4 A - Judgment Search Results

Virudambal and 4 Others Vs. Kandasamy and 4 Others

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2000(2)CTC263; (2000)IIMLJ287

1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), they preferred the present revision before this court. Petitioners 2 to 4 herein are daughters of the first petitioner. 5th petitioner is the grand-daughter of the first petitioner. They filed

R.Narayanan and 4 others Vs Tmt. Supriya Sahu I.A.S., and 4 others

Court: Chennai

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 23-01-2026CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYAN1. R.Narayanan2. C.Lakshimi3. E.Uma4. G.Arul5. Thanigachalam ..Petitioner(s) Vs1. Supriya Sahu I.A.S., The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Health and Welfare Department, Fort...

D.P.Anto and 4 Others Vs. Fr.Rajesh MartIn and 4 Others

Court: Kerala

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI MONDAY, THE13H DAY OF JANUARY201423RD POUSHA, 1935 WP(C).No. 34496 of 2010 (J) ---------------------------- PETITIONERS: ------------ 1. D.P.ANTO, SON OF DOMINIC, KIDARAPOIKA...

S. Purushotham and 4 ors. Vs. the State of A.P. Rep. by Its Chief Secr ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2006(5)ALD642

of the Constitution of India, the Andhra Pradesh Secretariat Service Rules were made and notified in G.O.Ms. No. 445, General Administration (Services-B) dated 29.10.1998 (hereinafter referred to as the '1998 Rules'). Rule 2 thereof relates to the

Venkata Ramana Agencies, Rep. by Its Mg. Partner K.V. Sudhakar Rao and ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2003(2)ALD636; 2002(6)ALT100

the amounts were in fact sent by way of drafts to the companies, question of respondents 1,2 and 4 enriching themselves by misappropriating amount belonging to the revision petitioners does not arise.5. There can be no dispute

Raghavjibhai Narsinhbhai Patel and 4 Ors. Vs. Amroli Anjuman Fund Thr' ...

Court: Gujarat

Reported in: AIR2006Guj78

land. The vendor-Trust also indicated that they had agreed to sell the land for the price of Rs. 42,11,111/- to respondent No. 2 Bochasanvasi Shri Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha (hereinafter referred to as the Purchaser- Trust) a

Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (1983)32CTR(Bom)306; [1984]145ITR793(Bom); [1983]12TAXMAN178(Bom)

and Rs. 1,50,119 respectively as being in excess of 1/5th of the total expenditure referred to in s. 40(c)(iii) of the Act. That view was confirmed by the AAC, in appeal filed by the assessee. Its contention

Commissioner of Welath-tax, Gujarat-iv Vs. H.H. Maharaja F.P. Gaekwad

Court: Gujarat

Reported in: (1982)28CTR(Guj)158; [1983]144ITR304(Guj)

our judgment in CIT v. Kartikey V. Sarabhai (I. T. R. No. 34 of 1980, decided on May 4, 1981 : [1981]131ITR42(Guj) ]. The assessee who was a partner in the firm of M/s. Gaekwad & Co.,

Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat-iv, Ahmedabad Vs. Trinity Traders

Court: Gujarat

Reported in: [1987]163ITR381(Guj)

: 'Whether the Tribunal was right in law and on facts, in holding that the payments of Rs. 48,939 made to M/s. Manubhai & Co. of Ahmedabad are not covered by rule 6DD(j)(i) and (ii) of the

Col. Ivs Gahlot Vs. Union of India .

Court: Supreme Court of India

Ph.D. degree does not come under the purview of Medical Council of India, it is submitted that the 4 denial of marks to the appellant was illegal. He further submits that Post Graduate training obtained from a