2002 1 Scc63330 - Judgment Search Results

The Goa Foundation Vs. M/S Sesa Sterlite Ltd. And Ors.

Court: Supreme Court of India

and State of U.P. v. Singhara Singh.31” [Emphasis supplied by us].. 27 (1973) 1 SCC58428 (2000) 8 SCC65529 (2002) 1 SCC63330 (2004) 6 SCC44031 (1964) 4 SCR485S.L.P. (C) No.32138 of 2015 etc. Page 67 of 101 Reference may … record reasons for renewal being in the interest of mineral development and the necessity to 1 (2014) 6 SCC590S.L.P. (C) No.32138 of 2015 etc. Page 5 of 101 renew the mining lease. Any decision taken by the

Rajiv Phukan and anr. Vs. the State of Assam

Court: Guwahati

Reported in: 2010CriLJ338

the police station, was the real weapon of assault.42. In Trilokya Gogoi v. State of Assam reported in 2002 (1) GLT 407, a Division Bench of this Court had the occasion to deal with the disclosure statement, wherein … indicative of the information given see Bodhraj v. State of J. & K. reported in : (2002) 8 SCC 45 : 2002 Cri LJ 4664. Section 27 would, therefore, not be attracted to a case, wherein no

M/s. Pravi Auto Swing Pvt Ltd. Vs. Ashok Kisan More and Others

Court: Mumbai

of the Apex Court in the matter of B. D. Shetty and Ors. Vs. Ceat Ltd and Anr. (2002) 1 Supreme Court Cases 193). 9. Per contra the Learned Counsel Mr. Gaikwad appearing on behalf of the Respondent

Sajeev Vs. The State of Kerala, represented by The C.I. of Police, Per ...

Court: Kerala

the accused for his examination." 61. The Apex court in Ganesh Lal v State of Rajasthan reported in (2002) 1 S.C.C 731 had convincingly clarified the situation when it held that if an accused fails to offer any

Kal Airways Private Limited Vs. Spicejet Limited and Another

Court: Delhi

amount. i) This Court in a recent judgment of Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v. Sterlite Technologies Ltd.; 2016 SCC OnlineDel604 (Manmohan Singh J.) decided on 29.01.2016 has held: 40 . I agree that the discretion should be … High Court of Bombay in the case of Delta Construction Systems Ltd. Hyderabad v. Narmada Cement Company Ltd.; 2002(1) MH.L.J. 684 has held at para 13 that The language used in Section 9(ii) is an interim measure

Ritu Shrivastava Vs. Dr. Shiv Singh and Another

Court: Madhya Pradesh

1996 Rajdhani Law reported (FB) 71, Martin and Harris Ltd. Vs. VIth Additional Distt. Judge and others, (1998) 1 SCC 732, Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai Vs. Virgo Steels, Bombay and another, (2002) 4 SCC 316, Prakash H. Jain … the decision in the cases of Ramesh Chand and others Vs. Raj Kumar, 2002 (5) SCJT 69 = 2002 (1) MPLJ 40 and Surtyomal Vs. Smt. Chandabai, 2005(5) M.P.H.T. 333. 5. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel

Raymond Limited Vs. Raymond Pharmaceutical Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

and Anr. 2000 PTC 209 M/s.Info Edge (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs. Shailesh Gupta and Anr. ILR (2002) 1 Delhi 220 Satyam Infoway Pvt. Ltd. V. Sifynet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. 2004 (28) PTC 566 (SC) Raymond Ltd. … Ltd. in Notice of Motion No.4019 of 2007 Ford Motor Company and Anr. v. C.R.Borman and Anr. 2008 SCC Online Del 1211 Industria De Diseno Textile SA v. Oriental Cuisines Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. MIPR 2015(2) 0125

HDFC Bank Ltd. Vs. Rohan Dyes and Intermediates Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

decision is in the case of Tata Finance Ltd v/s Kanoria Sugar and General Manufacturing Company Ltd., Mumbai. (2002) 1 Mh. L. J. 617).The relevant portion reads thus:- 8. It is well settled that a winding up petition … the case of Rajshree Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Axis Bank Ltd. (AIR 2011 MADRAS 144 : 2008 SCC OnLine Mad 746 : (2009) 1 CTC 227).The facts of this case would reveal that in pursuance of

Industrial Development Bank of India Ltd. Vs. Parmeshwari Fabrics Priv ...

Court: Mumbai

order. 6. The counsel for the appellant/petitioner relied on the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in (2002) 1 Comp LJ 251) Karamsad Investments Ltd. Vs. Nile Ltd. and Ors. to submit that sub-section 2 and sub-section … Board erred in rejecting the petition by placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in (1992(1) SCC 160) V.B.Rangaraj Vs. V.B.Gopalakrishnan, as the ratio laid down by the said judgment was not applicable to the

People Interactive (India) Private Limited Vs. Vivek Pahwa and Others

Court: Mumbai

v Asian Mills Pvt Ltd, (2006) 126 DLT 353).and Info Edge (India) Pvt Ltd v Shailesh Gupta (ILR (2002) 1 Delhi 2).Mr. Khandekar submits that the Plaintiff s mark, by reason of extensive and continuous use, has achieved … trade mark. For this, he relies on the judgments in T.V. Venugopal v Ushodaya Enterprises Ltd, (2011) 4 SCC 85)Godfrey Philips India Ltd v Girnar Food and Beverages Pvt Ltd, (2004) 5 SCC 257)ITC Ltd v Nestle