Advanced Search Results

K.A. Hassan Vs. State of A.P.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Subject : Criminal

Acts : Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 1988 - Sections 7, 11, 13(1 and 2) and 20; Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 161 and 379; Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 - Sections 4(1 to 3); Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 101

Reported in : 1998(2)ALD333; 1998(1)ALD(Cri)259; 1998(1)ALT(Cri)355

laid and the bribe money was recovered from ihe accused stands substantiated by the oral testimonies of the compainant as well as the mediators and the official witnesses discussed so far.10. However, the allegation which has to … offences punishable under Sections 7, 11 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act'} and sentenced to suiter rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and

Dhanni and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Subject : Criminal

Reported in : 1973CriLJ1336; 1973()WLN153

learned Counsel for the convict Dhanni is that the prosecution has failed to establish the possession of the compainants on the filed in dispute. It has been argued that the dispute between Shivram and Tota had been … the field in auestion with a bullock-cart for loading and bringing their share of fodder from Gabdu who actually cultivated the field. Gabdu used to reside in a neighbouring village Digcholi and Govindsingh went to bring him

In Re: Calcutta Stock Exchange Association Ltd.

Court : Kolkata

Subject : Company

Acts : Companies Act, 1956 - Sections 69, 75, 75(1) and 75(5); ;Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908; ;Indian Companies Act, 1913 - Section 104(4)

Reported in : AIR1957Cal438,61CWN448

the idea becomes clearer still when the contents of such Returns of allotments under Section 75(1) of the Compaines Act are scrutinized. What does this Return of allotments require to state? The Return is to state (1) the

The Public Trustee Vs. A. Rajeshwartyagi and ors.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Constitution

Acts : Delhi High Court Act, 1966 - Sections 5(1); Companies Act, 1956 - Sections 10; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Sections 9

Reported in : AIR1972Delhi362; [1973]43CompCas371(Delhi)

Contract, Transfer of Property etc., which governs the question whether the Trust was legally created or not. The Compaines Act as such has no bearing on this Others question. The legality of such a Trust can, thereforee, be

The Official Liquidator of R. C. Abrol and Company (P) Ltd. Vs. R.C. A ...

Court : Delhi

Subject : CompanyCriminal

Acts : Companies Act, 1956 - Sections 538

Reported in : [1977]47CompCas537(Delhi); ILR1976Delhi283

the intention of the Legislature by referring to Section 446(2) or even to the other provisions of the Compaines Act, 1956. In my view, the proper procedure is to examine the Criminal Procedure Code, as it stood in

D. Balakrishnamurthy and ors. Vs. Manasani Veeranarassaiah Alias

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Subject : Tenancy

Acts : Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction Control) Act, 1960 - Sections 10 and 23; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Order 23, Rule 3

Reported in : AIR1971AP251

out that 'the order made by the Court did not show that it was satisfied that the sub-letting compained of had taken place' and then added, 'nor is there any other material on record to show that … the eviction of the tenant under Section 10 of the Andhra Pradesh buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction Control) Act. 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act)' was granted. The order of eviction relates to the non-residential premises

Durgi Singh and ors. Vs. State of U.P.

Court : Allahabad

Subject : Criminal

Acts : Evidence Act - Sections 101; Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 147, 148, 149, 232, 302, 307 and 323; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 161; Police Regulations; Police Rules - Rule 115

Reported in : 2001CriLJ2522

stated there was no Mend. Even if it is taken as correct then this clearly indicates that the compainant side was out to settle the injustice meted out by appellants in the past by taking the law … portion from the field of the appellant Durgi Singh was merged into his field by Shubrati deceased. This Act of the deceased also gave rise to some altercation in between them. On some previous date, it is

Mazagaon Dock Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax and Excess Profi ...

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Direct Taxation

Reported in : (1959)61BOMLR554

done at cost. And further unlike customers who purchase goods for their own consumption or use, the non-resident compaines get their ships repaired for use in what is admittedly their business. These are clearly trading activities, organised … the judgment of the High Court of Bombay in a reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, hereinafter referred to as the Act.2. The appellant is a private limited company incorporated under the Indian

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. K.C.P. Limited

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Subject : Direct Taxation

Acts : Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 80M

Reported in : [1998]229ITR85(AP)

of surtax assessment, the deduction contemplated in sub-clause (viii) of rule 1 of the First Schedule to the Compaines (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 should be given with regard to the net dividend and not the gross dividend.(ii)

Mohamed AmIn Vs. Jogendra Kumar Bannerji

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Criminal

Reported in : (1947)49BOMLR584

be taken from them, as otherwise his life and property would be in danger. The Magistrate examined the compainant on oath who gave evidene as to the incidents mentioned in the petition and prayed that proceedings under … character and it is unnecessary to discuss the merits of it. On September 16, 1940, the 2nd respondent, acting on behalf of himself and the 1st and 3rd respondents, filed a petition of complaint against the appellant