Skip to content

Advanced Search Results

Plaintiff: satish · Page 1 of about 15,894 results (0.762 seconds)

AI Studio

AI Brief on every result

Start a 7-day free trial - 18-section briefs and case chat on any judgment in these results, plus Semantic Search on your next query.

Jul 25 2001

Raju Singh and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Jul-25-2001

Subject : Criminal

Acts : Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 - Sections 3, 5A, 8 and 18; Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 - Sections 11D; Essential Commodities Act - Sections 3 and 7; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 379 and 401

Reported in : 2002CriLJ124

Advocate for Appellant : Satish Trivedi and ;Anil Kumar Singh, Advs.

ORDERR.B. Misra, J. 1. The above mentioned Criminal Misc, Application, Writ Petition and Criminal Misc. Revision involve the common question relating to the order of learned Judicial Magistrate as well as learned Sessions Judge, rejecting the...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Feb 05 1998

Madan Mohan Lal Gupta Vs. State of U.P. and Others

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Feb-05-1998

Subject : Service

Acts : Constitution of India - Article 311(2)

Reported in : 1998(2)AWC1042; (1998)2UPLBEC1451

Advocate for Appellant : Satish Dwivedi, Adv.

O.P. Garg, J. 1. By means of the writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed that the order dated 12.3.1996 passed by respondent No. 2, Senior Superintendent of District...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Oct 11 1993

Ammonia Supplies Corporation (P) Ltd. Vs. Modern Plastic Containers (P ...

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Oct-11-1993

Subject : Company

Acts : Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Sections 9; Companies Act, 1956 - Sections 155

Reported in : [1994]79CompCas163(Delhi); 52(1993)DLT252; 1993(27)DRJ482; 1994RLR83

Advocate for Appellant : Satish Chander,; Sarat Chandra and; S.K. Kaul, Advs

Y.K. Sabharwal, J.(1) The short point for determination in this matter is the nature of jurisdiction the Company Court exercises under Section 155 of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act') while dealing with petitions...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

18-section briefs on any result in this list

Oct 20 1979

Madhuban Pvt. Ltd. Vs. NaraIn Dass Gokal Chand

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Oct-20-1979

Subject : Company

Acts : Companies Act, 1956 - Sections 10 and 434

Reported in : 7(1971)DLT371

Advocate for Appellant : Satish Chander and; Harnam Das, Advs

P.N. Khanna, J.(1) This appeal under section 483 of the Companes Act, 1956 by the appellant company, 13 directed against the order dated April, 1, 1970 of the Learned Additional District Judge, Delhi, whereby he ordered...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

May 01 2006

Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Vs. Girish Dhawan

Court : Delhi

Decided on : May-01-2006

Subject : CustomsCriminal

Acts : Customs Act, 1962 - Sections 132, 135(1) and 135(1)(2); Antiquities and Art Treasurer Act, 1972

Reported in : 129(2006)DLT588; 2006(203)ELT369(Del)

Advocate for Appellant : Satish Aggarwal, Adv

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. These three revision petitions are being disposed of by a common order inasmuch as they raise common issues, although there are separate orders which are impugned in these petitions. 2. The facts...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Oct 17 2002

Manisha Koirala-ii Vs. Shashilal Nair and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Oct-17-2002

Subject : Civil

Acts : Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Order 39, Rules 1, 2 and 2A; Cinematograph Act, 1952 - Sections 5E and 6

Reported in : 2003(2)BomCR647

Advocate for Appellant : Satish Maneshinde, Adv., i/b., Mulla and Mulla

R.M. Lodha, J.1. We heard Mr. Satish Maneshinde, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Iqbal Chagla, learned Senior Counsel for respondent No. 1.2. The appellant is the original plaintiff in Suit No. 2750 of 2002...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Feb 03 2005

Sardar Bhagwan Singh Chawla Vs. Cit

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Feb-03-2005

Subject : Direct Taxation

Reported in : [2006]155TAXMAN605(All)

Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Satish Mandhyan, Adv. for the Assessee , Mr. Shambhoo Chopra, Adv. for the Revenue.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, has referred the following question of law under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for opinion to this Court:'Whether, the penalty imposed...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Sep 06 2002

Smt. Chandrakanta Shrivastava Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and ors.

Court : Chhattisgarh

Decided on : Sep-06-2002

Subject : Criminal

Acts : Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 438; Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 34 and 307

Reported in : 2003(1)MPHT94(CG)

Advocate for Appellant : P.R. Bhave, Sr. Adv. and; Hamida Siddiqui and; Satish Gu

ORDERFakhruddin, J. 1. Heard. 2. Anticipating arrest in connection with Crime No, 2/2002 registered at Police Station, Chakradarnagar, Tehsil and District Raigarh, for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34, IPC, the petitioner...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Sep 01 2004

Dinesh Kumar Vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Sep-01-2004

Subject : ServiceConstitution

Reported in : (2005)2UPLBEC1309

Advocate for Appellant : N.C. Rajvanshi, ;M.K. Rajvanshi, ;P.C. Srivastava and ;Satish Mandhyan, Advs.

Vineet Saran, J. 1. Since common questions of law and facts and involved in both these writ petitions hence they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The writ petitioners...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Apr 28 2003

Mahalakshmi Fibres and Industrial Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour C ...

Court : Jharkhand

Decided on : Apr-28-2003

Subject : ServiceLabour and Industrial

Acts : Service Law; Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227; Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 33 and 33(2)

Reported in : [2003(3)JCR31(Jhr)]

Advocate for Appellant : Satish Bakshi, Adv.

Tapen Sen, J.1. Heard Mr. Satish Bak-shi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ashwini Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2.2. In his writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

AI Brief (18 sections) + Semantic Search - 7 days free

  • ‹ Prev
  • Last »

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial