Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.42 seconds)
Ram Kishan And Ors. vs Kanwar Papers Private Ltd. on 22 December, 1988 cites

Associated Cement Companies Ltd. vs The State Of Rajasthan And Anr. on 25 September, 1980

Likewise, in Associated Cement Companies Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1981 Raj 133, it was observed by a Division Bench of that court that where a statutory provision laid down a rule of public policy, neither party to an agreement can contract out of it. It relied upon the dictum of their lordships of the Privy Council in Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States v. Reed [1914] AC 587. In fact, the rule in this regard was stated by the Supreme Court in Murlidhar Agarwal, AIR 1974 SC 1924, in unmistakable terms when it said (at page 1930) :
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 24 - Cited by 5 - N M Kasliwal - Full Document

Ram Kishan And Ors. vs Secretary To Govt. State Of Haryana, ... on 8 August, 1968

5. Three applications under Section 155 of the Companies Act were then presented by the three petitioners in this court on July 13, 1984. After reciting the facts relating to them including the serving of a notice under Section 434 of the Companies Act on the respondent-company, the three petitioners prayed that the register of the members of the respondent-company be rectified so as to remove the names of the petitioners therefrom and damages be also allowed to them against the respondent-company. These three applications, which were made in Company Petition No. 2 of 1984, were registered as Company Applications Nos. 9 (Sumitra Devi v. The Company), 10 (Jagat Ram v. The Company) and 11 (Ram Kishan v. The Company) of 1984. To each of these three applications, a reply has been filed separately by the respondent-company, which is supported by an affidavit of Balbir Singh. In Company Petition No. 2 of 1984 also, a written statement has been filed by the respondent-company. In addition, the parties have exchanged some affidavits as well. They have also filed some documents. On September 13, 1988, counsel for the parties made a statement before the court that evidence of the parties in the form of documents and affidavits is to be found on the record of Company Petition No. 2 of 1984 and that the said evidence may be taken into consideration as evidence of the parties also for purposes of the disposal of the three company applications. Counsel were heard on various dates before orders were reserved in the case on October 5, 1988.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 14 - Full Document
1   2 Next