Forted - Judgment Search Results

Fort Vs. City of Miami.

Court: US Supreme Court

FORT v. CITY OF MIAMI. - 389 U.S. 918 (1967) U.S. Supreme Court FORT v. CITY OF MIAMI. ,

Ross Vs. Fort

Court: US Supreme Court

ROSS v. FORT - 290 U.S. 603 (1933) U.S. Supreme Court ROSS v. FORT, 290 U.S. 603 (1933) 290 U.S. 603

Forte Vs. United States

Court: US Supreme Court

Forte v. United States - 302 U.S. 220 (1937) U.S. Supreme Court Forte v. United States, 302 U.S. 220

Fort Vs. Roush

Court: US Supreme Court

Fort v. Roush - 104 U.S. 142 (1881) U.S. Supreme Court Fort v. Roush, 104 U.S. 142 (1881) Fort

Railroad Company Vs. Fort

Court: US Supreme Court

Railroad Company v. Fort - 84 U.S. 553 (1873) U.S. Supreme Court Railroad Company v. Fort, 84 U.S. 17 Wall. 553 553

Fort Properties Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (1993)115CTR(Bom)355; [1994]208ITR232(Bom)

facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified that the purchase and sale of Fort property in the hands of the assessee-company was a purchase and sale of capital asset and the assessee-company

Fort Gloster Industries Ltd. Vs. Sethia Mercantile (P) Ltd.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: AIR1971SC2289; (1972)4SCC252

several wit nesses including one Shantinath Sarogi. The documents required to be produced by this Court were not forth coming. The documents Nos. 1 and 4 mentioned above were in the possession of the Association. An official

Fort Gloster Industries Ltd. Vs. Sethia Mercantile (P) Ltd.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: AIR1968SC1308; [1968]3SCR450

Shah, J. 1. The East India Jute & Hessain Exchange Ltd. - hereinafter called 'the Association' - is recognized for the purpose of the Forward Contracts (Regulation) Act 74 of 1952 as an association concerned with...

M/S. Fort Munnar Vs. Union of India

Court: Kerala

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE19H DAY OF MARCH201528TH PHALGUNA, 1936 WP(C).No. 14152 of 2010 (T) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- M/S.FORT MUNNAR, THACHANKARY ESTATE AND RESORTS (P)...

Carlton Fortes Vs. Devkikrishna Ravalnath Devasthan Pandavada and Othe ...

Court: Mumbai Goa

respondent no.1 and Ms. Rodrigues, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 2 and 3. 2. Admit. Heard forthwith by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents, waives