Devron V First - Judgment Search Results

In Re Sawyer

Court: US Supreme Court

75 N.Y. 362; Tyler v. Hamersley, 44 Conn. 419, 422; Stuart v. Board of Supervisors, 83 Ill. 341; Devron v. First Municipality, 4 La.Ann. 11; Levy v. Shreveport, 27 La.Ann. 620; Moses v. Mayor &c.; of Mobile, 52 Ala.

Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras Vs. R.M. Chidambaram Pillai and ors ...

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: AIR1977SC489; AIR1977SC489a; [1977]10ITR292(SC); [1977]106ITR292(SC); (1977)1SCC431a; [1977]2SCR111

the intendment of a legislation misfires in court, competency being granted, the answer is amendment, not more litigation.5. First principles plus the bare text of the statute furnish the best guidelight to understanding the message and meaning … V.R. Krishna Iyer, J.1. A fine point of law, which lends itself to subtle spinning of gossamer webs of

Keshwa Nand, Municipal Commissioner and ors. Vs. Tejwant Singh and ors ...

Court: Punjab and Haryana

Reported in: (1995)109PLR162

under the Rules, the meeting was disturbed on account of pre-calculated conspiracy. Keshwa Nand - respondent No. 5, first appellant herein, started raising hue and cry on the pretext that a member from Backward Classes had been … V.K. Bali, J.1. Keshwa Nand and three others, who are Municipal Commissioners from various wards of Municipal Committee, Amloh,

Kohinoor Tobacco Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer, Second Labo ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR1986Bom340; 1986(3)BomCR106; (1985)87BOMLR387

rest by reference to a larger Bench. Those two decisions are : (1) Allahabad Labour Supply Agency, Nagpur v. First Labour Court, Nagpur 1970 Mah LJ 2 D. P. Kelkar v. Ambadas Keshav Bajaj, : AIR1971Bom124 . Attention

Sms Schloemann Siemag, A.G. Vs. Dy. Cit and anr.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: [2001]250ITR97(AP)

Union of India : [1991]188ITR277(Delhi) Roopali Dyeing and Printing Works v. Asstt. CIT : [1995]212ITR573(Guj) Vikrant Tyres Ltd. v. First ITO : [1993]202ITR454(KAR) Union of India v. Jardine Henderson Ltd. : [1979]118ITR112(SC) and M.N. Jadhav v. Fourth ITO

Kamalkumar Pradeepkumar Vs. State of M.P. and ors.

Court: Madhya Pradesh

Reported in: (2008)11VST721(MP)

with the assessing powers to make assessment in the case of petitioner.8. I am, therefore, of a considered view that this petition has no merit. It is accordingly dismissed in limine. The assessing authority should now ensure … the record of the case I find no substance in this writ. It is accordingly dismissed in limine.5. Firstly, remand order being perfectly in accordance with law. No interference in the remand order is called for. Secondly

Khadir Moideen Routher Vs. Rama Naickan and anr.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (1893)3MLJ176

the time his right to recover was barred. Two contentions were raised by defendants Nos. 1 and 5, first, that the suit was not maintainable, second, that the debt had been satisfied. Both were overruled and plaintiffs … that a suit by several persons, as to some of whom the right to sue is barred is virtually a suit by the other plaintiff or plaintiffs alone and that if a suit so framed will not

The Coca-cola Export Corporation Vs. Income Tax Officer and anr.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: 1998IVAD(SC)209; AIR1998SC1864; (1998)146CTR(SC)250; [1998]231ITR200(SC); JT1998(2)SC706; 1998(2)SCALE507; (1998)4SCC166; [1998]2SCR528

147 of the Act. In view of the decision of this court in Kantamani Venkata Narayana and Sons v. First Additional Income-Tax Officer, : [1967]63ITR638(SC) , it is neither necessary nor imperative that a notice under Section 147

P.M. Punnoose Vs. K.M. MunneruddIn and ors.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: AIR2003SC2993; 2003(3)CTC348; JT2003(7)SC105; (2003)3MLJ138(SC); 2003(5)SCALE453; (2003)10SCC610

appellant started remitting the rent to the respondents by money orders of Rs. 400/-, each payable to the first respondent. There is some controversy as to the exact amount of the rent paid or tendered but to … eviction before the Controller was filed on 17.4.1989. In the written statement, the appellant took the plea that vide Exts.R-2, R-3, R-4, R-6 and R-1, respectively dated 2.8.1988, 20.8.1988, 20.9.1988, 25.10.1988 and 18.12.1988, the amount of Rs.

Dena Bank Vs. Kiritikumar T. Patel

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: 1997(3)CTC110; (1999)2SCC106; [1997]Supp5SCR263; AIR 1998 SC 511

Co. Ltd. v. Abdul Karim Munafkhan6; (iii) Kirtiben B. Amin v. Mafatlal Apparels7; (iv) Macneil and Magor Ltd. v. First Addl. Labour Court8; (v) Fouress Engineers (India) (P) Ltd. v. Delhi Admn.9; and (vi) P. Chennaiah v. Dy.