Advanced Search Results

Coal Products Private Ltd. Vs. Ram Autar Jalan

Court : Kolkata

Subject : Company

Acts : Companies Act, 1956 - Sections 153 and 283

Reported in : [1969]39CompCas223(Cal),72CWN805

Advocate for Respondent : Somnath Chatterjee and ;P.C. Sen, Advs.

Ray, J. 1. This appeal is from the order of Sen J., dated 7th September, 1967. The order was made on a notice of motion dated September 12, 1966, taken out by the plaintiff. The plaintiffs,...

Shib Nath Paul Vs. Jaharlal Paul and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Subject : Property

Acts : Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Order 39, Rule 1; ;Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 44

Reported in : AIR1982Cal143

Advocate for Respondent : P.C. Sen, Adv. (for No. 1) and ;Swapan Mallik, Adv. (for No. 2)

C.K. Banerji, J. 1. In this interlocutory application the appellant is asking, inter alia, for an injunction restraining the respondent No. 1, his servants, agents and assistants from parting with possession of the vacant portion of...

Nripendra Kumar Ghosh Vs. Registrar of Companies and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Subject : Company

Acts : Companies Act, 1956 - Sections 159 and 162

Reported in : [1985]58CompCas672(Cal),88CWN850

Advocate for Respondent : P.C. Sen, Adv.

Umesh Chandra Banerjee, J. 1. This application arises out of complaints filed by the Registrar of Companies, being Case Nos. C/2083/82, C/2085/82, C/2103/82, C/2112/82, C/2138/82, C/2146/82, C/2151/82 and C/2163/82 in the Court of the Chief Metropolitan...

Smt. Madan Debi Kundalia Vs. Alpine Dairy Ltd.

Court : Kolkata

Subject : Company

Acts : Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 - Rule 28

Reported in : [1983]54CompCas41(Cal)

Advocate for Respondent : P.C. Sen, Adv.

Salil Kumar Roy Chowdhury, J. 1. This is a winding-up petition presented on the 24th of January, 1980, and on the returnable date notice was directed to be served on the company to show cause why...

In Re: Bharat Commerce and Industries Ltd.

Court : Kolkata

Subject : Company

Acts : Companies Act, 1956 - Sections 17 and 17(3)

Reported in : [1973]43CompCas162(Cal)

Advocate for Respondent : P.C. Sen. Adv.

ORDERRamendra Mohan Datta, J. 1. This is an application for the confirmation by the court of the special resolution passed by the above named company relating to the proposed change of its registered office from Calcutta...

Marble Art Vs. China Shipping Container Co. Ltd. and anr.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Civil

Acts : Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 6, Rule 17

Reported in : 161(2009)DLT229

Advocate for Respondent : P.C. Sen, Adv. for Defendants Nos. 1-2

Manmohan Singh, J.1. The Plaintiff had filed the above mentioned suit for declaration and mandatory injunction and the same is pending before this Court.2. By way of present application being IA No. 8440/2003 filed under Order...

Ram Bhawan and ors. Vs. N.D.M.C.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Labour and Industrial

Acts : Constitution of India - Article 14

Reported in : 140(2007)DLT392

Advocate for Respondent : P.C. Sen, Adv.

Rekha Sharma, J.1. The short question which arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether the petitioners/workmen, namely, Ram Bhawan, Mam Chand and Nanehey Lal who joined the N.D.M.C. in 1984 as daily wage beldars...

Anchor Health and Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Controller of Patents ...

Court : Kolkata

Subject : Property

Acts : The Designs Act - Section 2(d)

Advocate for Respondent : Mr. Firoze Edulji; Mr. Rudraman Bhattacharyya; Mr. P. C. Sen, Advs.

1. This is an appeal filed from order dated 29th  July 2008 passed by the  Controller thereby dismissing the appellant’s application for cancellation.   The case of the appellant is that an application was filed for cancellation...

Cinerama Private Ltd. Vs. New Delhi Municipal Council

Court : Delhi

Subject : Municipalities

Acts : New Delhi Municipal Council Act, 1994 - Sections 78, 79; Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 - Sections 132, 133

Advocate for Respondent : Mr. P.C. Sen, Adv.

1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported Yes in the Digest?1. The question for...

Pankaj Aluminium Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/S. Bharat Aluminium Compan ...

Court : Delhi

Subject : Company law

Acts : Companies Act, 1956 - Sections 433(e), 434

Advocate for Respondent : Mr. Rajiv Nayar; Mr. P.C. Sen, Advs.

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes1. The present...