Sheela Barse v. Union of India

Date of Judgment 13/08/1986  Bench: BHAGWATI, P.N. (CJ) BENCH: BHAGWATI, P.N. (CJ) MISRA RANGNATH  Citation: JT 1986 136 1986 SCALE (2)230  Act: Constitution of India, 1950, Article 21-Speedy trial- Whether fundamental right of accused. Facts of the Case Sheela Barse,

SFIO vs. Rahul Modi & Anr

Criminal Appeal No. 538-539 of 2019

Section 212(3) of the 2013 Act by itself does not lay down any settled period inside which the examination report by SFIO has got to be submitted. There’s no stipulation of any settled period for completion of examination which is steady with ordinary standards beneath the common law.

Lokhandwala Kataria Construction Private Limited v. Nisus Finance and Investment Managers LLP

Citation(s) – REED 2017 SC 4386

Case Number- CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9279 OF 2017

Court – Supreme Court

Bench- N.A.

Date – July 24, 2017

Law – Article 142, Constitution of India,1950 Rule 8, I&B (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016 Rule 11, National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2016
Rule(s)/ Regulation(s) – Rule 8, I&B (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016
Rule 11, National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2016
Appellant – Lokhandwala Kataria Construction Private Limited
Respondent- Nisus Finance and Investment Managers LLP

Judge(s) – Hon’ble ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN, J. Hon’ble SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.

Kapil N. Mehta Surat Vs Shree Laxmi Motors Limited

Introduction In Kapil N. Mehta, Surat V. Shree Laxmi Motors Restricted, the organization passed a circuitous objective which was allowed by the Articles, be that as it may not envision beneath the Organization’s Demonstration at that point. A case was

Kantilal Manilal And Ors. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax

Facts The actualities giving rise to this reference are or may be abnormal and since they are bizarre the address that we ought to reply to appears to be a small nuisance. The assessees were share-holders of the Navjivan Mills

M/S. Hunsur Plywood Works Ltd vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Suhas C.Sen Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.N. Khare Gopal Jain, Adv. for Mukul Mudgal, Adv. for the appealing party J. Ramamurthy, Sr.Adv., T.C.Sharma, N.K.Agarwal, B.K.Prasad, Advs. with him, for the Respondent J U D G M E N T, The taking after Judgment of the Court was conveyed: SEN, J.

Henry v Great Northern Rly Co (1857) 1 De G & J 606

Preference Shares The foremost eminent inclination offers is that they will regularly have a privilege to a settled rate of profit, ordinarily communicated as a rate of the ostensible esteem of the offers themselves. This settled rate profit will be

Hey there!

come here often?

Login To Come In