SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1988 Supreme(Guj) 67

R.A.MEHTA, P.R.GOKULAKRISHNAN
TESTEELS LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
RADHABEN RANCHHODLAL CHARITABLE TRUST – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: AKSHAY H.MEHTA, SUDHIR NANAVATI

P. R. GOKULAKRISHNAN, J.

( 1 ) BOTH those O. J. Appeals arise from the order passed in Company Petition Nos. 43 of 1986 and 44 of 1986. Both the Company Petitions were filed by different Charitable Trusts against the same appellant herein for the purpose of winding up the appellant-Company due to its inability to pay the huge rents payable to the respondents. The learned Company Judge admitted the Company Petitions and passed the following order on 29/04/1987"admit For the present case the request of Mr. S. I. Nanavati the matter is adjourned till reopening of the Court for the purpose of advertisement. S. O. to 25"a similar order was passed in both the Company Petitions and as against these orders the present O. J. Appeals Nos. 9 of 1988 and 10 of 1988 have been filed. In the O. J. Appeals the appellant Testeels Limited apart from various other grounds contended that in view of the provisions under Sec. 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act 1985 (Act No. 1 of 1986 the Company Petitions filed by the respondent in each of these O. J. Appeals have to be dismissed. Hence the short question that arises in these O. J. Appeals is as to whether the Company Petition c














Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top