Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.39 seconds)

Chairman, Indore Vikas Pradhikaran vs M/S Pure Industrial Cock & Chem. Ltd. & ... on 15 May, 2007

The learned Government Pleader further submits that, the idea and understanding of the petitioner as to the scope of the proceedings under Sub Sections 3 and 5 of the Section 45A are quite wrong and misconceived and that 'purposive interpretation' has to be made, to give effect to the statutory prescription, more so in view of the law declared by the Apex Court in Dilip S. Dahankur Vs. Kotak Mahindra Co. Ltd. [(2007) 6 SCC 528) (Paragraph 54) and also in Chairman, Indore Vikas Pradhikaran VS. Pure Industrial Coke and Chemical Ltd. [(2007) 8 SCC 705) (Paragraph 88 onwards).
Supreme Court of India Cites 60 - Cited by 219 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Dilip S. Dahanukar vs Kotak Mahindra Co. Ltd. & Anr on 10 April, 2007

The learned Government Pleader further submits that, the idea and understanding of the petitioner as to the scope of the proceedings under Sub Sections 3 and 5 of the Section 45A are quite wrong and misconceived and that 'purposive interpretation' has to be made, to give effect to the statutory prescription, more so in view of the law declared by the Apex Court in Dilip S. Dahankur Vs. Kotak Mahindra Co. Ltd. [(2007) 6 SCC 528) (Paragraph 54) and also in Chairman, Indore Vikas Pradhikaran VS. Pure Industrial Coke and Chemical Ltd. [(2007) 8 SCC 705) (Paragraph 88 onwards).
Supreme Court of India Cites 54 - Cited by 268 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Chackolas Spinning And Weaving Mills ... vs State Of Kerala on 17 January, 2006

7. The learned Government Pleader submits that, the validity of the above notification has already been upheld by a learned Single Judge of this Court in A.P.Ismail (Anwar Traders) Vs, State of Kerala (2005 (3) KLT 1052) and by a Division Bench of this Court in W.P. (C) Nos. 30292 of 2010 and 5930 of 2008 : 6 : Chackolas Spinning & Weaving Mill Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala (2006 (1) KLT 989), though further challenge has been raised by the aggrieved party before the Apex Court, where the SLP preferred has been admitted and the same is pending.
1