The article is an in-depth analysis of the procedure of registering a stock at the National Stock Exchange and Bombay Stock Exchange and discusses the advantages and disadvantages of the same.
This article analyses the applicability as well as the implications imposed by the Companies Act, 2013 in case of banking companies. It also analyses the various provisions under the special act for banking companies, i.e. the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and provides an overview of the Act.
The articles talks about difference between a stock and shares and provides an insight into the types and of shares and the conditions involved behind the issuance of the shares of the company as provided under the Companies Act 2013.
The article is an insight into the basic terms of stock market and the procedure of purchase of shares in a company, stating the advantages and disadvantages of purchase of share.
As in the present case, the court protected the rights of the operational debtor by using literal approach towards the provision of section 9 of the Code. Also, to not to deprive the Advocates from practice of their profession, the Court held that depriving them for such practice will attract the violation of Article 19 of the Constitution of India.
This case comment would focus on the facts of the case and the judgment and would also attempt to critically analyze the effect and implications of the judgment given from the fact of the case and whether or not the judgments (including the Magistrate court, Court of Appeal and Supreme court) were made appropriately with adequate precedents to back it up.
This piece just like prior case comments would attempt to give a critical analysis of the fact of the case, matters which arose and the judgment. This article also seeks to draw a distinction between a contract for service and a contract of service as well as whether the director could qualify as an employee, undergoing the same method of remuneration and appointment.
In Rich Paints Ltd. v. Vadodara Stock Exchange Ltd. , the Judges, have not considered the literal meaning of the provisions of the statutes but have considered the provisions in relation to the statute as a whole. The court in this case has interpreted Section 69 and 73 of Companies act 1956.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in this case differentiated between a ‘party’ to an arbitration agreement and a nominee of a party. It rejected the contention that an arbitration clause may bound a non-signatory by virtue of its ‘conduct’.
The observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in this case may be viewed as a broad affirmation of the NCLAT ruling in Kirusa Software Case where it was held that a ‘dispute’ pursuant to Section 8(2) must not be pending in a suit or arbitration proceeding; however, the same must be ‘pending’ and cannot be raised by the corporate debtor for the first time while it is pending.
The case with its judgment created great significance in the field of winding-up petition field of law. It created a path for both creditors and debtors to move with their petitions and application hand in hand within the same forum. The judgment also created and allowed a wider interpretation the code.
This article seeks to examine the facts of the case, circumstances surrounding the fact of the case and judgment made from the fact with recourse to the concerned law and the position of the law in its application. This piece also seeks to examine the concept of known and wilful default as well as the duties of directors, thus relating it to the facts of the case.
Simply because they are the directors, does not mean that they are supposed to be held liable for every mistake that they are making in the course of their conduct. This is true even if the directors may have avoided the mistake altogether had they taken slightly more care of their actions.
In this the Court has stated that Regulation 30A of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 is not mandatory instead it is directory for the simple reason that it will be based on the facts of a given case, an application for withdrawal shall be allowed in exceptional cases even after issue of invitation of interest under Regulation 36A.
