Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (0.53 seconds)Section 4 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
The Companies Act, 1956
M.C.D vs Shashnak Steel Industries (P) Ltd on 17 November, 2008
Amrit Pal Ahuja and ors Vs. MTNL 194(2012) DLT 332
MCD Vs. Shashank Steel Industries (P) Ltd 100(2002) DLT 66
Raghubir Saran Charitable Trust Vs. Puma Sports India Pvt. Ltd.
191 (2012) DLT 183.
Raghubir Saran Charitable Trust vs Puma Sports India Pvt.Ltd on 15 May, 2013
Amrit Pal Ahuja and ors Vs. MTNL 194(2012) DLT 332
MCD Vs. Shashank Steel Industries (P) Ltd 100(2002) DLT 66
Raghubir Saran Charitable Trust Vs. Puma Sports India Pvt. Ltd.
191 (2012) DLT 183.
Smt. Mayawanti vs Smt. Kaushalya Devi on 6 April, 1990
19. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff states that the judgment of
Mayawanti (supra) was not applicable since the question involved
therein was that of specific performance of a contract in respect of
immovable property where the parties had to be on consensus ad idem.
State Of Maharashtra vs Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak & Anr on 28 July, 1982
21. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff argues that the examination of
the witnessPW1 has to be read in its entirety and going through the
same, PW1's stand is consistent and coherent on the fact that it was
defendant which was liable to pay the tax prior to 15.01.1998. On the
other hand, Ld. Counsel for the defendant has placed reliance upon the
judgment of State of Maharashtra Vs. Ram Dass Shrinivas Nayak
(1982) 2 SCC 463 to contend that the plaintiff could not be allowed to
withdraw his admission, once recorded during evidence. After having
heard submissions of parties, I find that the application for correction of
suggestion in testimony of PW1 dated 17.12.2012 was filed after a
prolonged delay of more than one year and seven months. The reason for
such delay has remained inexplicable. Secondly, even if the said
admission of PW1 is eschewed from record, there is ample evidence to
hold that it was not the liability of the defendant to pay any tax prior to
the date of registration of plaintiff under the Act.
Nirma Industries Ltd. & Anr vs Securities & Exchange Board Of India on 9 May, 2013
In Nirma Industries Ltd. and Anr Vs.
Securities and Exchange Board of India (2013) 8 SCC 20 Hon'ble
Apex Court held as :
Kavalappara Kottarathil Kochuni And ... vs The State Of Madras And Others on 4 May, 1960
"...45. Earlier also a Constitution Bench of this
Court in Kavalappara Kottarathil Kochuni vs. State
of Madras[10] construed the principle of ejusdem
generis wherein it was observed as follows : " ........
The rule is that when general words follow
particular and specific words of the same nature, the
general words must be confined to the things of the
same kind as those specified. But it is clearly laid
down by decided cases that the specific words must
form a distinct genus or category. It is not an
inviolable rule of law, but is only permissible
inference in the absence of an indication to the
contrary."
Amar Chandra Chakraborty vs Collector Of Excise, Government Of ... on 3 May, 1972
46. Again this Court in another Constitution Bench
decision in the case of Amar Chandra Chakraborty
Vs. Collector of Excise[11] observed as follows :