1986 2 Scc23723 - Judgment Search Results
Home > Cases Phrase: 1986 2 scc23723 Court: mumbai Year: 1992 Page 1 of about 300 results (0.269 seconds)Mohanlal Jatia Vs. the Competent Authority Under the Smugglers and For ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-05-1992
Reported in: (1992)94BOMLR216; 1993CriLJ1477
by the supreme court by its order dated 19 12 1986 thereafter the petitioner was served with a notice under section was a person covered by the provisions of section 2 2 c of the safema 5 this notice was challenged by
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTDubon Project Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-28-1992
Reported in: [1993]200ITR577(Bom)
the petitioners under cover of the letter dated december 1 1986 by which the petitioners application under section 80 o for under either of sections 124 a 153 a 153 b 292 293 295a of i p c
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTCentral Bank of India Vs. Elmot Engineering Co. Pvt. Ltd. and Others. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-26-1992
Reported in: 1992(3)BomCR309; [1994]81CompCas10(Bom); 1993(1)MhLj771
to continue to prosecute the original suit no 7 of 1986 and original suit no 507 of 1989 filed in the petition no 645 of 1988 by an order dated june 23 1990 respondent no 1 was ordered to be wound up
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTA. Vs. B.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-21-1992
Reported in: I(1994)DMC238
not respond thereafter the marriage was solemnised on 19th january 1986 after the marriage the petitioner tried to nave sexual relationship ordertipnis j 1 this is a reference under section 20 of the indian divorce act 1869 for confirmation of the
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTTata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-18-1992
Reported in: 1993(64)ELT171(Bom); (1995)IIILLJ603bBom
of central excise served show cause notice dated february 7 1986 upon the petitioners to explain why short payment of duty the petitioners and price lists were approved on that basis 2 the superintendent of central excise served show cause notice dated
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTS.M. Renu Vs. Proprietor, Mahajan Silk Mills and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-24-1992
Reported in: [1992(65)FLR485]; (1993)ILLJ319Bom
of the 1st respondent by its judgment dated january 24 1986 the petitioner therefore invoked the supervisory writ jurisdiction of this invoked the supervisory writ jurisdiction of this court under article 227 of the constitution by filing the present writ petition 3
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTCommissioner of Income-tax Vs. Jaya Hind Industries (P.) Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-19-1992
Reported in: (1992)94BOMLR627; [1993]201ITR934(Bom)
as one legal proceeding see umaji keshao meshram v radhikabai 1986 1scr731 and garikapati veeraya v n subbiah choudhry 1957 1scr488 b p saraf j 1 by this reference under section 256 1 of the income tax act 1961 made at the
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTVasant Ladoo Naik Vs. Kohinoor Mills No. 1 and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-10-1992
Reported in: [1992(65)FLR452]; (1993)ILLJ336Bom
court by which appeal of the workman no 106 of 1986 was partly allowed granting 20 of the backwages whereas the backwages although it granted reinstatement to the workman from may 29 1974 backwages were refused on the ground that the acquittal
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTPukhraj Chunilal Bafna Vs. J. Ram, Tax Recovery Officer and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-28-1992
Reported in: (1992)108CTR(Bom)378
after he retired from the firm 2 on 19th december 1986 the petitioner received these notices of demand as a defaulter before the tribunal 5 in a notice of motion no 2395 of 1988 for interim reliefs in this writ petition the
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTDavy Powergas India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes and an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-25-1992
Reported in: [1994]207ITR164(Bom)
the application relates to the assessment years 1984 85 to 1986 87 only while the entire payment was received in the central board of direct taxes by its letter dated february 24 1986 has declined to approve the agreement under section 80
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT