Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
Kalyan Rai Surana, Soumitra Saikia
Buragohain Tea Company Limited – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India Through The Regional Director, Ministry Of Corporate Affairs, North Eastern Region – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. R. Banerjee, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. D. Sarma and Mr. A.K. Sahewalla, learned counsel for the appellant in Co.App./4/2016, who is respondent No.1 in connected Co.App./3/2016. Also heard Mr. D. Mazumdar, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. B. Kaushik, learned counsel for the private respondent in Co.App./4/2016, who is the appellant in Co.App./3/2016 and Mr. MR Adhikari, learned CGC for the Union of India in Co.Appl No.4/2016.
2. These company appeals are filed by the parties, who are aggrieved by the order dated 28.07.2015 passed in Company Petition No.3 of 2013. The facts leading to the present litigation between the parties arose from an application under Sections 391 (2) and 394 of the COMPANIES ACT , 1956, seeking sanction of the Court to the scheme of amalgamation of the Buragohain Tea Company Ltd. (the transferor company) with the B & A Ltd. (the transferee company).
3. The company appeal No.4 of 2016 is filed by the transferor company, namely the Buragohain Tea Company Ltd., whereas the company appeal No.3 of 2015 was filed by shareholder of the transferor company, namely the Buragohain Tea Company Ltd., who had opposed the scheme of amalg
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.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
