APPENDIX II
WORDS & PHRASES JUDICIALLY NOTICED*
Expression 'all wages or salary' in section 529(3)(b)(i) of the 1956 Act [corresponding to section 325(3)(b)(i) of the 2013 Act] does not include bonus payable to workmen under the Payment of Bonus Act or otherwise.
COMPANY CASES (CC) HIGHLIGHTS
F Satisfaction by a secured creditor of the condition laid down in section 13(9) in 2002 Act cannot automatically be taken as satisfaction of the condition prescribed in third proviso to section 15(1) of 1985 Act because both conditions prescribe different thresholds : Global Infrastructure Technologies Ltd. v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. (Delhi) p. 88
F Where dishonour of cheque prosecution of managing director and director not to be stayed : Poly K. Ayyampally v. A. Pradeep Kumar (Ker) p. 99
F Winding up proceedings against company without permission of company court illegal and void : Official Liquidator of Commercial Ahmedabad Mills Ltd. v. Manager, State Bank of India (Guj) p. 106
F Policy :
Consolidated FDI Policy-(Contd.)
F Disinterested quorum at board meetings-Dr. K. R. Chandratre p. 26
F Evolution of cheque bouncing law during last 25 years-Dr. Mahesh Thakar p. 17
| COMPANY LAW INSTITUTE OF INDIA PVT. LTD. No. 2, Vaithyaram Street, T.Nagar, Chennai - 600017. Phone: (044) 24350752 - 55 Fax: (044) 24322015 info@cliofindia.com |
To Unsubscribe : Reply back with "Unsubscribe" in subject followed by the key word "ITR" or "CC" or "VST" or "ITR (Trib)" or "GSTR", respectively or "All" if you do not want any Email. ITR : Income Tax Reports, CC : Company Cases, VST : VAT and Service Tax Cases, GSTR : Goods and Service Tax Reports, ITR (Trib) : ITR'S Tribunal Tax Reports. Also send your feedback or comments to info@cliofindia.com
Lays down jurisdiction test under Copyright/Trademark Act; Applies mischief-rule of interpretation
SC dismisses appeal against Delhi HC Division Bench order that declined its jurisdiction to entertain appellant's infringement suit, filed by virtue of the fact that they had branch office in Delhi, since appellants had head office in Mumbai and cause of action arose in Mumbai; Holds that "A company may have subordinate or branch offices in fifty different jurisdictions and it may be sued in any one of such jurisdictions in respect of a cause of action arising there..accrual of cause of action is a sine qua non for a suit to be filed";Rejects appellant's contention that Sec. 62(2) of Copyright Act & Sec. 134 of Trade Marks Act (which state that district court within whose jurisdiction person instituting the suit 'carries on business' shall try the suit) contain non-obstante clause, thereby ousting applicability of Sec 20 of CPC (which provides that suit shall be instituted where either defendant resides, or cause of action arises); Holds that non-obstante expression "notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure" does not oust the applicability of Sec 20 of CPC, only an "additional remedy has been provided to the plaintiff so as to file a suit where he is residing or carrying on business etc.";Applies mischief rule of interpretation to read Sec 20 CPC, Sec 62 of Copyright Act & Sec 134 of Trademark Act, holds that plaintiff has right to institute a suit at a place where he is residing, carrying on business etc., however such right is subject to the rider that in case plaintiff resides or has its principal place of business where cause of action has also arisen, suit should be filed at that place not at other places where plaintiff is having branch offices etc;Accepts respondent's contention that jurisdiction provisions do not allow multi-national cos to harass them; holds "plaintiff should not go to far flung places..in order to deprive defendant a remedy and harass him by dragging to distant place";On appellant's reliance on SC ruling in Exphar SA & Anr. v. Eupharma Laboratories Ltd. & Anr, holds that the decision does not oust the applicability of Sec 20 CPC, but, "buttresses the interpretation adopted by us", rejects appellant's reliance on SC ruling in Dhodha House, Dabur India Ltd., as distinguishable on basis of issue raised; Relies on its ruling in Patel Roadways Ltd., Bombay v. Prasad Trading Co.refers to commentaries of Mulla in the Code of Civil Procedure, 18th Edn, Justice G.P. Singh in 'Principles of Statutory Interpretation', 12th Edition, Bennion on 'Statutory Interpretation':SC
The ruling was delivered by Justice Arun Mishra and Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar.
Advocates Mr. Vikas Singh Jangra, and Mr. K.V. Mohan, argued on behalf of Appellants.Advocates Mr. Ankur Saigal,Mr. Mahesh Agarwal,Mr. Rishi Agrawala,Mr. E.C. Agrawala and Ms. Kaveeta Wadia argued on behalf of Respondents.
RBI mandates prior-approval for acquisition/transfer of NBFC's control, prescribes documentation & public notice
RBI mandates prior approval for acquisition / transfer of control of Non-Banking Financial Companies ('NBFCs'); RBI's prior written permission is required where: (a) There is takeover / acquisition of control of NBFC, (whether resulting in change of management or not), (b) Any change in NBFC's shareholding, resulting in acquisition/ transfer of 26% or more of NBFCs' paid-up equity capital (not being due to buyback of shares/ capitl reduction), (c) Change in NBFC's management resulting in change in more than 30% of the directors (excluding independent directors); Prescribes the content and annexures of the prior-approval application; States that NBFC is under obligation to give at least 30-days Public Notice (indicating the intentions of parties) in one leading national & vernacular newspaper, before effecting sale / transfer of ownership by sale of shares / transfer of control (whether with / without share sale): RBI
__._,_.___
No comments:
Post a Comment