: the limitation act, 1963: (I): the limitation act, 1963
Download 445 b.
(I): THE LIMITATION ACT, 1963:
C): Section 18 of Limitation Act:
The supplementary bill however has been raised not from April, 2001 but from July, 2002, and therefore, the defendant is rightly entitled to raise the bill from July, 2002.
INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1872
Section 15 of Indian Contract Act, 1872 : Coercion
The distribution licensee in a position to dominate the will of the wind energy generators a result of exercise of undue influence or coercion. Most of the wind energy generators have been compelled or coerced due to undue influence to enter into Power Purchase Agreement or Energy Purchase Agreement and sign the same without being in the position of exercising free consent to the same. Some have done the same under protest or some have been constrained to do that act because otherwise they were bound to suffer on financial as well as viable aspect of their business of wind power generation.
The judgment shall apply to all the wind energy generators or wind power projects of the State, irrespective of their not having filed any appeal before this Appellate Tribunal, if they are squarely covered by this judgment. Indian Wind Power Association (Maharashtra State Council)
The Delhi High Court in S N Mathur Vs. Pragy Aggarwal MANU/DE/0321/2016: has observed that Section 10 of the Indian Contract Act states that all agreements are contracts if they are entered into with the (i) free consent of the parties; (ii) who are competent to contract; (iii) for a lawful consideration, and (iv) are not declared by law to be void. The aforesaid aspects which make an agreement a final contract with respect to capacity to contract, lack of coercion etc to enter into the contract, consideration being lawful and otherwise not being declared void are not issues in the present case and one is only concerned that whether at all there exists an agreement to sell i.e. an agreement as per Section 2(h) of the Indian Contract Act.
Section 16 of Indian Contract Act, 1872 : Undue Influence
Such revocation is also possible only through a Civil Court. In S. Ganesan v. Bharathirajan MANU/TN/1828/2009 : 2009 (5) CTC 558), relying upon the Judgment of the Apex Court reported in K. Balakrishnan v. K. Kamalam MANU/SC/1071/2003 : 2004 (1) CTC 145 (SC)), this Court has held that the Settlement Deed would not be invalidated on the ground that possession was not handed over to the donee or because donee failed to mutate the records. The Judgment is squarely applicable to the present facts of the case. S. Palani and Ors. Vs. S. Bharathi Dasan and Ors. MANU/TN/0057/2016.
i) The suggestion of a fact, of that which is not true;
SPECIES OF FRAUD : HOW SUPREME COURT DEFINED
(c) The Supreme Court in Gopal Krishnaji Ketkar Vs Mahomed Haji Latif AIR 1968 SC 1413 has held as under:
It is not, in our opinion, a sound practice for those desiring to rely upon a certain state of facts to withhold from the Court the best evidence which is in their possession which could throw light upon the issues in controversy and to rely upon the abstract doctrine of onus of proof."
(d). The Supreme Court in the case S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath 1998 Vol.71 Delhi law Times Page 1 has held as under:
(e) The Supreme Court in the case of Satish Khosla Vs. M/s. Eli Lilly Ranbaxy Ltd. 1998 Vol.71 Delhi Law Times page 1, has held as under:
(f) The Supreme Court in Krishan Lal Kacker v. Ram Chander 139 2005 Vol.139 Punjab Law Reporter 269, has held as under:
SECTION 25 of Indian Contract Act, 1872:
The Supreme Court in Manna Lal Khetan Vs. Kedar Nath Kheta MANU/SC/0060/1976 has observed as under:-
SALES OF GOODS ACT, 1930:
Section 24 of the Act provides that even when goods are delivered to the buyer on approval, the property therein passes to the buyer inter alia when after delivery of the goods, the goods are retained for a reasonable period of time without being rejected or returned. Section 42 of the Act provides that the buyer is deemed to have accepted the goods when the goods have been delivered to him and he does any act in relation thereto which is inconsistent with the ownership of the seller, or when, after the lapse of a reasonable time, he retains the goods without intimating to the seller that he has rejected them.
A person is entitled to file a Suit for Recovery of Money towards recovery of sale consideration. However, the Seller has not right to file a petition for rectification of Register of Member under Section 58 and 59 of the Companies Act, 2013.
Section 101 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872:
context may be had to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Anil Rishi v. Gurbaksh Singh, MANU/SC/8133/2006 : (2006) 5 SCC 558 paragraphs 8 to 10 of which read as follows:--
Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872:
(II)How Power Of Attorney to be Executed: Section 85 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872:
d): The Power of Attorney must be on Stamp Paper of requisite value as per rules of State Stamp Act;
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908:
process of the court. It cannot be invoked with reference to a matter which is covered by a specific provision in the Code. It cannot be exercised in conflict with the general scheme and intent of the Code.”
Admission under Indian Evidence Act, 1872:
The Supreme Court in Ganesh Trading Co. v. Moji Ram MANU/SC/0018/1978 : AIR 1978 SC 484, held as under
b): “It is only if lapse of time has barred the remedy on a newly constituted cause of action that the courts should ordinary refuse prayers for amendment of pleading.”
HOW PETITION TO BE DRAFTED: ORDER 6 RULE 1 & 2 CPC.
Amendment barred by law – Still Allowable.
added by amendment is allegedly barred by limitation, there is no absolute rule that amendment in such a case should not be allowed and that an amendment subserving the ultimate cause of justice and avoiding further litigation should be allowed.
HOW TO DRAFT WRITTEN STATEMENT/ REPLY
The written statement must deal specifically with each allegation of fact in the plaint and when a defendant denies any such fact; he must not do so evasively, but answer the point of substance. If his denial of fact is not specific but evasive, the said fact shall be taken to be admitted. In such an event, the admission itself being proof, no other proof is necessary.
ORDER 29 RULE 1 CPC – Authorisation to file legal proceedings before Court/tribunal
himself as the Chief Executive Officer of the company, was nothing but a scrap of paper because no resolution was passed
In the matter of company affairs, Directors act as a body and collectively as a Board. Any Director acting individually has no power to act on behalf of the company in respect of any matter except to the extent to which any power or powers of the Board have been delegated to him by the Board within the limit permitted by the Companies Act or any other law.
The position of the Chairman of the Board of Directors is not substantially different from an individual Director. Under the Companies Act, Chairman of the company does not have any special or extraordinary rights to be exercised by him without being authorized by the Board of Directors. The Board of Directors of course have an authority to delegate the power or authority to act for and on behalf of the company to the Chairman of the Board of Directors.
ORDER 19 RULE 1 AFFIDAVIT –How Affidavit in support of petition to be drawn.
THE PROVISIONS OF CPC ARE APPLICABLE TO CLB/NCLT
IMPORTANT PRINCIPLE LAW
Act, to say that it is to have retrospective operation, it cannot be so construed as to have the effect of altering the law applicable to a claim in litigation at the time when the Act is passed".
as to take away or impair an existing right or create a new obligation or impose a new liability otherwise than as regards matters of procedure. All statutes other than those which are merely declaratory or which relate only to matters of procedure or of evidence are prima facie prospective and retrospective operation should not be given to a statute so as to affect, alter or destroy an existing right or create a new liability or obligation unless that effect cannot be avoided without doing violence to the language of the enactment.
EVERY SUBSTANTIAL LAW IS PROSPECTIVE.
Statutory returns have no evidential value unless supported by documents/evidence:
A party cannot be permitted to blow hot and cold, fast and loose or approbate and reprobate. Where one knowingly accepts the benefits of a contract or conveyance or an order, is estopped to deny the validity or binding effect on him of such contract or conveyance or order. This rule is applied to do equity, however, it must not be applied in a manner as to violate the principles of right and good conscience. By that law, a person may be precluded by his actions or conduct or silence when it is his duty to speak, from asserting a right which he otherwise would have had.
A person cannot convey better title than what he himself has.
The figures shown in Income Tax Return is admission:
Waiver and Acquiscence:
Person signing documents cannot deny knowledge.
Fraud vitiates all solemn acts:
Maintainability of petition:
Plea taken for the first time in replication:
Vexatious, frivolous and mischievous litigation:
LIFTING OF CORORATE VEIL
Juggilal Kamlapat Vs. CIT MANU/SC/0091/1968.
If the company is represented through Directors or in other words, the petition or reply has been filed through directors of the company, no execution petition can be filed against such Directors for relisation of the amount under the money decree passed against the company of which the person is director because he is signing the petition or written statement in the capacity of a director and not in his personal capacity. Dr Rakha Kamat Vs. Nath steel Equipments 2010 (4) Current Civil Cases 34.
NO INTERIM RELIEF, IF NO CHALLENGE IN MAIN PRAYER.
Where the company law Board by impugned order had restrained the appellant and its Board of directors from implementing the decision take in the Board of Directors meeting and the decision taken by the Board of Directors have not been challenged in the main petition, no relief can be granted. Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Ltd Vs. R K Dhall 2010(98)CLA (Snr) 3 (Bom).
Even where a person is not a member but he has indeffasible right to be a member, is entitled to file a company petition .
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham:
Ma'lumotlar bazasi mualliflik huquqi bilan himoyalangan ©fayllar.org 2019
ma'muriyatiga murojaat qiling
ma'muriyatiga murojaat qiling