G. P. MATHUR, P. K. BALASUBRAMANYAN
Allahabad Bank Etc. – Appellant
Versus
Bengal Paper Mills Co. LTD. Etc. – Respondent
JUDGMENT
P.K. Balasubramanyan, J.-
I.A.Nos. 9-11 in Civil Appeal Nos. 4191-4193 of 1991
These are applications by Respondent No.2 in the above mentioned appeals, C.A. Nos. 4191-4193 of 1991. The prayer therein is for a clarification of the Judgment in the appeals rendered by this Court on 20.4.1999 by providing that the applicant was also entitled to the amount of Rs. 1,56,21,839.25 being the interest that has accrued on the purchase price of Rs. 2 crores paid by it for the assets of the Bengal Paper Mills Co. Ltd., a company in liquidation. The applications are opposed by the creditors, some of whom were the appellants in the appeals.
2. The Bengal Paper Mills Co. Ltd. was ordered to be wound up in a winding up petition filed by its creditors. The order was passed on 24.4.1987. Even before the order for winding up, the assets were put in possession of two joint receivers appointed in a suit by one of the creditors. On the Official Liquidator being appointed in liquidation, the joint receivers were directed to put the Official Liquidator in possession of the assets of the debtor company. They put him in possession. The possession was thus obtained by the Official Liquidator. After gett
Motors & Investment Ltd. v. New Bank of India and others
Central Bank of India v. Ravindra and others
Union of India v. Official Liquidator H.C. of Calcutta and others
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.