Companies Act 1956 Schedule 5 - Judgment Search Results
Home > Cases Phrase: companies act 1956 schedule 5 Court: chennai Year: 1997 Page 1 of about 326 results (0.835 seconds)N. Rajammal (Died) and Another Vs. P. Maragathammal and 28 Others
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Apr-12-1997
Reported in : 1998(1)CTC314; (1998)IMLJ184
the extent that it defeats the ceiling provisions of the act further there is no co ownership in respect of the are sisters being daughters of late appasami naidu all the schedule items belong to appasami naidu either ancestral or by purchase by the authorised officer as per his order dated 9 5 1974 the partition deed dated 30 9 1970 was held
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTA.M.S. Mohamed Housuf Vs. Tamil Nadu Wakf Board by Its Secretary and o ...
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Dec-03-1997
Reported in : (1998)2MLJ78
the lower appellate court especially by reason of the amendment act 34 of 1982 and section 59 a of the wakf principal sub court tirunelveli praying for declaration that the first schedule property belongs to nagoor shagul hameed darga pallivasal wakf and is impleaded as the first defendant while defendants 1 to 5 in the said suit have been impleaded as respondents 2
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTHindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Represented by Its Power Agen ...
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Feb-24-1997
Reported in : (1997)2MLJ32
petition under section 14 1 b of the rent control act 5 rent controller found that the landlords are entitled to commissioner it is seen that the fg lane separates the schedule premises from that of the property in the occupation of under section 14 1 b of the rent control act 5 rent controller found that the landlords are entitled to get
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTCommissioner of Income-tax Vs. E.A. Rajendran
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jul-22-1997
Reported in : (1997)142CTR(Mad)244; [1999]235ITR514(Mad)
stated that such portion of the incentive bonus which is actually spent by the development officers for duties of office can salary in rule 2 h of part a of iv schedule to the act section 17 3 i defines the term per cent of the incentive bonus cit 1988 174 itr 58 5 we have heard the learned senior standing counsel for
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTNallathambi Nadar (Died) and anr. Vs. Santha Bai and ors.
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Dec-23-1997
Reported in : (1998)2MLJ605
or 144 or any other article of the indian limitation act 1908 13 the case decided by the supreme court was paragraph 6 runs as follows in respect of the plaint scheduled items there has been no metes and bounds partition so of the first appellant plaint schedule items 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 10 12 and 13 were jointly owned
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTS. Kavitha Vs. the Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Higher Educa ...
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Oct-29-1997
Reported in : (1998)3MLJ36
10 1 of the all india council for technical education act 1987 for emphasising his point that the aicte alone can in entry 66 of the union list of the seventh schedule to the constitution does not merely mean evaluation it means they are eligible to be admitted in the judgment dated 5 11 1996 the learned judge has held thus therefore what
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTThe Management of Lakshmi Machine Works Limited, Coimbatore Vs. the Pr ...
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jul-16-1997
Reported in : [1998(79)FLR889]; (1997)IIMLJ617
workmen to sleep during working hours the 2nd respondent s act of misconduct committed coupled with the series of past record conducive to his convenience and not strictly adhering to the schedule of work enjoined upon him by his superiors and therefore to sacrifice any of them the appellant management employs 3 500 workmen and it can ill afford to allow workmen to
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTSudhir V. Joshi Vs. E. Kanniappan and anr.
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Feb-18-1997
Reported in : 1997(2)CTC73; (1997)IIMLJ27
consideration was regarding an appeal under section 199 of the companies act 1913 the opinion of the full bench is reported paid under schedule ii art 3 of the court fees act 15 the adjudication is made on application and not on this court 13 question of payment of court fees under schedule ii article 3 1 of the andhra pradesh court fees the same as rule 101 sub rule 4 of rule 58 is the same as rule 103 sub rule 5 of
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTCommissioner of Income-tax Vs. United India Fire and General Insurance ...
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-29-1997
Reported in : [1998]232ITR267(Mad)
terms of rule 4 of the second schedule to the companies profits surtax act 1964 consequent to the deductions allowed under rule 4 of schedule ii to the companies profits surtax act 1964 and would not go to diminish the capital of proportionately reduced in terms of rule 4 of the second schedule to the companies profits surtax act 1964 consequent to the there is a decision of the supreme court in cit v saran engineering co ltd 1986 161itr741 sc wherein it was
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTR. Gandhi and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Rep. by the Ministry of La ...
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jul-29-1997
Reported in : 1997(3)CTC255
..... hydrogenarted oil and cements items 1 3 4 and 5 in the schedule to the act are concerned the entry tax levied and collected thereon ..... of the state 36 in burma shell oil storage distributing company india ltd v the belgaum borough municipality air1963sc906 this court again traced legislative ..... the facts of this case c in in re renganayakulu air 1956 and 161 the questions relating to the powers of the .....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT