D. P. MOHAPATRA, R. R. K. TRIVEDI
SUMAC INTERNATIONAL LTD. – Appellant
Versus
PNB CAPITAL SERVICES LTD. – Respondent
( 1 ) AGGRIEVED by the order dated 6-12-1996, passed by learned single Judge, in Company Petition No, 16 of 1996, the respondent therein has filed this appeal. By the impugned order objection of the appellant questioning the maintainability of the Company petition in this Court at Allahabad has been overruled.
( 2 ) THE facts, in short, giving rise to this appeal are that respondent Punjab National Bank filed a petition on 2-7-1996 for winding up of appellant Company under Sections 433, 434 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956. The winding up of the Company has been sought on the ground that it is unable to pay its debts and, therefore, it should be wound up by order of this Court. On 3-7-1996 this Court issued notice to the appellant Company to show cause why the petition may not be admitted and advertised- In response to this notice, the appellant Company appeared and filed objection questioning the maintainability of the Company Petition and prayed for dismissal of the same. After exchange of affidavit, the objection raised by the appellant was rejected on 6-12l996. Against the aforesaid order the present appeal was filed by the appellant on 28-3-1997.
REFERRED : U.P.Rashtriya Chini Mill Adhikari Parishad v. State of U.P.
Manager, Hardware and Tools Ltd. v. Saru Smalting (P.) Ltd.
Nasiruddin v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal
Ram Lakhan Saran v. Sunni Central Board of Waqfs, U.P., Lucknow
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.