Unit Trust - Judgment Search Results

Unit Trust of India and anr. Vs. P.K. Unny and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)168CTR(Bom)99; [2001]249ITR612(Bom)

scheme and the unit capital in relation to the subsequent unit scheme. Therefore, Section 22 indicates that the UTI is required He contended that under Section 22(1), the capital of the trust is the initial capital whereas under Section 22(2), the capital

Unit Trust of India, Mumbai and anr. Vs. P.K. Unny and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(3)BomCR673; 2002(1)MhLj301

that under the Unit Trust Act, the participation by the unit holders is only in the net income and not gross the UTI Act which refers to the Capital of the Trust. He contended that under Section 22(1), the Capital of the

Unit Trust of India and Others Vs. Om Prakash Berlia and Others

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [1983]54CompCas723(Bom)

8 : The company should agree to vest in the Unit Trust of India the option of converting a portion of the financial institutions. After this preamble the recitals in the trust deed proper follow. It says that the debentures mean, the

Administrator, Unit Trust of India Vs. B.M. Malani and ors.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: (2007)212CTR(SC)425; [2008]296ITR31(SC); RLW2008(1)SC375; 2007(12)SCALE107

the units have been attached the UTI which when the units are there for sale ought to have obtained the consent redeemed below par. The Development Reserve Fund (DRF) of the Trust will guarantee this capital protection. There is no such guarantee

Unit Trust of India Vs. Kumari Gauthami and Another

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

age of the child at the time of purchase of units the lock in period will be for a minimum of this appeal briefly stated as are follows : The Unit Trust of India framed a Scheme called Rajyalakshmi Unit Scheme and

Unit Trust of India Now Uti Amc Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Vinayak Arora

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

to know from the letter of the appellant that the units were issued in the name of Sh. R.K.Arora and not the name of the appellant/OP-1 has now changed from Unit Trust of India to UTIAMC Pvt. Ltd. The respondent/complainant wrote letters

Unit Trust of India and anr. Vs. Indian Overseas Bank and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: I(2006)BC92; [2005]127CompCas219(Ker)

security for the loan, defendants Nos. 1 and 2 secured Unit Certificate No. 872307690 of the revision petitioners, valued for Rs. withdrawn by defendants Nos. 1 and 2. Since the Unit Trust of India, Madras, the fifth defendant has also joined in

Unit Trust of India and Another Vs. Guddie Madanjit

Court: Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission UT Chandigarh

1999 and 54 of 1999 have been attempted by the Unit Trust of India. 2. Briefly the complainant is the holder and 54 of 1999 have been attempted by the Unit Trust of India. 2. Briefly the complainant is the holder of

Unit Trust of India Vs. Ravinder Kumar Shukla, Etc. Etc.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: AIR2005SC3528; 2005(4)AWC3451(SC); 2005(6)BomCR805; (SCSuppl)2006(1)CHN54; IV(2005)CPJ10(SC); 2005(5)CTC77; (2005)3GLR2757; [2005(4)JCR214(SC)]; JT2005(12)SC345; 2005(4)KLT

post.The Appellant started receiving a large number of complaints from unit holders alleging non-receipt of the cheques. In all 1600 unit

Unit Trust of India, Rep. by Its Chairman and Another Vs. V.Janardhana ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

things, it is stated that the complainant invested for 500 units on 16.5.1992 in his name and his son and daughter his daughter Mr.Ramya. This is a scheme run by M/s.Unit Trust of India, the first opposite party an organization under the