Come Forward - Judgment Search Results

Forward Construction Co. and ors. Vs. Prabhat Mandal (Regd.), Andheri ...

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: AIR1986SC391; (1986)88BOMLR128; 1985(2)SCALE1123; (1986)1SCC100A; [1985]Supp3SCR766; 1986(1)LC167(SC)

of the Bombay Municipal Corporation and the proposal would soon come up before the Corporation for discussion and on that ground quarters. The possession of the plot was handed over to Forward Construction Company for the purpose of putting up the construction

Raghu Forwarding Agency and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Guwahati

weigh-bridge may be. In a given case if the Court comes to the conclusion on the basis of the material before decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Kamrup Forwarding Agency v. Union of India, (1997) 2 Gauhati LT 106,

Forwarding P. Ltd. and Another Vs. Trustees, Port of Vizagapatnam, and ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [1987]61CompCas513(Bom)

That the arrest by them must be deemed to have come to an end by efflux of time. In any event, the Port Authorities from selling the property. Thereafter, M/s. Vaz Forwarding Co. Pvt. Ltd., purporting to act on the basis of

Trinity Forwarders Vs. Commissner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu

Reported in: (2002)(140)ELT203Tri(Chennai)

Sr. S. Krishnanadh, Proprietor and authorised signatory of M/s. Trinity Forwarders (Madras) in his statement recorded by SUB, Custom House, Chennai

Pawan Cargo Forwarders Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT

Reported in: (1999)(188)ELT404Tri(Bang.)

as such Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot come into reckoning. He also submits that spares/components for computers do Shri Vinay Tebriwal is the proprietor of M/s. Pawan Cargo Forwarders. The allegation levelled against him is that he has been

Fracht Forwarders Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1990)(30)LC376Tri(Delhi)

had obtained the required certificate from the authorities concerned and forwarded the same to the exporters who had in turn produced

Prime Forwarders and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(105)ECC478

Entry in respect of them through their CHA, viz. M/s.Prime Forwarders, Gandhidham, on the basis of the documents furnished by Shri

Kishan Freight Forwarders Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

be granted extension of their leases. A new policy had come into place by means of Circular No. 3 of 2010 Passenger Train No. 2497 was granted. However, M/s. Kishan Freight Forwarders was not granted extension in respect of the lease of

Narendra Forwarders P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2000)(70)ECC574

his favour. The authority of the Commissioner in Sub-regulation (7) comes into play only after the copy of the enquiry report enquire into the grounds of the case against M/s. Narendra Forwarders Pvt. Ltd. CHA No. 11/544 and submit his report of

Lucky Forwarding Agency Vs. Smt. Binder Devi and ors.

Court: Madhya Pradesh

Reported in: AIR2003MP261

In view of this factual backdrop the appellate forum has come to hold that appellant No. 1 therein was not acting the application it has been clearly stated that M/s. Lucky Forwarding Agency was making the vehicles available on commission basis and