Array ( [0] => ..... , i have heard the application filed under section 5 of the limitation act, also.7. the learned advocate for the respondent states that the reasons stated in the application are not sufficient to condone the delay. but however, i ..... view of the amendment brought into effect from 21.1.2003, i am of the view that the provisions of the limitation act, 1963, is applicable to an appeal filed under section 30 of the rddb & fi act, 1993, and therefore, the application filed by the appellant was legal and maintainable.6. to avoid unnecessary delay in the matter ..... the amended provision, which came into effect on 21.1.2003,1 am of the view that the provisions of the limitation act, 1963, is applicable to the appeal filed under section 30 of the rddb & fi act. i, therefore, come to the conclusion that the application filed by the appellant to condone the delay should have been ..... [1] => ..... finance and company affairs, (banking division), new delhi, dated 28.1.2003, it comes under the definition of ‘co-operative bank’ as per clause (cci) of section 5 of banking regulation act, 1949. in the above circumstances, the ld. counsel for the appellant bank has argued, at the outset, that the respondents have no locus standi to invoke the provisions ..... before the drt, only if there is no bar of jurisdiction under any law for the time being in force. as has been referred to above, section 118(3) of the karnataka act, 11 of 1959 clearly bars the jurisdiction of not only courts but also tribunals from entertaining any proceeding challenging the decision or award made by the ..... costs, holding that in view of the decision rendered in “ilr 2007 kar 4740”, the appellant bank are not entitled to initiate the proceedings under sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the sarfaesi act and the said proceedings are void. 3. heard the learned counsel for the appellant bank. 4. in the above facts of the case, the ..... [2] => ..... 2, and 7 to 9 herein. 2. the facts leading to the filing of this appeal are as follows :- the 1st respondent is a company registered under the indian companies act, 1956, and the respondents 2, and 7 to 9 are its directors. the appellants sanctioned credit facilities on consortium basis to the 1st respondent company (hereinafter called as the company ..... ) Explosives Act 1884 Section 4 Definitions - Sortby Old - Court Drat Madras - Page 3 - Judgments | SooperKanoon Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: explosives act 1884 section 4 definitions Sorted by: old Court: drat madras Page 3 of about 23 results (0.055 seconds)

Mar 01 2007 (TRI)

Federal Bank Ltd. Vs. Sadanandan, K.V.

Court : DRAT Madras

Reported in : IV(2007)BC16

..... , i have heard the application filed under section 5 of the limitation act, also.7. the learned advocate for the respondent states that the reasons stated in the application are not sufficient to condone the delay. but however, i ..... view of the amendment brought into effect from 21.1.2003, i am of the view that the provisions of the limitation act, 1963, is applicable to an appeal filed under section 30 of the rddb & fi act, 1993, and therefore, the application filed by the appellant was legal and maintainable.6. to avoid unnecessary delay in the matter ..... the amended provision, which came into effect on 21.1.2003,1 am of the view that the provisions of the limitation act, 1963, is applicable to the appeal filed under section 30 of the rddb & fi act. i, therefore, come to the conclusion that the application filed by the appellant to condone the delay should have been .....

Tag this Judgment!
Jul 14 2008 (TRI)

The Authorised Officer/General Manager, Sri Basaveshwar Co-operative B ...

Court : DRAT Madras

..... finance and company affairs, (banking division), new delhi, dated 28.1.2003, it comes under the definition of co-operative bank as per clause (cci) of section 5 of banking regulation act, 1949. in the above circumstances, the ld. counsel for the appellant bank has argued, at the outset, that the respondents have no locus standi to invoke the provisions ..... before the drt, only if there is no bar of jurisdiction under any law for the time being in force. as has been referred to above, section 118(3) of the karnataka act, 11 of 1959 clearly bars the jurisdiction of not only courts but also tribunals from entertaining any proceeding challenging the decision or award made by the ..... costs, holding that in view of the decision rendered in ilr 2007 kar 4740, the appellant bank are not entitled to initiate the proceedings under sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the sarfaesi act and the said proceedings are void. 3. heard the learned counsel for the appellant bank. 4. in the above facts of the case, the .....

Tag this Judgment!
Oct 22 2008 (TRI)

State Bank of India Stressed Assets Resolution Center (Sarc) and Anoth ...

Court : DRAT Madras

..... 2, and 7 to 9 herein. 2. the facts leading to the filing of this appeal are as follows :- the 1st respondent is a company registered under the indian companies act, 1956, and the respondents 2, and 7 to 9 are its directors. the appellants sanctioned credit facilities on consortium basis to the 1st respondent company (hereinafter called as the company .....

Tag this Judgment!




Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //