Feedback   New User   Subscription   Demo   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
Case Laws
Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law SC Companies Law - SC
Citation -
Order by


Companies Law - Supreme Court - Case Laws

Showing 1 to 20 of 1269 Records

  • 2018 (2) TMI 1420 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

    Valuation of properties - company in liquidation - symbolic possession of the properties - Held that - (i) The Official Liquidator, with the guidance of the Court Receiver and after obtaining appropriate directions from the learned Company Judge in consultation with Justice A.S. Oka, can go ahead to sell the movable properties and, thereafter, proceed to sell the immovable properties which find mention in paragraph (a) of the prayer clause. - (ii....... + More

  • 2018 (2) TMI 580 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

    Buying and selling securities in the derivatives segment - manipulation and synchronization in trading of shares - violation of transparent norms of trading in securities - Held that - I fail to understand as to why Kasam Holding has made the transactions repeatedly by incurring losses. It seems improbable that Kasam Holding which was facing loss in each transaction by trading with the respondent, was still eager to trade with the same repeatedly....... + More

  • 2018 (2) TMI 487 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

    Condonation of delay of 9 days - Section 5 of the Limitation Act - application to the peremptory language of Section 421(3) of the companies act, 2013 - period of limitation - appeal against the order of NCLT - Held that - In the present case, the Section 417(3) does not merely contain the initial period of 45 days, Section 417(3) goes on to state that another period of 45 days, being a grace period given by the legislature which cannot be exceed....... + More

  • 2017 (11) TMI 443 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

    Action process - Held that - The respondent-contemnor could not have entered into correspondence with the Superintendent of Police when this Court had directed for auction of Aamby Valley. - As submitted by Mr. Datar that as a consequence of the communication, the police has taken custody of the property. If it is so, we direct the Director General of Police, Maharashtra, to see to it that the property is handed over to the Official Liquidator wi....... + More

  • 2017 (10) TMI 149 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

    Interest recovered on orders of penalty issued - Section 28A of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 - whether interest can be recovered on orders of penalty issued under the Act and/or orders of disgorgement of unlawful gains, when the said amounts have remained unpaid? - Held that - The Interest Act of 1978 would enable Tribunals such as the SAT to award interest from the date on which the cause of action arose till the date of ....... + More

  • 2017 (10) TMI 148 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

    Auction procedures - auction of Sahara Aamby Valley City - Held that - Held that - We are of the convinced opinion that grant of further time to the respondent-contemnor and entertaining post-dated cheques which are dated 11th November, 2017, would tantamount to travesty of justice and extending unwarranted sympathy to a person who is indubitably an abuser of the process of law. He, who thinks or for that matter harbours the notion that he can pl....... + More

  • 2017 (9) TMI 1269 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

    Legality of non-intermediary front running in security market under the SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA (PROHIBITION OF FRAUDULENT AND UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES RELATING TO SECURITIES MARKET) REGULATIONS, 2003 FUTP 2003 - Held that - To attract the rigor of Regulations 3 and 4 of the 2003 Regulations, mens rea is not an indispensable requirement and the correct test is one of preponderance of probabilities. Merely because the operation of the....... + More

  • 2017 (8) TMI 1318 - SUPREME COURT

    Corporate insolvency procedure - Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - eligible debt existence - Held that - . We do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi. 2017 (9) TMI 1130 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI wherein held the Corporate Debtor had a liability and obligation in respect of claim of respondent which includes the Financial Debt , including tho....... + More

  • 2017 (8) TMI 1200 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

    Breach of principles of natural justice - non-observance of Principles of Natural Justice - whether CLB did not give any opportunity to make submissions to the appellant on the main company petition? - Held that - No reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore 2016 (8) TMI 826 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT as held until the party approaches before the Civil Court, appropriate interim order could have be....... + More

  • 2017 (8) TMI 869 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

    Offences punishable under SEBI - jurisdiction transferred for trial to a Special Court - whether trial would move to the changed forum (to the Court of Session, after the 2002 Amendment Act and, to the Special Court, after the 2014 Amendment Act )? - Held that - It is not reasonable to read anything further into the words highlighted by learned senior counsel. The 2014 Amendment Act expressly provided, that for all offences committed even prior t....... + More

  • 2017 (8) TMI 540 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

    Penalty imposed by SAT - Held that - In the appeal(s) filed by the aggrieved person(s) against the order(s) of the Adjudicating Officer, the learned Appellate Tribunal was expected to record its own independent findings and arrive at its own conclusions for holding the respondent liable for the penalty imposed. It seems that the learned Appellate Tribunal has proceeded on the basis that the case of the respondent is same and similar to the case o....... + More

  • 2017 (8) TMI 49 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

    Proper status of a Promoter/Director of Sahara Sponsor who holds about 80 of its capital and who controls all Sahara Group Companies - Held that - In the instant case SEBI itself found that two group companies of Sahara and its Directors were not conducting their business following the rules relating to public issue and were restrained from associating themselves with any listed Company or Company which intends to raise money from the public. It ....... + More

  • 2017 (8) TMI 48 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

    Petition filed u/s 482 of Criminal Procedure Code - complaint filed by ROC against the Directors for failure to lay before the Company in Annual General Meeting held the balance sheet and profit and loss account for the period required under sub-sections (1) and (3) of Section 210 - Held that - The resignation of the appellant was accepted on 16.06.1997 in the meeting of Board of Directors of the Company, and the Registrar of Companies was inform....... + More


    Auction notice - proclamation for the auction of Ambey Vally - Held that - It is directed that the respondent-contemnor shall deposit ₹ 1500 crores (Rupees fifteen hundred crores only) which would include the balance amount of today by 7.9.2017. After due consideration, we have granted time till 7.9.2017, though Mr. Sibal, with all humility at his command, prayed for fixing the date some time in October, 2017. Though we appreciate the humbl....... + More

  • 2017 (7) TMI 748 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

    Interpretation of Regulation 10 of the SEBI Takeover Regulations of 2011 - upliftment of corporate veil - Held that - For the purpose of the present case, the Target Company, therefore, means a company whose shares are listed on a Stock Exchange. This would mean, on the facts of the present case, the Rattan Company, whose shares are listed on the two Stock Exchanges as mentioned above. Coming back to Regulation 10, it is thus clear that persons n....... + More

  • 2017 (7) TMI 180 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

    Auction of properties of Saharas - permitting the sale of Grosvenor House Hotel - Held that - In the interlocutory application relates to grant of permission for sale of Grosvenor House Hotel, i.e. by transfer of shares of the company to the buyer i.e. GH Equity U.K. Limited. Mr. Arvind P. Datar, learned senior counsel appearing for the S.E.B.I. has no objection if such permission is granted. The permission is, accordingly, granted. - Permit Saha....... + More

  • 2017 (5) TMI 542 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

    Validity of anti-competitive agreement - offending the provisions of Section 3(3) of the Competition Act, 2002 - penalty imposed by COMPAT - CCI jurisdiction to hold enquiry - Held that - Merely because the purported agreement between the appellants was entered into and bids submitted before May 20, 2009 are no yardstick to put an end to the matter. No doubt, after the agreement, first sting was inflicted on May 8, 2009 when the bids were submitt....... + More

  • 2017 (5) TMI 23 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

    Reserved price for the purpose of auction - Held that - Regard being had to the submissions of the official liquidator and the affidavit that has been filed by the contemnor, we direct that the reserved price for the purpose of auction be fixed at ₹ 37,392 Crores. The Official Liquidator shall proceed in accordance with the Rules of procedure and prepare a draft terms and conditions and sale notice and the same shall be filed for our approv....... + More

  • 2017 (4) TMI 932 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

    Auction notice - deposit with SEBI Sahara Refund Account not been done - Held that - As no amount has been deposited by the contemnor, we are inclined to go ahead with auction for the Aamby Valley City near Lonavala, Maharashtra. It is submitted by Mr. Shekhar Naphade, learned Amicus Curiae assisting the Court in the matter that the Official Liquidator of the Bombay High Court may be appointed to conduct the sale. Mr. Arvind P. Datar, learned sen....... + More

  • 2017 (3) TMI 1628 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

    Period of limitation - entitlement to get the benefit of Section 5 of the Limitation Act - Appeal to Supreme Court - period of limitation - Held that - In the instant case, as is noticeable, the application for review was filed after expiry of 30 days. Respondent would contend that for filing of review, no time limit is prescribed. Per contra, Ms. Ranjeeta Ramachandran has drawn our attention to Section 120F which confers the jurisdiction on the ....... + More

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new


|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version