D C - Judgment Search Results

D.C. Mangalraj Vs. Indian Bank

Court: Chennai

Reported in: [2007]138CompCas525(Mad)

of Civil Procedure, 1908, to set aside the ex parte decree dated June 20, 2001, in C.S. No. 566 of 1993.2.

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

Court: Punjab and Haryana

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 … CWP No.10371 of 1998 Mr.Attar Singh .....Petitioner Versus Chief Engineer, R.S.D.C. & S.K.P. Irrigation Works, Punjab Shahpurkandi & others .....Respondents CORAM

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

first respondent. 3. Whereas the first respondent is the Managing Director of the Company, the appellant is the Director thereof. Indisputably … S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. M/s. Shree Bhaarathi Cotton Mills Private Limited is a company registered and incorporated under

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)

common judgment.2. The appellants are the legal representatives of one D.C. Aggarwal, an erstwhile employee of the respondent-State Bank of India, … the benefits of an extension in service of the said D.C. Aggarwal up to the age of sixty years; and (b)

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

benefit which benefit in turn could be made available for distribution amongst the various creditors of the Company. To fulfil the … 1. The above transfer petitions were entertained by this Court for a limited purpose of making available to the Company

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 … Kapadia, J.1. The issue which arises for determination in this civil appeal filed by the assessee under Section 35L(b) of Central

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 … appeal is directed against the order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissing the Writ Petition filed by

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

of Section 3(c) of the Rent Control Act, 1958.2. The Delhi Rent Control Act, as amended by Act No. 52 of

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

of the date fixed by Registry is given to Dr. D.C. Saxena and the Solicitor General.3. While dismissing the petition, this … to the notice issued by this Court the Contemnor Dr. D.C. Saxena is present today in person. He has staled that

D.C.M. Ltd., Etc. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Another Etc.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: AIR1997SC3225; 1997(2)ARBLR314(SC); JT1997(7)SC309; 1997(5)SCALE443; (1997)7SCC123; 1997(2)LC576(SC)

These appeals arise from the judgment and order of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court.2. For the sake of … ORDERSujata Manohar J.1. These appeals arise as a result of certain increases in fuel adjustment charges levied by the second respondent