Companies Act 1956 Schedule 5 - Judgment Search Results
Home > Cases Phrase: companies act 1956 schedule 5 Court: chennai Year: 2014 Page 1 of about 313 results (0.813 seconds)The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Pricol Limited
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Apr-01-2014
..... in accounting parlance and in the context of the provisions of the companies act 40 referring to schedule vi to the companies act 1956 prescribing the balance sheet format under the column quot reserves and surplus ..... decision reported in 2004 1 scc755 air2004sc1426 ahmedabad pvt primary teachers assn v administrative officer the supreme court held quot gratuity in its etymological sense is a gift .....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTT.M.Muthukrishan Vs. K.Susila
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jul-10-2014
40 of the tamil nadu court fees and suits valuation act within ten days from the date of the order failing air1953sup court 28 nemi chand versus edward mills co 2 1956 patna203rambharosa lal vs smt binda devi and another 15 the of the subject matter of the suit and not under schedule ii article 17 iii of the tamil nadu court fees and represent the plaint within a period of one month 5 aggrieved over the above said order of return of plaint
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTR.Krishnamurthi Vs. Vairamurthi
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jun-26-2014
resolution transferred the companies property but no resolution transferred the companies property but no resolution was passed by the central body 7 rule 1 cpc and section 6 of specific relief act 1963 to pass a decree and judgment directing the respondent and his brothers ramachandran were jointly enjoying the entire a schedule property the above said ramachandran died issueless therefore the respondent respondent in the portion shown as 1 2 3 4 5 in the plan the trial court has discussed about the
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTArulmigu Srinivasa Perumal Devasthanam Vs. A.Rosamma
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jun-26-2014
tenants protection act no iii of 1922 as amended by act no xxii of 1960 and act no iv of 1972 madras directing conveyance of the suit property described in the schedule hereunder in favour of the defendant 1 herein under section t dakshinamurthy amp d uvaraj 3 delli babu 4 venugopal 5 gajendra babu 6 sai prasad 7 balakrishnan 8 sulochana 9
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT1. Lakshmiammal Vs. 1.Saroja
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Oct-17-2014
b18 is hit under section 10 of transfer of property act is absolutely illegal and also perverse finding as already discussed the case of the 1st respondent is that the suit schedule properties originally belonged to smt avudayammal who died intestate on of the parties would be relevant and of significance 2010 5 ctc364 s r srinivasa and others v s padmavathamma in
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTIndian Bank Vs. B.Venkataraman
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Apr-28-2014
rddbfi act ii whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the suit claiming shares in their suit property bind 4 5th shares of the plaintiffs over the plaint schedule property and for a consequential permanent injunction restraining the bank rights of respondents 6 to 8 sic respondents 1 to 5 have been crystallised before creating security interest in respect of
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTSyed NizamuddIn Vs. Shaik Akbar
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Apr-25-2014
take recours as per the provision of the indian partnership act they cannot treat those properties as the joint properties of entitled to any share in the assets set out to schedule a and c and the plaintiffs cannot also claim any syed nizamuddin 2 syed nazeeruddin 3 syed rafiuddin 4 hidayathunissa 5 syed tamimuddin 6 mukthiar begum 7 syed thamizuddin 8 farath
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTK.R.Rajeesh Kumar Vs. K.Nalini Raghavan
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jun-25-2014
..... as a legal heir of the said k p raghavan underclass one of the schedule in the indian succession act 1956 53 in order to fall within the exception contained in section 4 3 b ..... had married k p raghavan on 17 5 1953 who was employed in m s coates of india limited calcutta a leading printing ink manufacturing company in india in 1958 he was .....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTSelvi J.Jayalalitha Vs. State by Superintendent of Police
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Apr-02-2014
25 9 1997 those companies are shown as private limited companies whereas in the go ms no 574 dated 3 4 case therefore the question whether the district court special court acts as a civil court or a criminal court is of monies obtained by the commission of offence which is a scheduled offence that is to say an offence mentioned in the describing the companies firms in the said go ms no 574 dated 3 4 1998 in go ms no 1183 dated
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTT.Muthu Balu Vs. 1.The Inspector General of Registration,
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Feb-24-2014
company quot as defined in section 5 of the banking companies act 1949 having branches or other establishments in more than quot company as defined in section 2 of the insurance act 1938 4 of 1938 having branches or other establishments in the word quot family quot found in article 58 of schedule i to the indian stamp act 1899 similarly the decision the same as we find that the explanation to article 58 a of schedule i of the indian stamp act specifically
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT