Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>High Court: Company Petition Maintainable, Not Barred by Civil Suit Withdrawal; Urges CLB to Reassess on Merits.</h1> <h3>Pradip Kumar Sengupta Versus Titan Engineering (Co.) (P.) Ltd.</h3> Pradip Kumar Sengupta Versus Titan Engineering (Co.) (P.) Ltd. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Whether the company petition filed in the Company Law Board (CLB) under sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956, is maintainable after withdrawal of a comprehensive suit without leave to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action.2. Whether the CLB was justified in dismissing the company petition based on the withdrawal of the earlier civil suit without leave.3. The applicability of the bar of res judicata and Order 23, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to proceedings under sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act.4. The distinction between proceedings under sections 397 and 398 and civil suits in terms of reliefs and subject matter.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Maintainability of the Company Petition:The primary issue in this case is whether a company petition filed under sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956, is maintainable after the withdrawal of a comprehensive suit without leave to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action. The High Court held that the company petition is indeed maintainable. The court emphasized that an application under sections 397/398 is not a suit and, therefore, not subject to the same procedural bars as civil suits. The reliefs sought in the company petition were distinct and could not have been granted in the earlier civil suit, which was withdrawn.2. Justification of the CLB's Dismissal:The CLB dismissed the company petition on the grounds that the earlier civil suit was withdrawn without leave to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action. The High Court found this dismissal unjustified, noting that the CLB failed to recognize the distinction between the withdrawn civil suit and the company petition. The court pointed out that the subject matter of the company petition was not directly or substantially in issue in the earlier suit, and the reliefs claimed were entirely different.3. Applicability of Res Judicata and Order 23, Rule 1:The High Court clarified that the bar of res judicata and Order 23, Rule 1 of the CPC, which prevents filing a subsequent suit on the same cause of action without leave, does not apply to proceedings under sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act. The court reasoned that these proceedings are not suits but rather applications involving broader issues of public interest, including the interests of creditors and shareholders.4. Distinction Between Proceedings Under Sections 397/398 and Civil Suits:The court underscored the distinction between proceedings under sections 397/398 and civil suits. It highlighted that proceedings under these sections are not strictly between private parties and involve broader considerations, including public interest. The court cited various judgments to support the view that the reliefs and subject matter in the company petition did not overlap entirely with those in the earlier civil suit, thus allowing for the maintainability of the company petition.Conclusion:The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the CLB's order dismissing the company petition. It directed the CLB to decide the company petition and connected applications afresh and on merits. The court refused the respondents' request for a stay of the order, emphasizing the distinct nature and broader scope of proceedings under sections 397 and 398 compared to civil suits.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found