Assume - Judgment Search Results

‘X’ (Assumed Name) vs.state & Anr

Court: Delhi

not tell a lie as to the actual assailants, but there is no presumption or any basis for assuming that the statement of such a witness is always correct or without any embellishment or exaggeration." 17. In

‘X’ (Assumed Name) vs.vikash Sharma & Anr.

Court: Delhi

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON :11. h JANUARY, 2017 DECIDED ON :10. h MARCH, 2017 CRL.A.506/2014 & CRL.M.A.No.6454/2014 ..... Appellant Through : Mr.Naresh K.Daksh, Advocate. versus ........ RESPONDENTS Through...

‘X’ (Assumed Name) vs.state (Nct of Delhi) & Ors.

Court: Delhi

$~25 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.REV.P.335/2016 & CRL.M.A.No.7308/2016 DECIDED ON :10. h MARCH, 2017 ‘X’ (Assumed name) ........ Petitioner Through : Mr.Mohit Mathur, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Neeraj Chaudhari & Mr.Akshay...

X (Assumed Name) vs.state & Anr.

Court: Delhi

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON : MAY05 2017 DECIDED ON : AUGUST16 2017 + CRL.REV.P. 110/2017 & Crl.M.A.1875/17, 18X (Assumed name) ........ Petitioner Through : Mr.V.K.Garg, Sr.Advocate, with...

‘X’ (Assumed Name) vs.state of Nct Delhi

Court: Delhi

$~26 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI DECIDED ON :19. h APRIL, 2018 TR.P.(CRL.) 14/2018, CRL.M.A.Nos.45& 45‘X’ (Assumed name) ........ Petitioner Through : Ms.Naomi Chandra, Advocate. versus STATE OF NCT DELHI Through...

X (Assumed Name of the Prosecutrix) Vs. the State (N.C.T. of Delhi) an ...

Court: Delhi

$-30 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI DECIDED ON :22. d MARCH, 2013 + W.P.(CRL.) 449/2013 X (Assumed name of the prosecutrix) Through : ..... Petitioner Ms.Kiran Singh, Advocate. versus THE STATE...

Tirathdas Pokhardas Kalda Vs. Smt. Suribai Assumal Moolchandani and or ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(1)ALLMR202

rooms about 500 square feet in area was initially let out by him to two brothers by name Assumal and Lalumal for rent of Rs. 500/-per month and these brothers were running a hotel in it. In

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Assumal Veerumal

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: [1988]170ITR489(Raj)

error in the order of the Income-tax Officer as the firm stood dissolved on the death of Shri Assumal, partner, on August 11, 1975, and, therefore, two separate assessments should have been made for the two periods,

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Assumal Veerumal.

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: (1987)65CTR(Raj)301

no error in the order of the ITO as the firm stood dissolved on the death of Shri Assumal, partner on 11-9-1975 and, therefore, two separate assessments should have been made for the two periods, meaning thereby

Mohandas Vishindas Chainani Vs. Hiranand Assumal

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (1974)76BOMLR494

City Civil Court as the case may be for proving the title thereto. We see no reason for assuming that the title which is contemplated by this section is title to immovable property or in immovable property.