Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian railway companies act 1895 Court: delhi Page 3 of about 10,415 results (2.887 seconds)

Jamit Rai and Co. Vs. Union of India

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 1994ACJ809; 50(1993)DLT279

..... and by that time the goods, admittedly, had deteriorated in value. (8) section 73 of the indian railway act, 1890 clearly brings the exceptions where the railway would not be responsible and one of the exceptions carved sets is in clause 'd' which makes it clear that the railway would not be responsible for any damage and destruction or deterioration incase of arrest, restrain or ..... because of they being kept in police station in that theft case. he has placed reliance on three judgments namely, e.i.railway company v. janakidas marwari : air1929cal510 , trilokinath v. governor- general, : air1951all489 and union of india v.imperial tobacco company, : air1959mp232 . in thesejudgments, the well-known principle of law has been laid down that if any loss occurs due to theft taking .....

Abnash Kaur Vs. Lord Krishna Sugar Mills and ors.

Court : Delhi

Reported in : [1974]44CompCas390(Delhi); ILR1972Delhi413

..... and smt. shanta rani, herein called 'respondent no. 4', who is the first appellant (the company being the second appellant), in ca 8 of 1971. (2) the company was incorporated in 1938 under the indian companies act, 1913, as a public company limited by shares with a nominal capital of rs. 34.00 lakhs and a paid up capital of ..... ), which now has been incorporated in the 1956 act as sections 397 and 398. these sections provide an ..... cases, to wind up an otherwise solvent company merely on account of the fault of a few. section 210 was, thereforee, included in the english companies act, 1948 to provide an alternative remedy so that winding up could be avoided. a similar provision was introduced in' the indian companies act, 1913 in the shape of section 153(3 .....

Smt. Sadhana Rai and anr. Vs. Smt. Bimla Rai and ors.

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 155(2008)DLT496

..... as the plaintiffs and the defendants were not the co-owners of the property in question which vests with the aforesaid three companies, who are separate legal entities under the provisions of the indian companies act. in addition, it was pleaded that the plaintiffs had admitted that a perpetual lease deed dated 27. 2. 1974 was ..... ltd.11. the joint owners of the suit property, thus, are the three companies registered under the companies act who have their independent legal entity. no doubt, these are the companies which belong to the family of the parties in question. the aforesaid three companies executed three perpetual lease deeds in favour of sh. kulwant rai, sh. jaswant ..... an application, documents filed must be taken into consideration. it was pointed out that this judgment was recently followed in hardesh ores pvt. ltd. v. hede & company : (2007)5scc614 .9. learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, supported their case on the basis of reasons given by the learned single .....

State Bank of Patiala Vs. S.K. Mathur

Court : Delhi

..... these judgments are inapplicable to this factual scenario. in the case of prestige finance a claim petition has been filed by the official liquidator under section 446 of the companies act, 1956 and on summons being issued, it was noted that krishan lal had expired; an application under order 22 rule 4 of the code of civil procedure ( ..... was as to whether the suit has abated as a whole i.e. against defendant no. 2 as well. 4 section 134 of the indian contract act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as the said act) reads as follows:- "134. discharge of surety by release or discharge of principal debtor.- the surety is discharged by any contract between the ..... of continuance of the suit against the guarantor would not arise. claim against the guarantor was not divisible; it was not an independent claim. section 134 of the indian contract act was applicable; surety stood discharged. 9 in air 1996 sc 1427 sri chand v. m/s jagdish pershad kishan chand, the apex court had held that no exhaustive .....

Ferruccio Sias and anr. Vs. Jai Manga Ram Mukhi and ors.

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 1993IVAD(Delhi)713; 1994(28)DRJ143

..... any more capital, the same can be raised by resorting to procedures which are permissible by following the procedures contemplated by the indian companies act. there does not appear to be any loss occasioned to the company as a result of re-constitution of board of directors by addition of four directors on 15.09.1993 and 171.09.1993 ..... exception to the rule in foss v. harbottle will be relatable to an action to prevent oppression of the minority by amajority. in indian context action lies under sections 397 and 398 of the companies act. not a suit.(47) i have heard mr. r.k. garg, senior advocate, who appeared for the caveator. by my order ..... case, the directors of sae (india) limited were duty bound to protect the interest of the company, which is an independent legal entity under the indian companies act, and the entity is quite distinct from elettrofin societa anonima pinanziaria, which is a foreign company. it was the duty of the directors of sae (india) limited, to protect the interest .....

Suresh Jindal Vs. Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd.

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 126(2006)DLT49

..... the extent provided in sub-section (3) of section 63. vide sub-section (3) of section 63, reference to state electricity board in the indian electricity act, 1910 was to be read as referring to the derc or distribution companies established under section 14 as the case may be. further, section 3 to 11, 28, 36(ii), 49a, 50 and 51 of the ..... area of distribution and whether they are vested with the powers of a licensee under the indian electricity act, 1910, the indian electricity rules, 1956 and the electricity (supply) act, 1948.(d) whether till regulations are framed under section 55 of the electricity act, 2003 by the authority, the distribution company has authority to determine what would be a correct meter.27. the aforesaid four questions .....

Seema Sapra Vs. General Electric Co. and Ors.

Court : Delhi

..... .e.electric company and its sister companies (hereinafter jointly referred to as g.e); be disqualified from the subject tenders and g.e. be also black listed. petitioner seeks the related reliefs that respondent nos. 2,4 and 5 i.e central vigilance commission (cvc); indian railways, and ; prime minister s office (pmo) respectively, act upon the ..... complaints of the petitioner with respect to the petitioner s claims of forgery, corruption etc with respect to the aforesaid tenders. (ii) the fourth relief that the petitioner seeks is that the petitioner alleges that her life is in danger on account of her acting ..... for the present, it is deemed appropriate to confine the notice to respondents no.1 to 7 and respondent no.12.5. counsels for respondent no.4/indian railways, respondent no.5/uoi and respondent no.12/cbi accept notice. they state that they have received copies of the paper book as filed by the petitioner .....

The Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Union of India

Court : Delhi

Reported in : ILR1974Delhi311b

..... under the indian companies act, had purchased 1044 tins loose tank load of groundgnut oil unrefined from m/s. dinesh kumar and company through the commission agents m/s. shah jasraj moti chand and sons, the contents of the said load weighting 16704 kgs. had been consigned by the said seller to self under invoice no. 99, railway receipt no. 34924 of july ..... plaintiff. 2.whether the plaintiff has any locus standi to file the present suit o. p. on the plaintiff. 3.whether the notices, under section 78-b of the indian railways act, 1890 and section 80 of civil procedure code, were not valid o. p. on the defendant. 4.whether the shortage in the consignment of ground-nut oil was not due to ..... record and marked as ex. p7, ex. pi 3 and ex. p14 shows that they conform to the requirements of the provisions of section 78-b of the indian railway act and section 80 of the code of civil procedure respectively and could not be said to be invalid for any reason whatsoever and i find this issue against the .....

Union of India Vs. B. Prahlad and Co.

Court : Delhi

Reported in : AIR1976Delhi236; 1976RLR278

..... the consignee at the time of the delivery of the goods to the railway (as indeed it often can happen under section 23 of the indian sale of goods act), the consignee would be deemed to be the person who had entered into the contract of carriage with the railway company. in such a case, the consignee is the proper party to sue ..... railway. the consignee can, thereforee, enforce the contract against the railway. 31. at least this much must be conceded to the learned ..... of making the contract with the carrier. for the purposes of the contract act and the sale of goods act the consignee is the agent in this case. for the purposes of the indian railways act the consignee is the principal for whom the consignor will be deemed to have acted as agent at the time of booking the goods with the .....

Gopal Singh Vs. Indian Railway Const. Company Ltd.(ircon)

Court : Delhi

Reported in : (2000)IILLJ845Del

..... , haryana, is filed as annexures r-3 and the same is as under:- 'in accordance with the contract agreement between the governor of haryana (the employer) acting through chief engineer, national highways and m/s.indian railway construction company, palika bhawan, new delhi (the contractor) as per page 191, 243, 1215 and 1269 of contract; this is to certify that the following lengths of ..... about the formation of the ircon. 2. ircon was incorporated in the year 1976 under indian companies act, 1956. it is a government of india enterprises, run under the aegis and control of the ministry of railways. the main purpose for which the company was formed was for the construction of railway tracks, roads, highways, buildings for government and other works working under the government, canals .....