Advanced Search Results

The Capital Cooperative Thrift Credit Society Ltd & Ors. vs Regist ...

Court : Delhi

Subject : Arbitration

elections was declared on 15th December, 2024. 7. Thereafter, claims came to be filed under section 70 of the DCS Act, 2003, by Respondents No. 3 to 15 on the ground that the nominations were wrongly rejected. In the said

Madhya Pradesh Power Generation Company Ltd Vs. Madhya Pradesh Electri ...

Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL

Subject : Land Acquisition

Hydro Power Station and the respondent No. 10 MSEB (Holding Co) and Maharashtra State Transmission Company Limited has 33% share in the Pench Hydro Station, both operated by the appellant. 4. To show the details of the … found impossible for the appellant, a generating company within the meaning of Section 2 (28) of the Electricity Act,2003 to reach the benchmarks or the yardstick fixed by the Commission in its said Regulations, 2009, by virtue

Bimal Kumar Jana vs Santa Dey & Ors

Court : Delhi

Subject : Land Acquisition

order dated 29th May 2015 it was heldthat the period of 180 days prescribed under Section 86(3) of the DCS Act, 2003 is mandatory and begins from the date of receipt of the expulsion resolution by the RCS. Failure of … NEW DELHI-110078 .....Petitioner Through: Petitioner in person (through VC).versusSMT. SANTA DEY & ORS.1. SMT. SANTA DEY FLAT NO. 336, DELHI EPDP CGHS LTD. PLOT NO.19, SECTOR-4, DWARKA, NEW DELHI-110078.2. DELHI EPDP CGHS LTD. PLOT NO. 19, SECTOR-4,

Susme Builders Private Limited Vs. Om Namo Sujlam Suflam Co-operative ...

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Land Acquisition

notice of motion has been taken out by the plaintiffs praying for an order, restraining the defendants from acting upon the termination of the aforesaid agreements and/or creating any third party rights in respect of the suit … and, therefore, the contention in that regard is without substance. The learned Counsel relying on the provisions of Section 202 of the Indian Contract Act submits that since the plaintiff has an interest in the property i.e. … Attorney. In the said meeting the further amendment to the DCR No. 33(10) was also considered under which slum rehabilitation authority was constituted. The general

Power Trading Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Central Electricity Regula ...

Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL

Subject : Electricity

collection of service charge as per the direction have been continued even before the enactment of the Electricity Act, 2003 as well as before the fixation of the Trading Margin Regulations, 2006 introduced by the Central Commission. Therefore, … or the parties to the agreement are not in India and the agreement may not be registerable under Section 33 being outside India, the agreement nevertheless, being a restrictive trade practice, as a consequence of such an outside

Mumbai District Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. Co-operative Bank Employees ...

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Land Acquisition

Steel Board and Anr. 2001 III CLR 560 (SC). (21) Arjun Dada Gadge Vs. Mallappa G. Chougule, AIR 2003 Bombay 441 (HC-Bom.). (22) Management of Sonepat Co-op. Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Ajit Singh 2005 I LLJ 1122 … is withdrawn, such Application would not be entertained by the Labour Court. 33. Hearing of the Application shall stand expedited. Upon pronouncement of the judgment, … of the Labour Court was passed on an Interim Application under Section 119 (D) of Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as "BIR Act") filed by the Respondent-Union seeking an order to restrain Respondent-Bank from

Jolen Inc. Vs. Shobanlal JaIn and ors.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Acts : Trade Marks Act, 1999; ;Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 - Sections 9, 11, 12, 12(1), 18, 18(1), 21(2) and 33; ;Trade Marks Rules; ;Constitution of India - Article 226

Reported in : LC2010(2)176

the trademark JOLEN prior to the date of the application. Therefore, the Petitioner could not take advantage of Section 33 of the TM Act 1958.12. As regards the Petitioner's Opposition No. DEL 600 under No. 555920 in respect

Madras Medical Care and Health Vs. Devaki Hospital Limited and ors.

Court : Company Law Board CLB

Subject : Land Acquisition

be in-charge of affairs of the Company do not survive. The High Court in C.S. No. 562 of 2003 prima facie found that the second respondent violated Section 295 of the Act-and consequently restrained her from (a) … of the property. 2.5 The second respondent paid an amount of Rs. 33 lakh to M/s Indira Worldwide Finance & Re-finance Corporation. Bangalore (IWF&RC) by … of the issued share capital of M/s Devaki Hospital Limited ("the Company") aggrieved on account of certain alleged acts of oppression and mismanagement, at the instance of the second respondent, in the affairs of the Company, namely,

Anas Abdul Rashid MachiswalA. Vs. State of Gujarat.

Court : Gujarat

Subject : Criminal

Acts : Prevention of Terrorism Act - Section 3[1][3], 4, 20, 21[2][b], 22[3], 51, 23, 32; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 120B, 307; Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act - Sections 3, 4; Bombay Police Act - Sections 135[1], 130; Explosive Substance Act - Sections 4, 6; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 219, 164, 311; Evidence Act - Section 30; Constitution of India - Article 21; Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act - Section 15

involve common question of law and arise from the common judgment rendered in POTA Case No. 7 of 2003 and 9 of 2003, they are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.2. It is pertinent … PW-4 Abdul Hamid exh. 100, PW-7 Dilip Khengar at Exh. 106, PW 33 Malvikaben Bhatt at Exh. 217 as well as statement of PW-4 Abdul … who are convicted by the Special [POTA] Court and sentenced under Section 3[1] of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 ["POTA" for short] to undergo RI for a period of ten years and fine of Rs. 5000/-

Muthukrishna Gounder Vs. Gowri

Court : Chennai

Subject : Land Acquisition

of mutuality is not a ground to refuse specific performance of the contract u/s.20(4) of the Specific Relief Act?. (iii)Whether the lower Appellate Court had reversed the well considered judgment of trial Court holding that the plaintiff … Second Appeal No.550 of 2010 Muthukrishna Gounder ..Appellant versus 1.Gowri 2.Rani 3.Visalatchi 4.Shanthi ..Respondents Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure judgment and decree dated 07.01.2010 in A.S.No.31 of 2008 on the … in a suit for specific performance of contract for sale.". (xii) AIR1998Madras 336 [K.M.Rajendran versus Arul Prakasam and another].wherein this Court held that mere delay