Corporation - Judgment Search Results

Corporation of vs S.Krishnakumar

Court: Kerala

23RD PHALGUNA, 1940 RP.No.24 of 2019 IN W.A.82/2016 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN W.A.82/2016 of HIGH COURT REVIEW PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CORPORATION BUILDINGS, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 033. BY ADVS. SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON (SR.)

Corporation Vs. Union of India

Court: Kolkata

Civil Appellate Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE APO No.203 of 2013 With AP No.333 of 2007 ASHOKA TUBEWELL & ENGINEERING CORPORATION Versus UNION OF INDIA APO No.207 of 2013 With AP No.333 of 2007 UNION OF INDIA Versus M/S.ASHOKA

Corporation Vs. Union of India and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 13(1977)DLT125; 1979(4)ELT329(Del)

Matched in: Parties Corporation Vs. Union of India and anr.

K.C. Nangia Vs. Corporation and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: ILR1987Delhi258; 1987LabIC1686

of duty and failure to maintain absolute integrity. He submitted a reply to the charge-sheet. Consequently, the respondent corporation appointed one Shri P. G. Nair as Inquiry Officer, The probation period of the petitioner was extended by

Akhoy Kumar Banerjee Vs. Corporation

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1914)ILR42Cal625

money charged upon immoveable property. The land and buildings in suit lie within the jurisdiction of the Municipal Corporation of Calcutta and were originally owned by Saudamini Dasi. On the 11th September 1897, she executed a mortgage

Bhairab Chandra Kolay Vs. Corporation

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.874

1. This is a Rule calling upon the Municipal Magistrate and on the Chairman of the Corporation to show cause why the conviction and sentences passed on the accused should not be set aside on

Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporati ...

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: AIR2002SC1638; 2002(2)ALLMR(SC)932; 2002(5)BomCR121; (2002)3BOMLR596; JT2002(3)SC452; 2002(3)SCALE231; (2002)4SCC219; [2002]2SCR860; 2002(1)LC681(SC)

Raju, J.1. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay who lost before the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court,

Kwality Manufacturing Corporation Vs. Central Warehousing Corporation

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: JT2009(4)SC570; 2009(6)MhLJ375(SC); 2009(4)SCALE205; (2009)5SCC142::2009(3)LHSC1432.

were rejected.' The Arbitrator did not accept the said unilateral addition. The payment of Rs. 4,86,114.75 by the Corporation demonstrated that it had accepted 1,45,109 mats (when calculated at the rate of Rs. 3.35 per mat). If

Rajasthan Financial Corporation Vs. Man Industrial Corporation Ltd.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: AIR2003SC4273; 2003(6)ALT22(SC); [2003]117CompCas110(SC); JT2003(7)SC486; 2003(6)SCALE825; (2003)7SCC522; [2004]49SCL35(SC); 2004(1)LC110(SC); (2003)3UPLBEC2550

the loan the Appellants filed an application under Sections 31(1)(a) and (c) and 32 of the State Financial Corporation Act for recovery of a sum of Rs. 10,89,265.88. Parties compromised the dispute and signed a deed of

Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. Vs. Aes Corporation and ors.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: 2003(1)ALLMR(SC)352; (2003)1CALLT50(SC); JT2002(8)SC203; (2003)1MLJ51(SC); (2002)7SCC736a; 2003(1)LC40(SC)

14 of the Act lie to the Court. With the decision of the Constitution Bench in Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. and Anr. v. RaniConstruction Pvt. Ltd., : [2002]1SCR728 : [2002]1SCR728 , it is settled that the ChiefJustice