D C - Judgment Search Results

D.C. Mangalraj Vs. Indian Bank

Court: Chennai

Reported in: [2007]138CompCas525(Mad)

with Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to set aside the ex parte decree dated June 20, 2001, in C.S. No. 566 of 1993.2. The respondent Indian Bank, as plaintiff has filed

The Chief Engineer R.S.D.C. and S.K.P. Irrigation Works Punjab Vs. Chi ...

Court: Punjab and Haryana

CWP No.16779 o”1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.16779 of 1994 Date of decision:04.05.2013 The Chief Engineer, R.S.D.C. & S.K.P. Irrigation Works, Punjab Shahpurkandi & others .....Petitioners Versus Shri Attar

MD Imran @ D.C. Guddu versus the State of Jharkhand

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: [2026] 2 S.C.R. 139

[2026] 2 S.C.R. 139 : 2026 INSC 36 Md Imran @ D.C. Guddu v. The State of Jharkhand (Criminal Appeal No. 109 of 2026) 07 January 2026 [J.B. Pardiwala and

M.S.D.C. Radharamanan Vs. M.S.D. Chandrasekara Raja and anr.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: AIR2008SC1738; 2008(5)ALLMR(SC)424; 2008BusLR403(SC); [2008]143CompCas97(SC); (2008)2CompLJ496(SC); 2008(3)SCALE650; (2008)6SCC750; [2008]83SCL451(SC); 2008(1)LC583(SC); 2008AIRSCW2402; 2008(2)Supreme502; 2008(4)KCCRSN299; [2008] 5 SCR 182

company are held by the appellant and the first respondent. 3. Whereas the first respondent is the Managing Director of the Company, the appellant is the Director thereof. Indisputably the parties are not on good terms. 4. … S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. M/s. Shree Bhaarathi Cotton Mills Private Limited is a company registered and incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 (For short, 'the Act').

D.C. Aggarwal (Dead) by Lrs. Vs. State Bank of India and anr.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: AIR2006SC2105; JT2006(5)SC154; (2006)IILLJ787SC; 2006(4)SCALE656; (2006)5SCC153; 2006(3)SLJ291(SC)

B.N. Srikrishna, J.1. These two appeals arise between the same parties and are interconnected. Hence, they can be disposed of by a common judgment.2. The appellants are the legal representatives of one D.C. Aggarwal, an erstwhile employee

D.C.M. Financial Services Ltd. Vs. Neel Kamal Plastics Ltd. and anr.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: AIR2002SC850; 2002(1)BLJR778; JT2002(2)SC21; 2002(1)SCALE532

of would give the Company a substantial financial benefit which benefit in turn could be made available for distribution amongst the various creditors of the Company. To fulfil the above object with the consent of the parties … 1. The above transfer petitions were entertained by this Court for a limited purpose of making available to the Company in question the advantage of the scheme notified

D.C.L. Polyster Ltd., Nagpur Vs. Collector of Central Excise and Custo ...

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: 2005(99)ECC137; 2005(181)ELT190(SC); JT2005(2)SC486; (2005)3SCC455

S.H. Kapadia, J.1. The issue which arises for determination in this civil appeal filed by the assessee under Section 35L(b) of Central Excise Act 1944 (hereinafter referred … S.H. Kapadia, J.1. The issue which arises for determination in this civil appeal filed by the assessee under Section 35L(b) of Central Excise Act 1944 (hereinafter referred to for the

D.C. Aggarwal Vs. State Bank of India and Others

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: AIR1994SC1805; JT1994(2)SC678; (1995)ILLJ1080SC; 1994(2)SCALE247; 1994Supp(2)SCC131; [1994]2SCR638; 1994(1)LC694(SC); (1994)2UPLBEC978

ORDER1. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissing the Writ Petition filed by … ORDER1. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the appellant against refusal to grant him extension

D.C. Bhatia and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: JT1994(7)SC114; 1994(4)SCALE613; (1995)1SCC104; [1994]Supp4SCR539

these matters relating to interpretation and constitutional validity of Section 3(c) of the Rent Control Act, 1958.2. The Delhi Rent Control Act, as amended by Act No. 52 of 1988 came into effect from 1.12.88. Section 3(c)

Dr. D.C. Saxena, Contemnor Vs. Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: 1996VAD(SC)404; AIR1996SC2481; 1996CriLJ3274; JT1996(6)SC529; 1996(5)SCALE233; (1996)5SCC216; [1996]Supp3SCR677

calls to strike a balance between the freedom of speech and expression, a salutary right in a liberal democratic society and paramount countervailing duty to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice. The petitioner had initiated … ORDERK. Ramaswamy, J. 1. In a clash of competing interests in constitutional contours, this case calls to strike a balance between the freedom of speech