1986 2 Scc23723 - Judgment Search Results
Home > Cases Phrase: 1986 2 scc23723 Court: mumbai Page 1 of about 300 results (0.17 seconds)M/s. Bharti Airtel Ltd. Vs. The Commissioner of Central Excise
Court : Mumbai
the benefit of exemption under a notification no 217 of 1986 the revenue declined to grant benefit of exemption the tribunal falling within the definition of input as defined under rule 2 k of the credit rules b the decision of the
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTV. Venkatesh Vs. Union of India and Others
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1987)89BOMLR325; (1988)ILLJ87Bom; 1987MhLJ738
c 314 explained r p f commr v ratna enterprises 1986 2 l l j 137 karnataka ramesh metal works v but the central government may after giving not less than 2 months notice of its intention to do so by notification
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTChintan Upadhyay Vs. Hema Upadhyay and Another
Court : Mumbai
in 1985 4 s c c 289 a i r 1986 s c 967 dr ramesh prabhu vs prabhakar kashinath kunte article 51a e article 227 indian penal code section 292 2 a criminal procedure code section 482 indecent representation of
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTRamchandra Genu Thorat (Deceased) and Another Vs. the State of Maharas ...
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1998(1)ALLMR685; 1998(2)BomCR601; 1998(2)MhLj69
of the land acquisition act sub section 2 of section 29 of the limitation act cannot be applied to the said
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTM/S. Gulraj Engineering Construction Co. Vs. Hotel Corporation of Indi ...
Court : Mumbai
recorded that the final bill was submitted on 16 april 2001 and the due date of payment as per the contract
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTAssistant Collector of Customs Vs. Leidomann Heinrich
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1991(53)ELT224(Bom)
yet to the applicant under the proviso to sec 167 2 and as such he is also not released on bail
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTShri Sadguru R. Kolmule Vs. Dy. Collector of North Goa Division
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1996(2)BomCR711; (1996)98BOMLR965
in refusing to consider the said document at exh a 2 4 another contention raised by the counsel for the appellant
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTBharat Biotech International Ltd. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Gr.Mumb ...
Court : Mumbai
administration that the tenderer s annual sale is more than 20 of the quantity of total requirement specified in the tender
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTMahesh Balasaheb Thakoor Age 24 Years, Vs. the State of Maharashtra, a ...
Court : Mumbai
4 5 and 7 therein which read as under 13 2 the power of the court is not circumscribed by any
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTAutomatic Electric Ltd. Vs. Sharadchandra Vinayak Tipnis
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1996(1)BomCR542; (1995)97BOMLR665
is the owner of plot no 4 revenue survey no 274 situated within lonavla municipal council area there is a bungalow
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT