Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.37 seconds)

Liverpool & London S.P. & I Asson. Ltd vs M.V. Sea Success I & Anr on 20 November, 2003

gonorally. It 1.: also been held that than 331 is A .5 us-Anna I Ian: I 1..r\l\.4'I'eull.l\!\d\l _ll"| E\If'I('I'"i LICXE1 I vs I Inonntnzy regulate: and onunciatcs the "pulley at the ccuntry and acts, inter: Alia, provisions of the 331 Act and Banking which are couprahenaivc pzovitidna '_ ta': xogulnto banking business Doliticu. Thextfoxlp tlit pzoviuians at tho 4:: they relate to the bankilw 4' (0) of section 2 at it hank" ta man as bank 8;-mad Schodulo of the said Mt '''' cash reserves oi' 3ChD¢ll1Ud:z"b#I'IkVI trith that knows Bank af India! of clause of [63 of finction it shall: by notification in "_j;India.. direct tho inclusion in the at any bank. not alroady so includod attics on tho huaimaa of banking in India to certain to and conditions and sub- . (<2) of clans: 6 at' auction 42 pertains to the of a. notification in thal Gazette at Indian J,-*"
Supreme Court of India Cites 54 - Cited by 607 - S B Sinha - Full Document

I. C. I. (India) Private Ltd vs C. I. T., West Bengal on 20 January, 1972

putitiancr in ugly has at tho supmmo -Beam; 'V6! [assays figs}: substantive rights ahtiilg ti: be defeated on tochniebl' jg}; irroguJ,.,a.1:;ity an as t:.o" 'injustice in done to % X A vim.' under 8943.234 of than the ltogiatrar of companies is 'I€2*.}V.?C I. and proper authority to decide upon as to smother: tho docmonts tiled apprapriuto or not.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 46 - A N Grover - Full Document
1