Some people may not agree with everything in this post. Normally I just post useful resources, but this actually has some questions and possibly contentious things in it. 1,552 more words
Tags » Objections
A few months back I was asked a question on Twitter that I had never gotten before. An atheist asked me, “Why does God need defending?” As a Christian apologist, my work involves defending the Christian worldview and part of that includes defending the existence of God. 759 more words
The disciples suffered for their testimony and some of them were killed.
The final piece of evidence for the resurrection is the fact that the disciples’ lives were transformed, they suffered for their testimony, and some of them were killed. 698 more words
company Act - After executing lease cum agreement of sale and after receiving entire consideration, it is not just and proper to pay objections for sale conducted by Official Liquidator in a company windup Petition = An industrial shed standing on a plot of land of the company was sold, in that process, in favour of the 2nd respondent M/s Haryana and Steel Center (KDM) Private Limited, who emerged as the best bidder for a sum of Rs.69.50 lacs. When the Official Liquidator was taking steps to liquidate the said industrial plot, it should be noted that the Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited, the fore-runner and predecessor-in-interest of the present appellant when the combined State of Andhra Pradesh was in existence, filed Company Application No. 622 of 2006 seeking leave of the Company Court for resumption of possession of the industrial shed bearing No. D- 74 of a plinth area of 30 x 60 standing on an industrial plot measuring 1416.85 square yards in Phase-V, Industrial Development Area, Jeedimetla, Ranga Reddy District. That Application No. 622 of 2006 was dismissed on merits by the Company Court on 01.08.2006. It is thereafter, the asset has been liquidated.=The APIIC has also executed a registered lease-cum-agreement of sale deed on 14.02.1985 and in pursuance thereof, vacant possession was delivered of the industrial shed together with the land appurtenant thereto on 13.03.1985 to the company under liquidation. In that view of the matter, we find no error of jurisdiction carried out by the learned Company Judge in dismissing Company Application No. 1225 of 2013 and then, allowing Company Application No. 767 of 2013, but however, we hasten to add that the learned Company Judge may not be justified in directing the APIIC or for that matter, its successor, the present appellant, to execute a sale deed in favour of the 2nd respondent. Instead, the learned Company Judge ought to have directed the 2nd respondent purchaser who has stepped into the shoes of the company under liquidation, to take necessary steps and follow-up action in terms of the registered lease-cum-agreement of sale dated 14.02.1985 and it shall be open to the 2nd respondent purchaser to secure a proper conveyance deed in its favour from the appellant upon tendering the penal costs of Rs.1,000/-.
THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO AND THE HONBLE MRS. JUSTICE ANIS
O.S.A. Nos. 21 of 2015 and batch
Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited (TSIIC Ltd.) 1,957 more words