Posts

Showing posts with the label CompanyLaw

Must Read

Gulshan Prakash v. State of Haryana (2010) 1 SCC477

By
Image
Gulshan Prakash v. State of Haryana (2010) 1 SCC 477||Case Summary  Introduction  In this appeal, the Court has interpreted Article 15(4) of the Fundamental Right. It has been added by the 1st Amendment Act, of 1951. Facts The State of Haryana instructed Maharshi Dayanand University (MDU), Rohtak to conduct entrance examination for MD/MS/PG courses for the Session 2008-2009. The appellant made a representation to the Health Secretary for providing reservation for SC and ST in the Post Graduate courses, Since there was no response from the Health Secretary the Appellant filed a petition in the High Court.  The High Court dismissed the petition of the appellant therefore the appellant approached the Supreme Court by Special Leave Petition under Article 136. Appellant Contentions  MDU, Rohtak has provided 20% reservation for the graduate level courses or undergraduate courses therefore the said University should also provide reservation in for the PG courses.  The Government o
Post a Comment
Read more

Lee v. Lee’s Air Farming, Ltd. (1960)

By
Image
Introduction This case is of " Newzealand "  related to "Separate  legal entity " has an indispensable role in the Indian company's act to understand the concept of the distinct personality of the Company.  Facts of the Case   'L' formed the respondent company to carry on the business of aerial top-dressing.  The nominal capital of the company was 3,000 pounds. 'L' was allotted 2,999 shares and he was appointed governing director of the respondent company and under Article 33 of the articles of the association was employed as chief pilot of the company. 'L' exercised full and unrestricted control of the company affairs. A different form of insurance cover for the benefit of the respondent company and certain personal accident policies were taken out in favor of 'L', who was a duly qualified pilot. L was killed while piloting the aircraft during aerial top dressing. The appellant claimed compensation under "the New
Post a Comment
Read more