Co V Union - Judgment Search Results
Excell Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. V. Union of India and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-1996
Reported in: 1996(3)BomCR447; (1996)98BOMLR257; 1996(85)ELT225(Bom)
No. 4 of 1968 was before the Supreme Court in the case of Ahura Chemical Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India 1982 ECR 625D (SC) : ECR C 649 SC : 1981 ELT 613 (S.C.). The appellant … A.V. Savant, J. 1. The 1st petitioner is a company manufacturing products known as 'INDOSTAT SF52' and 'INDOSTAT SF' which, the petitioners claim, are classifiable under Tariff Item
Crompton Greaves Ltd. Vs. V. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-06-1996
Reported in: 1996(86)ELT205(Bom)
ORDERA.V. Savant, J. 1. Heard both the learned Counsel. 2. The petitioners - Crompton Greaves Ltd. - are a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. They
Krishna Swami Vs. Union of India and Anotherwithraj Kanwar V. Union of ...
Court: Supreme Court of India
Decided on: Aug-27-1992
Reported in: AIR1993SC1407; JT1992(5)SC92; 1992(1)SCALE484; (1992)4SCC605; [1992]Supp1SCR53
suffice to say that both these petitions are a sequel to the decision in Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability v. Union of India and Ors. : AIR1992SC320 - and were filed prior to Writ Petition No. 514 of 1992-Mrs. … ORDERJ.S. Verma, J.1. Both these writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment since they involve for decision substantially the
18-section briefs on any result in this list
M/S. Binani Bros. (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India and ors. M/S. Pragdas Ma ...
Court: Supreme Court of India
Decided on: Dec-11-1973
Reported in: (1974)3CTR(SC)18
applicable to the petitioner in terms of contract. In 1966, this Court held in K. G. Khosla & Co. v. Deputy Commr. of Commercial Taxes, hereinafter referred to as the Khosla to as the Khosla case, that the … metals for various countries and also from within the country for fulfilling its contracts with the Government of India through the DGS&D.; The import of non-ferrous metals was under Open General Licence till June 30, 1957. Thereafter,
Hitech (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and ors. Tico Machines (P) ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-27-1996
Reported in: (1997)143CTR(AP)305
we may add that in Srikakollu Subba Rao & Co. vs . Union of India : [1988]173ITR708(AP) a Division Bench of this Court upheld the … are urged in these writ petitions, so they are heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment. For appreciating the facts which give rise to the questions referred to hereunder it will be enough … 1992 which are representative of the facts in the other writ petitions.2. The petitioners are challenging the constitutional validity of s. 43B and s. 36(1)(va) of the IT Act, 1961, in so far as they provide for
Abdul Sattar Vs. Union of India and ors. (Also Chatisgarh Bidi Leaves ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-13-1996
Reported in: (1996)135CTR(MP)352
convenient disposal of all the aforesaid writ petitions, the facts given in Writ Petition No. 1059/1996, Abdul Sattar vs. Union of India & Ors. are taken into consideration.3. The petitioner by this petition has prayed for issuance … A. K. MATHUR, C.J. :All the aforesaid writ petitions involve common question of law; therefore, they are disposed of by this common order.2. For convenient disposal of all the
Raj Kumar and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors. (Dina Nath and ors. V. ...
Court: Punjab and Haryana
Decided on: Dec-02-1999
Reported in: [2000]242ITR584(P& H)
counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the decision of the Patna High Court in Santosh Verma v. Union of India : [1991]189ITR549(Patna) in this behalf. It would be apt to notice the relevant passage of this … will dispose of two writ petitions No. 14173 of 1998 and 742 of 1999 involving identical facts and common questions of law. In the CWP 14173 of 1999 there are two petitioners, namely, Raj Kumar and Vimal
Mr. Jalil Ahmed Ansari and anr. Vs. the Development Commissioner and o ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-30-2001
Reported in: 2001IVAD(Delhi)838; 91(2001)DLT747; 2001(59)DRJ9
ORDERVijender Jain, J.1. The petitioners have challenged the election to the Carpet Export Promotion Council on the ground that the notification issued by respondent-Carpet Export Promotion Council notifying the schedule of election, date … issued by respondent-Carpet Export Promotion Council notifying the schedule of election, date of issue of the list of valid nominations and issue of postal ballot papers were on 1.12.2000 and last date of the receipt of the … of the matters above, decision of the Development Commissioner (Handicrafts), Govt. of India, Ministry of Textiles, shall be final and binding.4. She further contended that
Jayamal Jayantilal Thakore Vs. Chief Commissioner of Income-tax and or ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-18-1997
Reported in: (1998)144CTR(Guj)384
upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Mohammed Anis vs . Union of India , it was contended that since the power of the … ABICHANDANI, J. :In these two writ petitions which were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment, the petitioners have sought a direction on the IT authorities to enquire into and investigate the sources … that the respondent No. 4 Mr. Shankarsinh Waghela earlier belonged to the Bharatiya Janata Party and with a view to overthrow the elected council of ministers, he had revolted 'with muscle and money power .....' and misusing
Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd. Vs. Appropriate Authority and ors. (Also P. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1997
Reported in: (1997)140CTR(Mad)346
TAX Compulsory purchase of immovable property by Central Government-- - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Article 141; [A.P. Shah, C.J., F.M. Ibrahim Kaliffulla &V. Ramasubramanian, JJ] Reference … case, order passed under section 269UD was valid as petitioners have failed to rebute presumption arose as a consequence that undervaluation was with intent to evade the payment of tax property payable on market value.Held:There is no … UNDER S. 269UD--Petitioners failed to rebute presumption.Ratio:In the circumstances of the case, order passed under section 269UD was valid as petitioners have failed to rebute presumption arose as a consequence that undervaluation was with intent to evade
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »
Hover bars for counts · drag or use +/− to zoom · click a bar to filter by year
AI Brief (18 sections) + Semantic Search - 7 days free