sterlite buyback judgment

This is a 2000 word RBI on Article 92 (Failure to obey order or regulation) and Article 86 (Absence without leave)

All the FASB, SEC and EITF provide related information to the case. Despite we must consider the main data. Two contracts, one for

The thesis deals with the above concepts and discusses how the Companies Act 71 of 2008 (the Act) modified the law, particularly, by extending the legal capacity of a company and extinguishing or modifying the above rules which had previously restricted a company's ability

The best way to explain the procedures to submit an appeal is to contact the

The matter was presented to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) and AAT has different views on this matter and AAT considered the historical Cases and

The Court was hearing an appeal by the CCI against the order dated Feb. 15, 2010 of the Tribunal in Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. Jindal Steel had

(case name & citation = 5 pts; facts = 10 points; decision = 10 pts)

The land in Stratford is being actively traded, rather than being held for income producing

Notice of Appeal (Form B1), Notice of Application for Extension of Time (Form B2), Skeletal Arguments

Availability of this decision among powers of appeal and cassation instance court explains not only the interests of procedural economy, but also the prevention possible repeated, including more fundamental infringement. Possibility of independent elimination of the revealed infringements by entering corresponding corrections into the judgment is an indicator of efficiency of this or that form of the judgments revision, allows to carry out by rational method of the task, both corresponding stage of criminal procedure, and criminal procedure as a whole.

The Company will need to disapply its pre-emption rights in accordance to s 561 of CA 2006 and enable its director 's authority to allot under s 551 of CA 2006. The Company 's shares of the same class should have the same voting rights and comply with all legal requirement in pursuant of LR 2.2.2R. The Company must also remove the restrictions on transfer of

Salamon v. Salamon & Co. Ltd has a significance principle that has been recognised universally. Refer to s16(5) in The Act, once company is registered, the new company is a juristic person that separate from its members. Likewise, company has the full responsible on its own debts and contractual

A bench of the Supreme Court has in Bankura Municipality v. Lalji Raja and Sons[2] held that:

Mr Lay gambled away all of the company’s assets and reserves which is a wrongdoing under s.361 Insolvency Act 1986. He knew that there was no reasonable prospect of avoiding insolvency as the company was bankrupt and failed to minimise the potential loss to the company’s creditors. Therefore, s.214 (2) IA 1986 applies in this case and the court may declare that Mr Lay is to be liable to contribute to the company’s debts as this is a wrongful trading under s.214 IA 1986. This is similar to the case of Brooks v Armstrong (2015) where the three principle conditions for wrongful trading were outlined. Furthermore, he carried on business affairs with no intent to pay the company’s debts and for fraudulent purposes. This is an offence under s.993 CA 2006 and s.213 IA 1986. This is similar to the case of Contex Drouzhbu Ltd v Wisemen And Another Ca (2007) where the representation was made fraudulently as the director knew the company was insolvent and

of minority shareholder claims (personal and derivative) for oppression under Section 216 of the Companies Act.