Fantasied - Judgment Search Results
M/S Fantasy Builders vs Harsha C
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-27-2026
-1-IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURUDATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4394 OF 2015 (MV-I) C/W MFA CROSS OBJECTION NO. 92...
Fantasy Fashion Vs. Asim Kumar Sinha
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-17-2012
PRATIBHA RANI, J. (Oral) 1. The petitioner, who is an accused in Complaint Case no.1541/1 of 2005 under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act, has impugned the order dated 10.10.2011 passed in Criminal Revision No.202/2011. 2. Vide...
Fantasy Sales Corporation vs Assistant Commissioner Special Circle-1
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Dec-09-2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMPRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942 WP(C).No.27422 OF 2020(C) PETITIONER: FANTASY SALES CORPORATION MANAGING PARTNER N.SAHAL. BY...
18-section briefs on any result in this list
M/S. Fantasy Collections vs Mathew Sebastian
Court: Kerala
Decided on: May-30-2019
“C R”IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMPRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V. THURSDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF MAY 2019 / 9TH JYAISHTA, 1941 RFA.No.111 of 2012 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN OS...
Madhu Fantasy Land Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai and anr. Vs. Maharashtra General ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-20-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)BomCR692; [2002(95)FLR245]; (2002)IIILLJ587Bom; 2002(3)MhLj534
Nishita Mhatre, J.1. The petitioners have challenged the order of the Industrial Court dated 21-7-1999 whereby it has come to the conclusion that the petitioners have engaged in an unfair labour practice under Item 6 of...
Madhu Fantasy Land Pvt. Ltd. and Vs. the Adjudicating and Enquiry
Court: SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
Decided on: Mar-23-2005
Reported in: (2005)62SCL116SAT
1. All the appeals are taken up together since they arise out of single impugned order and a common order is passed by consent for parties.2. The appellants challenge the impugned order passed by SEBI dated...
Fogerty Vs. Fantasy, Inc.
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Mar-01-1994
Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc. - 510 U.S. 517 (1994) OCTOBER TERM, 1993 Syllabus FOGERTY v. FANTASY, INC. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT No. 92-1750. Argued December 8, 1993-Decided March...
Federation Of Indian Fantasy Sports (fifs) Vs. State Of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-14-2022
- 1 - R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE14H DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. RITU RAJ AWASTHI, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNA S. DIXIT WRIT...
Virendra Kapoor Proprietor Fantasy Lights Vs. Airports Authority of In ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-21-2009
Reported in: 158(2009)DLT530
Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The important question for consideration relates to the circumstances in which a single bid can be rejected and re-tendering ordered. In our opinion, when there is intrinsic evidence (as in this case)...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›
AI Brief (18 sections) + Semantic Search - 7 days free