cites: 49279220

Fcs Software Solutions Ltd vs La Medical Devices Ltd. & Ors on 9 July, 2008

29. The next judgment relied by learned counsel for the petitioner in FCS Software Solutions Ltd Vs. LA Medical Devices Limited & others reported in (2008) 10SCC 440 ; where the Apex Court in paras 34 and 35 laid down :-

Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 41 - C K Thakker - Full Document

The Bengal Immunity Company Limited vs The State Of Bihar And Others on 4 December, 1954

28. In S.J.S. Business Enterprises (P.) Ltd Vs. State of Bihar & others ; the Court took the view that period of notice given in the second advertisement i.e. only three days were inadequate. No such facts have either been pleaded or placed in the present case that period of notice was inadequate.

Supreme Court of India Cites 134 - Cited by 1107 - Full Document

Lica (P.) Ltd. (No. 1) vs Official Liquidator And Anr. on 4 January, 1993

The Court in this connection, relied upon earlier two decisions in LICA (P) Ltd. (1) vs. Official Liquidator and LICA (P) Ltd (2) v. Official Liquidator.

Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 37 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

Desh Bandhu Gupta vs N.L.Anand & Rajinder Singh on 17 September, 1993

23. There cannot be dispute to the proposition as laid down in the above case that estimate of the value of the property is a material fact to enable the purchaser to know its value.

Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 181 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

Lakshmanasami Gounder vs C.I.T. Selvamani And Ors on 1 November, 1991

The proposition which has been laid down in the aforesaid case that there has to be publication of date and place. There cannot be dispute to the said proposition.

Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 27 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

Rajbir Singh Dalal vs Chaudhari Devi Lal University & Anr on 6 August, 2008

in his judgment in Civil Appeal No. 4908/2008 (Dr. Rajbir Singh Dalal vs. Chaudhary Devi Lal University), Sirsa & Anr pronounced on 6.8.2008), a decision of a Court cannot be treated as Euclid's formula and read and understood mechanically. A decision must be considered on the facts of that particular case."

Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 252 - M Katju - Full Document

Union Bank Of India vs Official Liquidator H.C. Of Calcutta ... on 26 April, 2000

(vii) Union Bank of India Vs. Official Liquidator H.C. Of Calcutta & others reported in (2000) 5 SCC 274 Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply & Transport Undertaking & another Vs. Laqshya Media Private Limited & others reported in (2010) 1SCC 620

Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 36 - Full Document

Allahabad Bank Etc. Etc vs Bengal Paper Mills Co. Ltd. And Others on 20 April, 1999

(viii) Allahabad Bank & others Vs. Bengal Paper Mills Co. Ltd. & others reported in (1999) 4 SCC 383 ;

Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 35 - Full Document

Vithalbhai Pvt. Ltd vs Union Bank Of India on 11 March, 2005

"Para 34. In Divya Manufacturing Co. (P.) Ltd. v. Union Bank of India this Court held that even a confirmed sale can be set aside. IN that case, the highest bid by a party was accepted by the Court and the sale was confirmed, but before possession was delivered to the auction-purchaser and the execution of the sale deed, other parties offered much higher price. The High Court required the subsequent bidders to deposit an amount of 25% which was done. Considering the facts in their entirety, the High Court set aside the confirmation of past highest bid. The said action was challenged in this Court. This Court held that in an appropriate case, even confirmed sale can be set aside.

Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 96 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

Divya Manufacturing Co.,Tirupati Wool ... vs Union Bank Of India , The Official ... on 11 July, 2000

Para 27 " On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents relief upon a decision of this Court in Divya Manufacturing Company (P) Ltd. Etc Vs. Union Bank of India & Ors etc (2000) 6 SCC 69. We have carefully perused the above decision and we find that it is clearly distinguishable."

Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 70 - Full Document

Search Results Page

Refine Search

Search Results