Floured - Judgment Search Results
Ganesh Flour Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Employees of Ganesh Flour Mills Co. Lt ...
Court: Supreme Court of India
Decided on: Jul-16-1957
Reported in: AIR1958SC382; (1961)ILLJ415SC
P.B. Gajendragakar, J.1. This appeal arises out of an industrial dispute between the appellant; M/s. Ganesh Flour Mills Co. Ltd., and its employees. The appellant company is a Joint StockCompany incorporated and registered at Delhi
Sushil Flour, Dal and Oil Mills Vs. the Chief Commissioner, Union Terr ...
Court: Punjab and Haryana
Decided on: Feb-05-1982
Reported in: [1982]50STC222(P& H)
I.S. Tiwana, J.1. The respondents seek the review of my order dated 17th November, 1981, in Civil Writ No. 2913 of 1972 whereby the impugned notifications issued by the Chief Commissioner, Union Territory, Chandigarh, enhancing the...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Patiala Vs. the Ambala Flour Mills and ors ...
Court: Supreme Court of India
Decided on: Apr-27-1970
Reported in: AIR1972SC83; [1970]78ITR256(SC); (1970)2SCC96; [1971]1SCR388
Prasad and Jai Ram Das were partners in a trading venture conducted in the name of the Ambala Flour Mills, Ambala. On April 29, 1948, Jai Ram Das commenced an action for dissolution and for account of
18-section briefs on any result in this list
K.K. Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Utkal Flour Mills (Rourkela) Pvt ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Oct-15-2004
Reported in: 98(2004)CLT775; [2005]128CompCas23(Orissa)
finished goods, books of account, cash books, cash in hand and Bank account in the premises of Utkal Flour Mills (Rourkela) Pvt. Ltd. (Opp. Party No. 1-company) by a team, preferably consisting of Shri Sachikanta Routrary along
Century Flour Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Supreme Court of India
Decided on: Aug-03-2000
Reported in: [2001]247ITR276(SC); JT2000(10)SC323; (2002)9SCC676
ORDER1. The High Court (see : [1998]234ITR768(Mad) declined to call for a reference of the following questions (page 768) :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in...
Century Flour Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Supreme Court ...
Court: Supreme Court of India
Decided on: Aug-03-2000
Reported in: (2000)162CTR(SC)407
on record no question of law arose, reference of which could be called for. Case Law Analysis: Century Flour Mills Ltd. v. CIT (1998) 234 ITR 768 (Mad) affirmed Application: Also to current assessment year. Decision: In
Rajasthan Roller Flour Mills Association and Another Vs. State of Raja ...
Court: Supreme Court of India
Decided on: Sep-01-1993
Reported in: AIR1994SC64; JT1993(5)SC138; 1993(3)SCALE600; 1994Supp(1)SCC413; [1993]Supp2SCR72; [1993]91STC408(SC)
country over the question whether the expression 'wheat' in Section 14(i)(iii) of Central Sales Tax Act (Act) includes flour, maida and 'suji'. Karnataka and Patna High Courts have held that it does so include, while Andhra Pradesh,
Jamana Flour and Oil Mill (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar
Court: Supreme Court of India
Decided on: Apr-16-1987
Reported in: AIR1987SC1207; 1987(35)BLJR781; JT1987(2)SC155; 1987(1)SCALE835; (1987)3SCC404; [1987]2SCR1047; [1987]65STC462(SC); 1987(2)LC230(SC)
Ranganath Misra, J.1. This appeal is by special leave. Challenge herein is to the decision of the Patna High Court rendered on a reference under Section 33(1) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1959. The following...
Wallace Flour Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay, ...
Court: Supreme Court of India
Decided on: Sep-28-1989
Reported in: 1990(25)ECC169; 1989(44)ELT598(SC); [1990]186ITR440(SC); JT1989(4)SC184; 1989(2)SCALE804; (1989)4SCC592; [1989]SuppSCR311; [1989]Supp1SCR311; 1990(1)LC93(SC)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 35L of the Central Excise & Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. The appellant is a manufacturer of various types of food products known...
Wallace Flour Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Montblanc Investment Pvt. Ltd. and an ...
Court: Supreme Court of India
Decided on: Jan-10-2000
Reported in: AIR2000SC3401; JT2000(2)SC24
1. Leave granted.2. We have heard learned Counsel for the appellant as well as learned Counsel for respondent No. 1, who is the only contesting respondent. Respondent No. 2, though mentioned as contesting respondent in the...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »
Hover bars for counts · use +/− or drag to zoom · click a bar to filter by year
AI Brief (18 sections) + Semantic Search - 7 days free