Advanced Search Results

In Re: Ktc Private Limited,

Court : Allahabad

Subject : Company

Acts : Companies Act, 1956 - Sections 235 to 251, 391 to 394, 394(1), 394(2), 394(3), 394A, 397 and 398; Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 - Rules 76 and 80

Reported in : [2006]66SCL241(All)

Advocate for Respondent : S.K. Saxena, Adv.

S.P. Mehrotra, J.1. The present Company Petition under Sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 has been fried by KTC Private Limited haying its Registered Office at 117/H-2/202, Pandu Nagar, Kanpur-208005, Uttar Pradesh (hereinafter...

Parmeshwar Khanna and Others Vs. Smt. Bhagwati Devi and Others

Court : Allahabad

Subject : CivilTenancy

Acts : Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Order 7, Rules 10 and 10A; Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887 - Sections 23 and 25; Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Sections 53A

Reported in : 2000(1)AWC699

Advocate for Respondent : Murli Dhar and ;Pankaj Mithal, Advs.

D. K. Seth, J.1. By an order dated 6th November, 1999, the learned Additional District Judge, XVIth Court. Meerut, being the Judge, Small Causes Court, had rejected the defendant's application under Order VII. Rule 10 of...

Damodar Lal Vs. Lalli Lal and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Subject : FamilyProperty

Acts : Hindu Law; Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 - Sections 4 and 10; Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 114

Reported in : AIR1985Raj55

Advocate for Respondent : D.D. Patodia and; Syed Manzoor Ali, Advs.

M.C. Jain, J. 1. This is an appeal by defendant 1 against the judgment and decree dated October 29.1971, of the District Judge, Jaipur District. Jaipur, affirming the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge, Jaipur...

Emperor Vs. Ram Lal and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Subject : CriminalContract

Reported in : (1919)ILR61All390

Piggott, J.1. This is an application for revision of an order of the Sessions Judge of Jhansi, declining to interfere with an order by a first class Magistrate of the same district passed under Section 2...

Ram Lal and ors. Vs. Emperor

Court : Allahabad

Subject : Criminal

Reported in : AIR1919All164; 51Ind.Cas.205

Piggott, J.1. This is an application for revision of an order of the Sessions Judge of Jhansi, declining to interfere with an order by a First Class Magistrate of the same district passed under Section 2...

Mohamed Oomer, Mohamed Noorullah Vs. S.M. Noorudin

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Acts : Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Sections 561 - Order 41, Rules 22 and 23; Trade Marks Act, 1940 - Sections 70, 74, 76 and 77; Trade Marks Rules - Rules 34 and 36

Reported in : AIR1952Bom165; (1952)54BOMLR28

Advocate for Respondent : K.T. Desai, ;and J.B. Dadachanji, R. Subramania Iyer, Advs.

Chagla, C.J.[1] This is an appeal which arises out of an order made by the Register of Trade Marks. The respondent applied for registration of his trade mark on 21-8-1942. The application was advertised on 1-10-1945,...

Musammat Lali Vs. Murli Dhar

Court : Mumbai

Subject : PropertyCivil

Reported in : (1906)8BOMLR402

Andrew Scoble, J.1. The suit in this case was brought by Murli Dhar, the present respondent, against Musammat Lali, the present appellant, for possession of immoveable property belonging to the estate of one Dhanraj, deceased. The...

Gulabbhai Ranchhodbhai Vs. Bhagvan Kesur

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Property

Reported in : AIR1928Bom377; (1928)30BOMLR980; 114Ind.Cas.266

Patkar, J.1. The question involved in these appeals is as to the construction of documents which are described as valatdan. The documents in all these cases have been held to be of the nature of leases...

Swami Rajrajeshwarashram Vs. Shri Sharda Peeth Math

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Civil

Reported in : AIR1933Bom260; (1933)35BOMLR458

Patkar, J.1. This is an application under Section 109 (a) of the Code of Civil Procedure for leave to appeal to the Privy Council. We have treated this application as an application for leave to appeal...

L. Behu Mal Vs. Murli Dhar and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Subject : PropertyLimitation

Acts : Limitation Act, 1908 - Sections 14 and 14(1); Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 151 - Order 21, Rules 58 and 63

Reported in : AIR1956All5

Advocate for Respondent : Shanker Sahai Verma and ;J.S. Gupta, Advs.

Raghubar Dayal, J. 1. Behu Mal and others had a decree against Roop Chand and Mehar Chand. In execution of this, decree certain property was attached. Murli Dhar filed a claim under Order 21, Rule 58,...