Advanced Search Results

Smt. Bina Barua and ors. Vs. Dalowjan Tea Co. (P.) Ltd. and ors.

Court : Guwahati

Subject : Company

Acts : Companies Act, 1956 - Sections 108, 109, 110, 111 and 155

Advocate for Appellant : P. Chaudhuri and A.R. Banerjee, Advs.

K.N. Satkta, J. 1. This is a company petition under Section 155 of the Com-panies Act, 1956 (hereinafter ' the Act'), for rectification of the register of members. 2. Late, Dhrubajyoti Barua, husband of petitioner No....

Mahalderam Tea Estate P. Ltd. and ors. Vs. D.N. Prodhan and anr.

Court : Kolkata

Subject : Company

Acts : Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952 - Section 14A

Reported in : [1979]49CompCas529(Cal),[1979(38)FLR13]

Advocate for Appellant : D.P. Chaudhury and ;Amarnath Roy Chaudhury, Advs.;Manas Ranjan Chakraborty, Adv.

P.C. Barooah, J.1. These three rules are directed against orders dated21-12-71, 19-11-71 and 21-12-71 passed in C. R. Cases Nos. 49/71, 71/71and 73/71, respectively, by Sri S. K. Sinha, Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kurseong, taking cognizance and...

Commissioner, Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti Vs. D.C. Verma and Ors.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Education

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on: May 27, 2015 + % 1. W.P.(C) No.2267/2005 COMMISSIONER, NAVODAYA VIDYALAYA SAMITI ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. S. Rajappa, Dr. Puran Chand, Advocates. versus...

Debendra Kumar Das Vs. Satish Chandra Das

Court : Guwahati

Subject : Criminal

Deka, J.1. This is a reference by the Additional Sessions Judge, Lower Assam Districts recommending that a certain order passed by the trial Magistrate under Section 147, Cr.PC should be set. aside. The main ground for...

Raj Kumar Rai Vs. State

Court : Sikkim

Subject : Criminal

Reported in : 1979CriLJ310

ORDERA.M. Bhattacharjee, J.1. The accused-appellant has been convicted on his own plea of guilty to a charge under Section 25 (1) of the Arms Act, 1959, which has been extended to Sikkim by the President by...

Union of India Vs. Anita Singh

Court : Delhi

Subject : Right to Information

Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Rakesh Tikku, Mr. P. Chaudhury

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision:31. 10.2013 + WP(C) No.677of 2013 & CM No.1293 of 2013 2013 UNION OF INDIA Through: ....Petitioner Mr. Rakesh Tikku, Sr. Adv. With...

Sudhakar Raghunath Deshpande Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai

Subject : Service Tax

Reported in : (2006)(3)SLJ384CAT

1. The OA is filed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 5.5.2005 regarding the recovery of Debit amount of Rs. 54,888 from settlement dues of applicant by deducting the same from dearness relief on...

Chowkchand Balabux Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Assam, Tripura and ...

Court : Guwahati

Subject : Direct Taxation

DEKA, J. - This is a reference invited under section 66 (2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, and a statement of the case has been made in accordance with the order of this court. The points...

Jitendra Kalita Vs. State of Assam and ors.

Court : Guwahati

Subject : Service

Acts : Constitution of India - Articles 14, 16, 53, 53(1), 75, 77, 77(1), 78, 154, 154(1), 162, 163, 166, 213 and 370; Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order, 1950; Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order, 1954; Constitution of Jammu Kashmir, 1957; Assam Public Services (Direct Recruitment to Class III and IV Posts) Rules, 1997;

Advocate for Appellant : N. Dutta, P.K. Goswami, K.N. Choudhury, A.S. Choudhury, Y.K. Phukan, N.N.B. Choudhury, I. Choudhury, Z. Hussain, J. Sarmah, A.M. Barbhuiyan, A.Y. Choudhury, P.J. Saikia, B. Mehta, G. Deka, D. Choudhu

Ranjan Gogoi, J.1. Two groups of mutually irreconcilable judicial verdicts, any one of which can be implemented at the peril of the other, has necessitated this reference to an Expanded Bench to decide which of the...

Ghanashyam Das and ors. Vs. the State of Assam and ors.

Court : Guwahati

Subject : Constitution

Acts : Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227

Advocate for Appellant : F.A. Ahmed and B.C. Barua, Advs. in No. 69, S.K. Ghose and P. Chaudhuri, Advs. in Nos. 75 and 40, P. Chaudhuri and A.R. Barooah, Advs. in No. 85

Ram Labhaya, Ag. C.J. 1. This order will cover C. Rules Nos. 69, 75, 85 and 40 of 1952. The question which cans for decision at this stage is common to all the four cases.2. Rules...