Skip to content

Advanced Search Results

Defendent: vinod goyal · Page 1 of about 14 results (0.072 seconds)

AI Studio

AI Brief on every result

Start a 7-day free trial - 18-section briefs and case chat on any judgment in these results, plus Semantic Search on your next query.

Nov 22 2001

Anil Tibrewala Vs. Ito

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Nov-22-2001

Subject : Direct Taxation

Reported in : (2004)89TTJ(Mumbai)24

ORDERD. Manmoham, JMThis appeal filed by the assessee raises several interesting issues.2. The facts concerning the issues in dispute are briefly stated. During the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1992-93, the assessee claimed to...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Sep 05 2019

Suman Devi vs.union of India & Anr

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Sep-05-2019

Subject : Land Acquisition

Advocate for Respondent : Mr. Vivek Goyal, Mr. Ram Kishan

$~8 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(C) 10311/2015 SUMAN DEVI ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. P. C. Misra, Advocate. Versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Vivek Goyal,...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Nov 08 2011

Sh. Gian Chand Gupta and Another Vs. Mrs. Nittu and Another

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Nov-08-2011

Subject : Education

Reported in : 2011(2)HinduLR641

Vijender Singh Malik, J. These revision petitions brought under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India are directed against the order dated 1.4.2011 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Panchkula, vide which...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

18-section briefs on any result in this list

Jan 10 2006

Om Prakash Gupta Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jan-10-2006

Subject : Service

Acts : Rajasthan Municipal Service Rules, 1963 - Rules 24 and 28; Rajasthan Municipal Subordinate Service Rules, 1963 - Rule 8(4); Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 16

Reported in : RLW2006(2)Raj1304; 2006(2)WLC158

Advocate for Respondent : Vinod Goyal and; Sandeep Saxena, Advs. and; B.L. Avasthi

Ashok Parihar, J.1. Since, on similar set of facts, same reliefs have been claimed by the petitioners, the above writ petitions have been heard together and are being decided by this common order.2. Petitioners have made...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Jan 16 2004

In Re: Supreme Metprods Ltd.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jan-16-2004

Subject : Company

Acts : Companies Act, 1956 - Sections 433 and 434

Reported in : [2004]55SCL614(Raj)

Advocate for Respondent : Vinod Goyal, Adv.

ORDERS.K. Keshote, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. In this winding up petition the petitioner has prayed for issue of an order of winding up of the respondent-Company on the ground of its inability to...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Jun 24 2003

Engee Industrial Services Pvt. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Decided on : Jun-24-2003

Subject : Service Tax

1. After hearing both sides for some time on the applications for waiver of pre-deposit, we find that it is possible to hear and decide the appeals themselves at this stage. Hence after waiving the requirement...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Jun 26 2003

Vinod Goyal, Enee Industrial Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Decided on : Jun-26-2003

Subject : Land Acquisition

1. For reasons recorded below, we waive the pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 40,20,000/- confirmed against M/s. Engee Industrial Services Pvt. Ltd., and penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs imposed upon them and penalty of Rs. 5...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Jun 03 1999

Harshad P. Mehta and Others Vs. Competent Authority

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT IT

Decided on : Jun-03-1999

Subject : MRTP

Reported in : (1999)238ITR79ITAT

1. The appellants in these appeals are Harshad P. Mehta and his relatives, namely, his wife and children and the purchaser of property at serial No. (b) of the schedule, namely, Row House No. 18, at...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Nov 24 2005

Vinod Goyal Vs. Sarita Goyal

Court : Uttaranchal

Decided on : Nov-24-2005

Subject : Family

Acts : Family Courts Act, 1984 - Sections 19; ;Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 - Sections 10 and 25

Reported in : AIR2006Utr36; II(2005)DMC849

Advocate for Respondent : Geeta Parihar, Adv.

Prafullu C. Pant, J.1. These two appeals, preferred under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, are directed against order dated 22.11.2004 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Haridwar in Misc. Case No. 19...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Mar 08 1996

Haryana Financial Corporation and Hada Steel Products Ltd. (In Liquida ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Mar-08-1996

Subject : Company

Acts : Companies Act, 1956; Companies (Court) Rules, 1959

Reported in : [1997]89CompCas495(P& H)

Advocate for Respondent : A.C. Jain, Adv.

V.K. Jhanji, J. 1. This order shall dispose of two applications. One application, bearing No. C. A. No. 171 of 1995, has been filed by the Haryana Financial Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') for...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

AI Brief (18 sections) + Semantic Search - 7 days free

  • ‹ Prev
  • Last »

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial