Fair Value - Judgment Search Results

Robinson Vs. Fair

Court: US Supreme Court

to James G. Fair, who, prior to the present litigation, put upon the lot substantial improvements of the value of several hundred thousand dollars. On the 6th of April, 1881, Caroline C. Hawes intermarried with James A. … Robinson v. Fair - 128 U.S. 53 (1888) U.S. Supreme Court Robinson v. Fair, 128 U.S. 53 (1888) Robinson v. Fair

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 … the transaction was 2,30,000/-, though the document ₹ 1,30,000/-. The court noted that subsequently executed showed a lesser value as Surendra had not relied upon these circumstances to seek relief on the basis of the contract (for

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

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.

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

Court: Delhi

SUPPLIERSDELHI - 110005,FY 2008-09(THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR KAMAL KISHORE KAIM).....PETITIONERThrough: Mr. Mukesh Gupta and Mr. Keshav Rai, Advs.Versus1. THE VALUE ADDED TAX OFFICER,WARD NO. 45BIKRIKAR BHAWANNEW DELHI 110002.....RESPONDENT NO. 12. COMMISSIONER OF DELHI VALUE ADDED TAX,DEPARTMENT OF TRADE

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 … learned Counsel for the workmen agrees for such a course.4. In view thereof, the following sentence shall be added to clause -8(v):- "In the event of the management being unable to trace out the addresses of the

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., … .com PHONE: 89714 70774 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRADYUMNA HEJIB, ADVOCATE)AND: Digitally signed by THE SUPERINTENDENT OF CHANDANA CENTRAL TAX, CED-9 RANGE BM EAST DIVISION - 9, GST EAST COMMISSIONERATE Location: 3RD FLOOR, TTMC COMPLEX, High Court of

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