Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 39 (0.71 seconds)
Documents citing #?A?'??@ N6?2K??B????;`?1A?~;?? ... vs ? D}O]?'S?J?Ew E??R? P??N?( ?T?2? ... on 29 March, 2010

Judgment/Texmaco vs Tilak Ram / Case No.377/3 / U.S.630 Of ... on 9 April, 2010

L. J. 2791"K. G. K. Nair v. P. employee or an ex­employee. In C. Juneja", also it is held that, the provisions of S. 630 are intended to provide speedy and efficacious redress in cases where company's property is wrongfully withheld and that the scope of the enquiry in a proceeding under Section 630 is extremely restricted in law and, consequently, the parties be confined within those narrow ambits without being permitted to dilate or protract the proceeding through extraneous avenues.
Delhi District Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Criminal Case/31/2001 on 1 May, 2010

m;O 6p? 4 O 2 8 4 Q < O 2 4 _k3W6k3 v$O 2 ? 4!6 6 O>?;2 8 4 [ O 6 2 A V&v$O 2 ?!4!6 6 4 6k? A Q 8!4O 6xZ!Q A _ ^ < 4 _tA Qz4 N 3 :$O%?!4 _{f 9{2 8 4tZ!Q A 6 4 < ^ 2!O A ?„O)?›6 ^ Z Z(A Q 2A VŠO 2 6t< 3W6 4= 2’O 6‹2 Q ^ 4Ij›2 8 3 2Žm ^ _ O < O)3([Ž? A 2!O < 4< 3 ?ˆf 4‡2 3 !4 ?A V 2 8!4ŽQ 4 ZHA Q 2’A V’3 ?
Delhi District Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

R.Karpura Sundara Pandian vs The State Rep By on 4 March, 2025

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 04:29:13 pm ) CRL.A(MD).Nos.6 and 7 of 2018 Name Rank of particular Rank in C.C.No.4 witness in C.C.No.3 of 2010 of 2010 K. Ramasamy P.W.-1 P.W.-1 V. Harinarayanan P.W.-2 P.W.-3 Harikrishnan P.W.-3 P.W.-4 C.H. Krishnadas P.W.-4 P.W.-5 Jotty M. Chacko P.W.-5 P.W.-6 G. Anantharaman P.W.-6 P.W.-7 Muralidharan Nair P.W.-7 P.W.-8 S. Palanivel P.W.-8 Ramachandran P.W.-9 M. Mohammad P.W.-10 P.W.-10 Rizwanul Arif K. Kumaravel P.W.-11 P.W.-11 A.S. Varughese P.W.-12 P.W.-13 Muralidharan P.W.-13 P.W.-12 Subaramaniam P.W.-14 P.W.-14 Aravindan P.W.-15 P.W.-15 Jayakumar P.W.-16 Somu P.W.-17 N. Ravi P.W.-18 P.W.-16 R. Palani P.W.-19 Ranjit Cecil P.W.-20 J. Venkatesan P.W.-21 R. Ravi P.W.-22 P.W.-18 T. Selvakumar P.W.-23 P.W.-19 R. Chinram P.W.-24 P.W.-20 S.Dhilip Iyangar P.W.-2 15/57 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 04:29:13 pm ) CRL.A(MD).Nos.6 and 7 of 2018 6.1.From the records, it is clear that the appellant was the Customer Relation Manager of the IDBI bank. From the evidence, it is clear that he participated in the function organized by P.W.19,namely, Alpha Foundation for Educational Research Charitable Trust. The evidence of the driver of the appellant and other evidence through the number of witnesses clearly shows that he participated in the function organized by P.W.19. In the function, he assured that he would install ATM machine in the premises of the Alpha Foundation and also assured to get a loan of Rs.75 Crores upon the condition of making a fixed deposit of Rs.1.2 Crores. The said evidence stood corroborated with the remaining evidence. So, the prosecution clearly proved the first link of the circumstances, namely, he participated in the function organized by the Alpha Foundation and assured to get a loan of Rs.75 crores upon the condition of making fixed deposit for Rs.1.2 Crores. P.W. 19 paid Rs.1.2 Crores to the appellant and the appellant issued the forged fixed deposit receipts, pay-in-slips and loan sanctioning letter. After some time P.W.19 came to know that the same was forged and he demanded the repayment of the amount from the appellant and the appellant promised to pay the amount and repaid part of the amount and he failed to pay the balance amount of Rs.54 lakhs. Therefore, P.W.19 gave a complaint to the Jotty Chocko (P.W.5), Regional Head of the 16/57 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 04:29:13 pm ) CRL.A(MD).Nos.6 and 7 of 2018 IDBI Bank, Chennai and he made the complaint before CBI and CBI registered a case in R.C.No.14(A)/2008/CBI/ACBI/CHENNAI. The CBI found that the appellant received a sum of Rs.54 lakhs from P.W.19 and issued the forged pay-in-slips and fake fixed deposit receipts and loan sanctioning letter. During the course of the investigation, the CBI also found that similar modus operandi was played by the appellant against one Dhilip Iyangar namely P.W.2 in the C.C.NO.4 of 2010 and collected Rs.
Madras High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

A.Soundararajan vs The Secretary To The Government on 19 February, 2018

18. This Court, while hearing a matter relating to Public Interest Litigation in the case of V.B.R.Menon vs. State [W.P.No.2984 of 2017] on 04.03.2019, had suggested to introduce Unmanned Aerial survey by using the Drone Technology as and when required to monitor illegal mining activities, check for activity at night and to track illegal truck movements. Though the Learned Additional Advocate General, who appeared in the above case had stated that Mining Tenement System (MTS) in the place of Drone Technology has been introduced, the Petitioner therein proved that the said system did not bring the expected result and therefore, this Court, by way of an interim order dated 04.03.2019, had passed the following order:
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - M Venugopal - Full Document

Nandi Infrastructure Corridor ... vs Bheemachandra Education Trust on 23 July, 2010

:s1ep1 over I}'"1('" matter nor w0L1EC1 "i.l2e1rV,_(.fc>ii<1{iétf"iii zmy mdrmer i1z('1i(éatc'~ E:.}.1;:1t' they ;had_ yiczlcl-set;i"Ti;%:1eir right' in favo1.1_r of aeq'uisi1i('>n ami lfli? jj:-rt.i"Li:(31.e1 filed as an 2-1ft.erE.1e1<')L:gl'11.. (_')ne uilzel' (1L"('7iSi(_JE'I ,1/t;T1i5?,d.TA()'1'?v£:"'i;/iv. ealse 01' CHAREVIAIN §\/1.11)., BI--31. I.'I'D vs S.P;"LT§UE2:U%"{f5§JA & OTHERS (2003[8} sec: 557} is in E21 0f' "e11a11er1ge to the acquisition in favour of the eonipziily and such Chéllltillgfl in pulir-lie immesi. was m<':i(:):."1e belatmlly 2:zf'i<:?r the company lmd taken })()SSt-'.SSi(JE] 3;, lo the a-1(':q1.iisitioa1 i'ioiil"i<~.a11_ior1 dlld 11 is I'1()'l. 21 came 01' ShlbSE'*.q1,£(2i"11 pE,1i'(?h.'dS€'I'. ii is in t,l'1a1:: light the issue relaiiiig to pr(')p<:%1* service of n()ticc will l']&'IE\;'g".'.V'»._l"()._V be exa_r1'1ii'1ed. The 2-Lppcllexm (.T()l]1€l'1dS '{l'l'c.1l. i.i'i_i"-C"1%;-aiit-,:r.-Vpl'_ Sm{;.'l'him1i"1al<ke1 was 1'n.(iic211.ed in the .r'<':"v'e1fm:¥"-a:'c-r<:V()i'g'l5;'= £1l"l(i as sucli i101.icc- wens issuc(.i to l'i_¢r..:_;'1zit:.s'<:19iI-':~("i :<"3--:..i vl'lL"'E' gra1nd--daugl1tc1' on 24.07__;2Q03,"v-\§ri1.i§":l;ij Ci'LlL:'~:i' Compliance "of the a"eq__L1ia"emc:ni:'olf the p1*oV'isi§)l';;§
Karnataka High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Karnataka State Road Transport ... vs State Of Karnataka on 21 October, 2011

SEE Ba, '::2;g<<:;;---1ijfiéalm-~...LA;:sV§f;-T.§?::3§z R5 E 2, SR: :«3.§'~2 S§9£$iE;§;NDRs'%.;..§:§)'\;£..__ ma R} 3.2: $ $3: 832?. KR§Ei«HN;%SWAE¥'?Yg¢}J}V. F6 E:§2g'€.'{..§E«T£;% SE2: §~;§;:~. '?'5rfi':{:z}x§:§'1§fi&c}}3s;';Z§§}'L'7. ma 3:152, ,SE"€E :v§;;;«:. wag;:€:sH";A:>'2.2:'zsma R53 & 2?-'<::>§z ;za,;;:>:>:;:e:"i;:'?»;i§* §:v:;SC""'iA£ :2"?42;: 1} » AB.$§;r~s'2"., ' S§"ZE V§'sr":VC., .,i3§§7',§{;'3;-S'EME*iAN ;'§SS®CEA'§'ES§ Fi§}'€S« EKER R55 :sL:{§'.,¢g_..Si.TA §%g2a§§g'a§gz§§;:_ 'E§'{iIT2«'§A§E: Eaifiiil §?<>:2; REE'? '§:::%r Eggs}; .. I ";€'"?"'é§2,.»*" E E. E8 §3§..§;§}:.{} {M3 E52 {_}§*" {iE3"€ §?E€i?+§;{§§'€G '".§;{f* "§'E--Eéi '.E'§IE«§EZ '?:§¢:, 'E"§-E33 {:+§§az'§2:zra5'§v§§::;ks'§.* :=<:§%:» __'V-':§§%;£§:}§:&; ::::;:"2'?§:;'z {ER §«'*Q§% 5% §£E'v§i'E'§§iE3 ;:}§<;:§;z:<",>§:; gas; ~ '§~:'§}\:§<:§} Bay '§""E§EE% §~::::z *"§§,§€; €{;:m«:'§- EN ':'s§%: §E'~§'§'E§E%%ZS'§' (>3? " ;3z;$':';{:
Karnataka High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next