Advanced Search Results

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Mc Dowell and Co. Ltd., Rep. by Its ...

Court : Karnataka

Subject : Excise

Acts : Central Excise Act, 1944 - Sections 35, 35B, 35C and 35F; Central Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal Appeal Procedure Rules - Rules 10 and 41; Constitution of India - Articles 14, 226 and 227

Reported in : 2005(101)ECC609; 2005(186)ELT145(Kar); ILR2005KAR2613

Advocate for Respondent : Habibulla Badsha, Sr. Counsel for ;S.R. Anuradha, Adv.

ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. The orders of the Tribunal which is functioning under section 35-B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short 'the Act') and passing orders in exercise of powers under the proviso to...

Dynasty Developers Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Jumbo World Holdings Ltd. an ...

Court : Chennai

Subject : Arbitration

Acts : Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Sections 2(1), 9, 47 and 49; Partnership Act, 1932 - Sections 69; Arbitration Act, 1940 - Sections 2, 20, 29, 31, 36, 39(1), 41, 80, 81(1) and 81(2); Representation of the People Act, 1951; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Sections 16, 17, 20 and 120; Gauhati High Court Rules

Reported in : 2007(3)ARBLR9(Madras)

Advocate for Respondent : A.L. Somayaji Sr. Adv. for ;G.B. Sabari Das, Adv. for ;R. Subramanian and Associates and ;Habibulla Badsha Sr. Adv. for ;M. Venkatachalam, Adv.

S. Rajeswaran, J.1. OA No. 452 of 2006 has been filed for an order of interim injunction restraining respondents 1, 2 and 3 by themselves, either jointly or severally or their men, agent/s, employee/s, representative/s, attorney/s...

Malleswara Finance and Investments Company Private Limited Vs. the Com ...

Court : Chennai

Subject : Company

Acts : Companies Act, 1956 - Sections 3, 10-F, 82, 155, 169, 187-C, 247, 250, 397, 398 and 402; Constitution of India - Articles 9, 14, 16 and 226; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Order 23, Rule 1; India Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 114; Company Law Board Regulation - Rules 2, 19, 24, 29 and 30

Reported in : AIR1994Mad341; [1994]81CompCas66(Mad)

Advocate for Respondent : T. Raghavan for M/s. Ramasubramanian and Associates, ;C. Harikrishnan, ;A.L. Somajaji for S. Raghavan, ;Vedanathan Srinivasan for S. Ragavanan, Advs., ;G. Subramaniam, ;Sr. Counsel for R. Sankaranara

ORDER1. The above writ petition has been filed for the following relief.To issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the 1st respondent culminating in its order dated 28-5-1993 in C.P. No. 29 of...

N.B. Namazi Vs. Central Chinmaya Mission Trust

Court : Chennai

Subject : Contract

Acts : Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Sections 20; Indian Contract Act, 1872 - Sections 31

Reported in : AIR1988Mad84; (1987)IIMLJ317

Advocate for Respondent : C. Ramakrishnan, Adv. for ;T.N. Vallinayagam and ;G. Veecapathiran, Advs.

Mohan, J.1. This appeal arises out of the judgment and decree of our learned brother, Singaravelu, J. rendered in C.S. No. 184 of 1981. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant has preferred this appeal.2. The facts...

indo Swiss Synthetic Gem Manufacturing Co. Ltd., and Etc. Vs. Governme ...

Court : Chennai

Subject : Electricity

Acts : T.N. Revision of Tariff rates on Supply of Electrical Energy Act, 1979 - Sections 4; Constitution of India - Article 14; Tamil Nadu Essential Articles Control and Requisitioning Act, 1949 - Sections 3; Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concessions Rules - Rule 39; Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 - Sections 47, 49 and 59; Tamil Nadu Electricity (Taxation on Consumption) Act, 1962; Delhi Rent Control Act - Sections 2

Reported in : AIR1997Mad41

Advocate for Respondent : R. Muthukumaraswamy Govt. Pleader and ;R. Thyagarajan Sr. Adv. and ;C.S. Krishnamoorthy, Adv.

ORDERKanakaraj, J.1. These writ appealsand the writ petitions relate to a commonquestion as to whether the appellants and thewrit petitioners are entitled to claim certainconcessional electricity tariff rate applicableto certain power intensive factories and unitsand for...

Novartis AG represented by It's Power of Attorney Ranjna Mehta Dutt Vs ...

Court : Chennai

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Acts : Constitution of India - Articles 14, 19, 19(1), 20(3), 31(1), 32 and 226; Patents Act, 1970 - Sections 3, 5(7A) and 8; Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005 - Sections 3; Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act, 1978; Specific Relief Act - Sections 42

Reported in : (2007)4MLJ1153

Advocate for Respondent : V.T. Gopalan, SC for ;P. Wilson, Asst. Sol. General for R1 and R2, ;P.S. Raman, AAG for ;A.A. Mohan, Adv. for R3, ;P. Aravind Datar, ;R. Thiagarajan and ;K.M. Vijayan, SCs for ;A. Ramesh Kumar, Adv. f

ORDERR. Balasubramanian, J.1. The writ petitioner in both the writ petitions is one and the same. In the first writ petition, Novartis - a foreign company represented by it's Indian Power of Attorney holder, is the...

The Correspondent, Anaikar Oriental (Arabic) Higher Secondary School, ...

Court : Chennai

Subject : Education

(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order dated 20.03.2015 made in W.P.No.17838 of 2010.) M.V. Muralidaran, J. 1. The instant intra court appeal has been filed challenging the Order passed...

West Coast Paper Mills Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through ...

Court : Karnataka

Subject : ExciseConstitution

Acts : Companies Act, 1956; Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 - Sections 5A; Customs Act - Sections 25; Constitution of India - Article 14

Reported in : 2005(103)ECC305; 2007(212)ELT305(Kar); ILR2005KAR4455

Advocate for Respondent : R.L. Patil, Standing Counsel

ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. The petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, and claims as a company engaged in the manufacture of paper, paper board and duplex boards of all kinds, falling under...

indo-swiss Synthetic Gem Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs

Court : Chennai

Subject : Customs

Acts : Customs Tariff Act, 1975; Customs Act, 1962 - Sections 2, 3, 26, 27, 27(1), (2), (3), 28, 28C, 28D, 74 and 75

Reported in : 1992(40)ECC31; 1992(59)ELT345(Mad)

Advocate for Respondent : Shri P. Narasimhan, S.C.G.S.C.

ORDER1. The Petitioner in all these writ petitions is the same. The Petitioner has filed these writ petitions for issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to refund the sum of Rs. 1,46,918.81 being...

Bharat Goyal and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Chennai

Subject : Customs

Reported in : 1993(43)ECC193

ORDERBakthavatsalam, J.1. The prayer in the above writ petition is as follows:. to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the second and third respondents herein to pass final...