tenant being in possession for agricultural purpose—Objection held to be not maintainable

March 2018

January 2018

Alternate remedy-Writ against order of DRT–Borrower offered to pay Rs. 6 lakhs by 30.03.2016–Bank directed to take formal possession and not to dispossess the borrower-Borrower directed to further pay Rs 2 lakhs by 12.4.16–lnterim relief granted to file appeal.

By | January 15th, 2018|Corporate cases|

Comments Off on Alternate remedy-Writ against order of DRT–Borrower offered to pay Rs. 6 lakhs by 30.03.2016–Bank directed to take formal possession and not to dispossess the borrower-Borrower directed to further pay Rs 2 lakhs by 12.4.16–lnterim relief granted to file appeal.

Securitization & Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, S.17–Auction Sale-Highest bid was marginally above the reserve price

By | January 13th, 2018|Corporate cases|

Comments Off on Securitization & Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, S.17–Auction Sale-Highest bid was marginally above the reserve price

Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, S.22–Reference–A reference cannot be deemed to be rejected merely because an application for fixing the date for hearing of the reference was rejected

By | January 9th, 2018|Corporate cases|

Comments Off on Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, S.22–Reference–A reference cannot be deemed to be rejected merely because an application for fixing the date for hearing of the reference was rejected

December 2017

November 2017

August 2017