I E - Judgment Search Results

“The Complainant I.E. Gurmukh Son of Balwant Vs. State of Punjab and ...

Court: Punjab and Haryana

the following order was passed by this Court:- “The complainant i.e.Gurmukh son of Balwant Singh is present in Court and is … statement that a compromise has been effected with the accused i.e.the present petitioneRs.In the light of such factual position, I am

i.E. Vittal and anr. Vs. Appropriate Authority and ors.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1996(3)ALT707; (1997)137CTR(AP)396; [1996]221ITR760(AP)

said property on the ground that it relates to small extent of land. It is well-settled that consideration for sale of

S.i.E.L. Ltd., Titawi, Muzaffarnagar Vs. State of U.P. and Others

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 1998(1)AWC298

15 of the Sugarcane Act reserved area including purchase centres, i.e., Bhora Kalan, Hadauti, Bhora Khurd and Sisouli/Mundbhar of Distt. Muzaffarnagar,

M.i.E and R and anr. Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax and ors.

Court: Jammu and Kashmir

a scientific and industrial research organization. It has three wings i.e. (i) Child and Social Welfare Wing (ii) Experimental School (Model

i.E.L. Employees Union Vs. Indian Explosives Limited

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: (1983)IILLJ100All

226 of the Constitution are by workmen of M/s. Indian Explosives Limited, Kanpur and M/s. Camphor and Allied Products Ltd., Bareilly

i.E.L. Ltd. (Successor-in-interest to Crescent Dyes Chemicals Ltd.) Vs ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1993)112CTR(Cal)144,[1993]204ITR386(Cal)

that the identical benefit has been extended to medical reimbursement, i.e., a case where the concession is given to the employee

B.i.E. Engineering (P) Ltd. Vs. the Calcutta Municipal Corporation

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1993)2CALLT150(HC)

the corporation authorities demolished the major portion of building by exercising the power given Under Section 400(8) of the Municipal Corporation

i.E.L. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1988)(15)ECC299

an appeal against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay.2. Brief facts of the case are that the

G.Koteswara R Vs. 1. E. Murali, Revenue Divisional office

Court: Andhra Pradesh

based on imputations which were not only generic but also ex facie trivial and frivolous. This Court has also observed that

“that the Liability to Pay the Amount I.E. Vs. Shri M.P.Singh and An ...

Court: Punjab and Haryana

affidavit reads thus:- “That the liability to pay the amount i.e.gratuity, leave encashment, etc.to the petitioner, is admitted and the same