You may also like...
-
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU W.P.(MD) No.19811 of 2013 and M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2013 K.K.C.Balaganesan /vs./ 1.The Managing Director, Tamil nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited, Chennai. 24.The reason I come to this conclusion is clearly elucidated in the Preamble of the Act, which postulates that the democracy requires an informed citizenries and the Act was only to provide for furnishing of certain information to the citizen,
by Sekar Reporter · Published February 5, 2023
-
-
[18/09, 11:59] Vinothpandian: 2016 (2) DRTC 128 : state bank of india vs Veetee fine foods ltd : When bank or parties seek stamp of approval of compromise or settlement , then tribunal would be competent to examine said settlement or compromise in terms of sec 19 ( 20- A ) of RDDBFI act[18/09, 11:59] Vinothpandian: 2015 ( 1) DRTC 544 : shanti jaiswal vs state bank of india : For settlement between parties , DRT cannot accept any amount less than certificated amount and if the one time settlement was not in terms of scheme of RBI[18/09, 11:59] Vinothpandian: 2020 ( 5) CTC 504 : central board of excise and customs vs KG denim ltd ; No power conferred for purpose of passing policy circulars in question , such circulars invalid when they are in direct conflict with clear statutory provisions of law[18/09, 11:59] Vinothpandian: 2020 (5) 601 : Ravi Raman vs Arul visvanathan : order 16 rule 1 ( iii) : witness whose name is not reflected in list of witnesses can still be summoned on showing sufficient cause for omission
by Sekar Reporter · Published September 18, 2024