Specify - Judgment Search Results

Administrator of Specified Undertaking of Unit Trust Vs. State of Guja ...

Court: Gujarat

Reported in: (2006)2GLR1663

or other financial assistance to the respondent No. 2 Company.3.2 According to Mr. Ahmadi, the notification does not specify any reasons justifying the issuance of impugned notification in favour of the respondent No. 2. company and there

Southern Petrochemicals Industries Corporation Ltd. Vs. Administrator ...

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: AIR2007SC533; II(2007)BC83; [2007]135CompCas474(SC); 2007(1)CTC425; (2007)2SCC282; [2007]75SCL467(SC); 2007AIRSCW83; 2007LawHerald(SC)78; 2007(3)KCCRSN104; 2007(2)AIRKarR39; JT2007(1)SC372

Section 4-A of the Companies Act, 1956 and such other institution as the Central Government may by Notification specify. He, therefore, submitted that High Court was right in holding that Section 18 effected an amendment in Section

R.Nagarajan vs the Specified Officer

Court: Chennai

COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 09.02.2026CORAM :THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE R.Nagarajan ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Specified Officer, Under the Puducherry Settlement Act, 1970, Office of the Deputy Collector [Revenue], Karaikal - 609 602. 2.G.Nithianandan

Southern Petrochemicals Industries Corporation Limited Vs. Administrat ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2005Bom65; I(2005)BC557; 2004(6)BomCR557; [2005]127CompCas920(Bom); 2005(1)MhLj813

Government may, having regard to its business activity and the area of its operation in India by notification specify;'Section 19(1) of the DRT Act reads as under:'19. Application to the Tribunal.-(1) Where a bank or a financial

ishar Kumar JaIn and Others Vs. the Specified Authority Appointed by t ...

Court: Punjab and Haryana

PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-15462-2012 (O&M) Date of decision:-08.07.2014 Ishar Kumar Jain and others ...Petitioners Versus The Specified Authority Appointed by the State Government, Punjab under Section 32(G) of State Financial Corporation Act, 1951-cum-Managing Director, Punjab

Indian Metals and Ferro Alloys Ltd. Vs. Specified Authority and ors.

Court: Orissa

Reported in: [1984]149ITR418(Orissa)

Ferro Alloys Limited, a public limited company--impugns in this application the decision dated May 6, 1983, of the Specified Authority, annexed as annexure 1 to the writ petition, inter alia, on the grounds that the said authority

Southern Petrochemical Vs. Administrator of Specified

Court: DRAT Mumbai

Reported in: II(2005)BC129

appellants taken out by them for dismissing the original application. The respondent No. 1 is the Administrator of Specified Undertaking of Unit Trust of India in his capacity as successor in interest of Specified Undertaking of Unit

Jupiter Nevesh Private Limited Vs. Administrator of Specified

Court: DRAT Mumbai

Reported in: IV(2006)BC165

original application. According to the appellants, the appropriate relief which the respondents should have asked for was for specific performance of the agreement or the undertaking to buy back the shares and the claim for money to

Administrator of the Specified Undertaking of the Unit Trust of India ...

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: AIR2005SC2520; III(2005)BC14(SC); [2005]125CompCas389(SC); (2005)4CompLJ531(SC); JT2005(5)SC300; (2005)10SCC682; [2005]60SCL512(SC)

the installment(s) of redemption will be reduced proportionately but will however be payable on the due date as specified.3.9 DEBENTURE CERTIFICATE :The Company shall issue debenture certificate/s to the debenture holder/s after making necessary compliance to the

M/S.Basil Natural Technically Specified Rubber Factory Private Limited ...

Court: Kerala

11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 21ST POUSHA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 24707 OF 2023 PETITIONER: M/S.BASIL NATURAL TECHNICALLY SPECIFIED RUBBER FACTORY PRIVATE LIMITED AGED 38 YEARS THATTEKKAD P.O, POTHUPARA,KOTHAMANGALAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, ISSAC JACOB, PIN