Fair Use - Judgment Search Results

Robinson Vs. Fair

Court: US Supreme Court

Robinson v. Fair - 128 U.S. 53 (1888) U.S. Supreme Court Robinson v. Fair, 128 U.S. 53 (1888) Robinson v. Fair … Frank, 58 Cal. 387, 402. In that case will be found some material qualification of the general language used in previous cases. That was a suit in equity brought by executors in a district court for the

M/S Fair Communciation and Consultant. Vs. Surender Kardile

Court: Supreme Court of India

1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.106 OF2010REPORTABLE M/S FAIR COMMUNICATION AND CONSULTANTS & ANR. SURENDRA KERDILE S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.VERSUS JUDGMENT ...APPELLANT(S) ...RESPONDENT(S) This appeal by Special … a flat (MIG Scheme No.54, Indore). As Surendra wished to settle eventually in Nashik, he appointed Sanjay who used to reside in Indore as Power of Attorney and executed a deed of General Power of Attorney (GPA)

M/S. Fair Air Engineers Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. N.K. Modi

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: AIR1997SC533; 1997(1)ARBLR23(SC); 1997(2)BLJR1316; [1997]88CompCas663(SC); 1996(2)CTC664; JT1996(8)SC253; 1996(6)SCALE488; (1996)6SCC385; [1996]Supp4SCR820; MANU/SC/0141/1997

dispute between the parties before, it after giving reasonable opportunity to the parties, consistent with the principles of fair play and natural justice. It is not necessary that porkpie vigore it is enforceable. The mere fact that … the controversy and held that the word 'court' must be read in the context in which it is used in the statute. It is permissible, given the context, to read it as comprehending the courts of civil

Trade Fair Authority of Haryana and Ors vs.ajay Jain

Court: Delhi

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RFA No.818/2006 + % TRADE FAIR AUTHORITY OF HARYANA AND ORS. 5th December, 2018 AJAY JAIN ..... Appellants Ms. Noopur Singhal, Advocate for Mr. … were not found to be responded to by the respondent/plaintiff, and thus the contents of those letters were used against the respondent/plaintiff. Therefore by the very same logic the appellants/defendants are deemed to have accepted the contents

Fair Deal Leather Suppliers vs the Value Added Tax Officer & Anr.

Court: Delhi

of refund due and record an order in form DVAT 22 sanctioning the refund and recording the calculations used in the matter of determining the amount of refund ordered.Signing Date:22.01.2026 W.P.(C) 1220/2025 & W.P.(C) 2371/2025 Page 9

M/S Fair Growth Agencies Pvt Ltd (in Liqn) vs Nill

Court: Karnataka

JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI COMPANY APPLICATION NO. 178 OF 2025 IN COMPANY PETITION NO. 224 OF 2003 BETWEEN: M/S. FAIR GROWTH AGENCIES PVT. LTD., (IN LIQN.) REPRESENTED BY OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, CORPORATE BHAVAN, 12TH FLOOR,

The President, Fair vs the General Manager, M/S.Fine

Court: Chennai

MADRASOrders reserved on : 08.01.2025 Orders pronounced on : 29.01.2025CORAM :THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D. BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY The President, FAIR Thozhilalargal Sangam, 42, Cuddalore Salai, Bharathi Mill Thittu, Mudaliarpet, Pondicherry - 4. .. PetitionerVersus1. The General Manager, M/s.Fine … charge sheeted for having pasted posters on the inner wall of the factory and the vehicles. He also used insulting and abusive language as against his superiors. He also prevented the other workers from performing the works.

Viswas Community Fair Price Medical Services vs Drugs Controller

Court: Kerala

SIVARAMAN TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2020 / 2ND ASHADHA, 1942 WP(C).No.10812 OF 2020(B) PETITIONER: VISWAS COMMUNITY FAIR PRICE MEDICAL SERVICES PEROORKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, MANU V.S. AGED 42 YEARS,S/O.

Metropolis Fair Oaks vs the Superintendent of

Court: Karnataka

OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 28679 OF 2025 (T-RES) BETWEEN: METROPOLIS FAIR OAKS, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM, REP. BY THE AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MR. HARI PRASAD K., SON OF MR. ANJAPPA K.,

Fairly Syiem Vs. the Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council and ors.

Court: Guwahati

and means to punish the person concerned which may result in napotism, favouritism and against the principles of fair play and natural justice. In the instant case, I find there is a violation of the principal of