| First | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | Next | Last |
| Documents Found: 299 |
| Title |
Forum |
Year |
Maytas Properties Ltd. vs Krishna Kilaru and Anr.
[LexDoc Id : 470674]
|
HC (Andhra Pradesh) |
2013 |
Vijaykumar vs Business India Builders and Developers Ltd.
[LexDoc Id : 458361]
|
HC (Kerala) |
2013 |
Renuka Datla vs Biological E Ltd. and Ors.
[LexDoc Id : 474293]
|
CLB |
2013 |
Shree Renuka Energy Ltd., In re
[LexDoc Id : 473872]
|
HC (Karnataka) |
2013 |
Bank of New York Mellon vs Zenith Infotech Ltd.
[LexDoc Id : 460451]
|
HC (Bombay) |
2013 |
Erach Boman Khavar vs Tukaram Shridhar Bhat and Anr.
Refusal to grant leave: Application not dealt with on merits-Phrase ‘liberty to mention’ not conferring jurisdiction on high court to dwell upon a different issue in a disposed of case, Order refusing to grant judge’s summons and giving liberty to applicant to apply if necessary not operating as res judicata-The single judge had refused to grant leave to the appellant to institute a suit for eviction against the respondent. The application was disposed of [LexDoc Id : 454110]
|
SC |
2013 |
Chatterjee Petrochem Co. vs Haldia Petrochemicals Ltd.
[LexDoc Id : 459374]
|
SC |
2013 |
HB Stockholding Ltd. vs DCM Shriram Industries Ltd. and Ors.
[LexDoc Id : 458838]
|
CLB |
2013 |
Chatterjee Petrochem Co. and Anr. vs Haldia Petrochemicals Ltd. and Ors.
[LexDoc Id : 453906]
|
SC |
2013 |
Saluja Alloy Castings (P) Ltd. vs ROC
Name struck off in ex parte proceedings-Petition allowed-In a petition under s.560(6) of the Companies Act 1956 read with rule 92 of the Companies (Court) Rules 1959 seeking direction to ROC to restore the n [LexDoc Id : 458824]
|
HC (Madhya Pradesh) |
2013 |
Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. vs Rajeev Daga and Anr.
Tenancy a non-transferable object and extendible to others either by explicit contract or by clear statute-Voluntary act of tenant making its own position vulnerable having no bearing on landlord-Be it assignment, be it transfer, be it subletting, the tenancy was a non-transferable object that could only extend to others either by an explicit c [LexDoc Id : 457648]
|
HC (Calcutta) |
2013 |
Gulbarga Airport Developers (P) Ltd. vs IL and FS Transportation Network Ltd. and Ors.
[LexDoc Id : 457803]
|
HC (Andhra Pradesh) |
2013 |
India Steamship Ltd., In re
Petition seeking confirmation of reduction of share capital-Proposed scheme accepted-The share capital of petitioner had been increased to enable the hiving off and transfer of shipping business of another company to the petitioner pur [LexDoc Id : 459377]
|
HC (Rajasthan) |
2013 |
Xerox India Ltd. @ Xerox Modi Corpn. Ltd. vs State of Karnataka
[LexDoc Id : 455584]
|
HC (Karnataka) |
2013 |
Quick Flight Ltd., In re
[LexDoc Id : 473873]
|
HC (Gujarat) |
2013 |
SILCAL Workers Union (CITU) vs SILCAL Mettalurgic Ltd. and Anr.
Industrial dispute: Filing of claim petitions after passing of winding up order-Raising of bogey of public interest not permissible after passing of winding up order, Workers’ union directed to file claim petitions before OL-A company was wound up in November 2006. The workers’ union raised an industrial dispute before the industrial tribunal and an award was passed in the [LexDoc Id : 457247]
|
HC (Madras) |
2013 |
Etisalat Mauritius Ltd. vs Etisalat DB Telecom (P) Ltd. and Ors.
[LexDoc Id : 455827]
|
HC (Bombay) |
2013 |
Deutsche Bank AG vs Prithvi Information Solutions Ltd.
Dismissal of winding up petition: Authority to file petition not conferred upon general power of attorney-Proceedings instituted through general power of attorney not completely vitiated on account of defect in form of general power of attorney, Defect certainly curable-The appellant had extended credit facility in favour of the respondent. Alleging that the respondent committed default in repayment of the amount, the [LexDoc Id : 457649]
|
HC (Andhra Pradesh) |
2013 |
M.R.A. Associates India (P) Ltd. vs Seven Seas Hospitality (P) Ltd.
Winding up: Disputed debt-Making of winding up order without precise quantification of debt if fact that respondent owing the creditor a debt not in doubt-Where there was no doubt that the respondent owed the creditor a debt entitling him to a winding up order, but the exact amount of the debt was disput [LexDoc Id : 454056]
|
HC (Delhi) |
2013 |
M.S.D. Chandrasekar Raja vs Jayabharath Textiles (P) Ltd. and Anr.
[LexDoc Id : 455829]
|
HC (Chennai) |
2013 |
Madhuri S Pittin and Ors. vs SEBI
[LexDoc Id : 470672]
|
SAT (Mumbai) |
2013 |
Madhuri S. Pitti, Pitti Electrical Equipment (P) Ltd. and Akshay S. Pitti vs SEBI
[LexDoc Id : 454038]
|
SAT (Mumbai) |
2013 |
S.R. Nair vs Alltime Power Technologies (P) Ltd. and Ors.
[LexDoc Id : 457771]
|
CLB |
2013 |
S.H. Associates and I.F.C.I. Ltd. vs Rajasthan Financial Corpn. Ltd. and Ors.
Recovery of dues-Exclusive jurisdiction of DRT to adjudicate liability and execute recovery certificate for recovery of amount-The adjudication of liability and recovery of amount by execution of recovery certificate were respectively within the exclusive jurisdiction of debts [LexDoc Id : 454170]
|
HC (Delhi) |
2013 |
Vishwanath Namdeo Patil and Ors. vs OL of Swadeshi Mills and Ors.
Termination of employment-Basic rule to provide hearing before termination-It was a basic and fundamental rule that if the services of anyone were to be terminated then he should be heard. At the time of appointment of provis [LexDoc Id : 453285]
|
HC (Bombay) |
2013 |
| |
| First | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | Next | Last |
| |
