Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.30 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 142 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Indian Bank vs M/S Satyam Fibres (India} Pvt.Ltd on 9 August, 1996
13.Likewise, the other judgments relied on by the learned Single Judge in SURJIT SINGH VS. HARBANS SINGH [AIR 1996 SC 135] and INDIAN BANK VS. SATYAM FIBRES (INDIA) PVT. LTD [1996 (5) SCC 550] does not arise out of contempt proceedings.
Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Ltd., ... vs Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Shareholders ... on 28 March, 2002
SOCIETY LTD. AND OTHERS [2000 (10) SCC 251] and the Division Bench judgment of this Court in TAMILNAD MERCANTILE BANK LTD. AND OTHERS VS. TAMILNAD MERCANTILE BANK SHAREHOLDER'S WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND ANOTHER [2006 (2) CTC 97] make it clear that the relief that could be granted in the main proceedings could not be granted in the contempt proceedings as a short cut method.
Century Flour Mills Ltd. vs S. Suppiah And Ors. on 11 March, 1975
19.The Full Bench judgment of this Court in CENTURY FLOUR MILLS LTD. VS. S.SUPPIAH AND OTHERS [AIR 1975 MADRAS 270] relied on by the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents 1 to 5 could not be applied to the facts and circumstances of this case, as the said judgment was not passed in contempt petition.
Aruby Sales And Services (P) Ltd vs State Of Maharashtra on 28 October, 1993
16.The learned Senior Counsel for the respondents 1 to 5 relied on the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in RUBY SALES AND SERVICES (P) LTD. AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS [1994 (1) SCC 531]. In the said case, the issue involved was "whether the appellant therein was liable to pay Stamp Duty under the Bombay Stamps Act, 1958." We do not understand as to how the said judgment would help the respondents 1- 5.
Delhi Development Authority vs Skipper Construction Company(P) Ltd. & ... on 6 May, 1996
15.Likewise, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents 1 to 5 relied on another judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. SKIPPER CONSTRUCTION CO. (P) LTD. AND ANOTHER [1996 (4) SCC 622]. In that case also, the Supreme Court issued certain directions under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. Furthermore, the facts of that case are very extraordinary, like the case in Union Carbide Corporation (cited supra). In the said case, the Supreme Court found that hundreds of persons were cheated by the respondents therein to the tune of so many crores of rupees. The Supreme Court appointed two Commissions, namely, one headed by a retired Supreme Court Judge and another headed by a retired High Court Judge. Thus, the said judgment also has no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
Surjit Singh & Ors. Etc. Etc vs Harbans Singh & Ors. Etc. Etc on 6 September, 1995
13.Likewise, the other judgments relied on by the learned Single Judge in SURJIT SINGH VS. HARBANS SINGH [AIR 1996 SC 135] and INDIAN BANK VS. SATYAM FIBRES (INDIA) PVT. LTD [1996 (5) SCC 550] does not arise out of contempt proceedings.
Keshrimal Jivji Shah And Anr. vs Bank Of Maharashtra And Ors. on 22 April, 2004
12.The learned Single Judge was not correct in relying on the judgment of the Bombay High Court in KESHRIMAL JIVJI SHAH AND ANOTHER VS. BANK OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS [2004 (122) CC 831]. The facts of the said case are totally different. Furthermore, the order therein was not passed under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Civil Procedure Code and the same arose out of a writ petition. That is, it is a different matter if the respondents 1 to 5, on merits, succeed in C.S.No.128 of 2006. But they could not get a decree in C.S.No.128 of 2006.