Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.71 seconds)
The Hershey Company vs Dilip Kumar Bacha, Trading As Shree ... on 9 February, 2024 cites

Shiv Shakti Coop. Housing Society, ... vs M/S. Swaraj Developers & Ors on 17 April, 2003

(iii) Shiv Shakti Co-operative Housing Society, Nagpur Vs. Swaraj Developers12 9 (2003) 11 SCC 92 10 2014 (11) SCC 619, paragraph 27 11 2001 SCC OnLine Del 1536 12 (2003) 6 SCC 659 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 179/2023 & connected matters Page 18 of 70 By:RAHUL Signing Date:09.02.2024 19:16:40 Submissions of Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, ld. Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 in C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 778/2022, C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 782/2022, C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 783/2022.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 1808 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Maulavi Hussein Haji Abraham Umari vs State Of Gujarat And Anr on 29 July, 2004

• Firstly, an examination of Section 57 of the 1999 Act in conjunction with Rule 4 of the 2017 Rules reveals that the Registrar and the High Court have concurrent jurisdiction over cancellation petitions. Consequently, the definition of 'Appropriate office' should not be interpreted differently for the Registrar and the High Court. The link between the 'Appropriate office' and either the Registrar or the High Court must be consistent, as outlined in Rule 4 of the 2017 Rules, for Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 179/2023 & connected matters Page 21 of 70 By:RAHUL Signing Date:09.02.2024 19:16:40 any cancellation petition. These provisions should be read holistically, and casus omissus should not be readily inferred, as established by the Supreme Court in Maulavi Hussein Haji Abraham Umari v. State Of Gujarat13.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 76 - A Pasayat - Full Document
1