Certainly - Judgment Search Results

Northern Pipeline Vs. Marathon Pipe Line

Court: US Supreme Court

the very fact of extreme specialization may be enough and certainly has been enough in the past footnote 2 18 to

Ferc Vs. Mississippi

Court: US Supreme Court

so id at 443 u s 695 footnote 26 and certainly testa v katt supra by declaring that the policy of

i.T.C. Ltd. Vs. George Joseph Fernandez and anr.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1982Cal440

..... to arbitration equitable consideration such as the possibility of claim being barred by limitation might certainly weigh with the court in exercising the discretion grant of stay was entirely a ..... the supreme court further observed that if the legislature in a special statute prescribed a certain period of limitation for filing a particular application thereunder and provided in clear terms that .....

Pramod Kumar Mittal Vs. Andhra Steel Corporation Ltd. and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: [1985]58CompCas772(Cal)

summary proceeding under section 155 of the act it was certainly open to the court to direct the appellant to produce

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Stanton and Stavely (Overseas) Ltd.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1983)36CTR(Cal)224,[1984]146ITR405(Cal)

sabyasachi mukharji j 1 in this reference under section 256 1 of the i t act 1961 the following question...

island Trees Sch. Dist. Vs. Pico by Pico

Court: US Supreme Court

no question of an infringement of the rule of four certainly any intimation from that case that this court should not

National Textile Workers' Union and Ors. Vs. P.R. Ramakrishnan and Ors ...

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: AIR1983SC75; [1983]53CompCas184(SC); (1983)1CompLJ1(SC); (1983)ILLJ45SC; (1983)IIMLJ1(SC); 1982(2)SCALE1144; (1983)1SCC228; [1983]1SCR922

order on a petition for winding up would therefore almost certainly have an adverse consequence on the workers in as much

Nilesh Construction Company and anr. Vs. Gangubai and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR1982Bom491; 1982(1)BomCR577; 1982MhLJ664

chandurkar j 1 this appeal by defendants nos 3 and 4 is is directed against the order made by kania...

Shripatrao Vinayakrao Patwardhan and ors. Vs. Sharatchandra Nilkanth P ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1982(1)BomCR619

m l pendse j 1 this second appeal is preferred by original defendants nos 3 to 7 and 11 to...

P.B. Samant and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1982(1)BomCR367

been intended to include ad hoc allotments also it would certainly have so provided more so in view of the fact