Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.29 seconds)
Documents citing Radha Soami Satsangh Sabha vs Pawan Electric Refrigerating Co. And ... on 30 March, 1966

M/S Hewelett Computer Paper Industries vs M/S Skypark Services Specialists on 22 March, 2007

In this connection reference is made to the case of Radha Soami Satsang Sabha Vs. Pawan 12 Electric Refrigerating Co. and another reported in AIR 1967 Allahabad 9. The observations of their Lordship that "transfer of the running business by itself not bring about dissolution" was in different context as in the present suit as per their own letter dated 20.3.2006 placed on record by the defendant, the defendant was informed by the plaintiff that M/s K.G. Data Forms Private Limited has taken over the plaintiff firm from 1.3.2006 so all orders/bills/cheques are to be issued in favour of M/s K.G. Data Forms Private Limited. This suit was filed on 20.4.06 i.e after taking over of the plaintiff by M/s K.G. Data Forms Private Limited.
Delhi District Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Firm Motilal Lalchand vs Firm Jiwanlal Kailashchand And Ors. on 28 October, 1970

408, and R.S. Satsang Sabha v. P.E. Refrigerating Co. . It will not be irrelevant here to State that Order 21, Rule 50(2) C.P.C. has been amended by the Allahabad High Court on 1-6-1957, and in Sub-rule (2) the words "or to which the decree is transferred for execution" between the words "which passed the decree" and the words "for leave" have been inserted. Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that it was in view of this amendment that the Allahabad High Court took above-mentioned view.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Firm Motilal Lalchand vs Firm Jiwanlal Kailashchand And Ors. on 28 October, 1970

AIR 1958 All 176: Uma Shankar v. Kanodia Bros., AIR 1966 All 409 and R.S. Satsangh Sabha v. P. E. Refrigerating Co., AIR 1967 All 9. It will not be irrelevant here to state that Order 21. Rule 50 (2), Civil P. C. has been amended by the Allahabad High Court on 1-6-1957, and in Sub-rule (2) the words "or to which the decree is transferred for execution" between the words "which passed the decree" and the words "for leave" have been inserted. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that it was in view of this amendment that the Allahabad High Court took the abovementioned view.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1