Co V A G - Judgment Search Results

Vijayan V G vs Gopalakrishnan V G

Court: Kerala

OP(C) NO. 1862 OF 2022 IN THE MATTER OF OS NO.1011/2021 ON THE FILES OF MUNSIFF COURT,CHAVAKKAD PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF: VIJAYAN V G, AGED 72 YEARS, VALAPPAD VILLAGE, BY ADVS. PRAISHEEL PRAKASAM P.A.GIREESH KUMAR RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS: 1 GOPALAKRISHNAN V G … IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMPRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS MONDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 18TH ASWINA,

State of Tamilnadu (by Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax) Vs. V. ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: [1993]201ITR412(Mad)

leasing out its land of 53 acres to its sister concern, V. G. P. Golden Beach Resort Ltd., for the latter carrying on the business … the Revenue under section 54 of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955, and they are against the common order dated January 10, 1992, in the corresponding five appeals by the assessee-respondent before the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate … said order allowed all the said appeals. 2. Only one common question is involved in all the cases, viz., whether the income assessed to tax by the original assessing authority and confirmed by the first appellate authority

V G Jagdishan Vs. M/s. Indfos Industries Private Limited

Court: Supreme Court of India

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.OF2022(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.12511 OF2016 V G Jagdishan ..Appellant

V.V.G. Reddy Vs. Apsrtc, Nizamabad Region and anr.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: AIR2009SC1654; JT2009(2)SC36; (2009)IILLJ489SC; 2009(1)SCALE577; (2009)2SCC668; 2009(3)SLJ316(SC); 2009(2)LC621(SC):2009AIRSCW1176:2009(2)LHSC1346

single judge of the High Court, directing:The controversy in this writ petition is no more res integra, in view of the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in APSRTC, Khammam Region and Anr. v. P. … is before us questioning the judgment and order dated 21.9.2007 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Writ Appeal No. 658 of 2007 and others whereby and … S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. Appellant is before us questioning the judgment and order dated 21.9.2007 passed

V.G. Saraf and Sons Vs. H. Ranjith and anr.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: 2009(3)BomCR592; 2009CriLJ2788; JT2009(4)SC107; 2009(3)SCALE784; (2009)5SCC141:2009AIRSCW2261:2009(4)LHSC2277

Matched in: Advocate Romy Chacko, Adv P.V. Dinesh, ; T.T.K. Deepak, Advs. and ;T.T.K. Deepak & Co.

V.G. Shankaranarayana Bhat Vs. Girija (D) by Lrs. and anr.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: AIR2009SC2515; JT2009(8)SC212

V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. A judgment passed by the Karnataka High Court in Land Reforms Review Petition, dismissing the same, confirming the order passed by the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, … The said Revision was filed by the present appellants as the legal representatives of the original landlord.2. One Govinda Bhat owned agricultural lands, which were leased in favour of one Kariyappa Gowda in 50s. Kariyappa Gowda cultivated

A.v.g.v. Ramu Vs. A.s.r. Bharathi

Court: Supreme Court of India

NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.22913 OF2017(ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) No.31476/2016) A.V.G.V. Ramu ...Appellant(s) VERSUS

V.G. George Vs. Indian Rare Earths Ltd. and anr.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: AIR1999SC1409; 1999(2)ARBLR47(SC); (1999)3CALLT25(SC); JT1999(2)SC629; 1999(2)SCALE482; (1999)3SCC762; [1999]2SCR531; 1999(2)LC1133(SC)

Matched in: Advocate T.L. Vishwanatha Iyer,; Fazlin Anam and; E.M.S. Anam, Advs G.B. Pal and ; Meera Mathur, Advs. for JBD and Co.

V.G. Nigam and Others Vs. Kedar Nath Gupta and Another

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: AIR1992SC2153; 1993(1)ALT24(SC); 1992CriLJ3576; [1992(65)FLR983]; JT1992(5)SC569; 1992(2)SCALE655; (1992)4SCC697; 1992(2)LC767(SC)

only question is if the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal (MPSAT) was justified in sentencing the appellants for contempt of Court not for not complying with the order passed by it within extended time granted by the … of the Tribunal's order. We therefore imposed a fine of Rs. 500/- on him. Respondent No. 4 by virtue of illegal promotions in his favour continuing on the chair had been responsible for the outcome of contempt … for not complying with the order passed by it within extended time granted by the tribunal itself but for failure to carry out its directions

A.V.G.P. Chettiar and Sons and ors. Vs. T. Palanisamy Gounder

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: AIR2002SC2171; 2002(4)ALD53(SC); JT2002(4)SC572; (2002)3MLJ24(SC); 2002(4)SCALE479; (2002)5SCC337

that he was otherwise entitled to claim as landlord of the suit premises. As held in Trojan & Co. v. RM N.M. Nagappa Chettiar, : [1953]4SCR789 'It is well settled that the decision of a case cannot be … to as 'the Act'). 2. The appellants have assailed the decision of the High Court primarily on three grounds: i) that the suit premises belongs to a religious charitable Trust and, therefore, theprovisions of the Act were