Jay - Judgment Search Results

Jay Vs. Boyd

Court: US Supreme Court

Jay v. Boyd - 351 U.S. 345 (1956) U.S. Supreme Court Jay v. Boyd, 351 U.S. 345 (1956) Jay

Bond Vs. Jay

Court: US Supreme Court

Bond v. Jay - 11 U.S. 350 (1813) U.S. Supreme Court Bond v. Jay, 11 U.S. 7 Cranch 350 350 (1813)

Cce, Raipur and M/S. Jay Pee Rewa Vs. M/S. Jay Pee Rewa Cement Ltd. an ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. These are two appeals - one filed by the Revenue and the other filed by M/s. Jay Pee Rewa Cement Ltd., being aggrieved with the common Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur.2.

Jay Shri Vs. The State Of Rajasthan

Court: Supreme Court of India

2024 INSC48IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.OF2024(arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.14423 OF2023 JAY SHRI & ANR. APPELLANT(S) VERSUS STATE OF RAJASTHAN RESPONDENT(S) ORDER Leave granted. With the consent of the learned

Jay Kishan and Ors. versus the State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: [2025]3S.C.R.65

[2025] 3 S.C.R. 65 : 2025 INSC 198 Jay Kishan and Ors. v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (Criminal Appeal No. 727 of 2025) 12

Jay Engineering Works Ltd. Vs. Industry Facilitation Council and anr.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: AIR2006SC3252; 2007(2)ALLMR(SC)887; 2006(3)ARBLR594(SC); [2006]133CompCas670(SC); (2006)6CompLJ209(SC); JT2006(12)SC171; 2006(9)SCALE285; (2006)8SCC677; [2006]71SCL189(SC);

State Bank of India is due to the Petitioner Messrs. Diamond Wire Industries, Ratlam, of the Respondent Messrs. Jay Engineering Works Limited, New Delhi.The said award of the Council was put in execution. The bank account of

Jay Mahakali Rolling Mills Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: 2007(215)ELT11(SC); JT2007(9)SC629; 2007(9)SCALE603; [2007]10STT234

No.208/83-CE dated 1.8.1983 on the final product falling under Tariff Item No.25(9)(ii). Allegation was that the appellant M/s Jay Mahakali Rolling Mills had contravened the provisions of Rule 174 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (in short

M/S. Jay Bharat Credit and Investment Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Sal ...

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: AIR2000SC2860; JT2000(9)SC333; 2000(6)SCALE21; (2000)7SCC165; [2000]Supp2SCR340; [2000]120STC1(SC)

Matched in: Parties M/S. Jay Bharat Credit and Investment Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Sales-tax and anr.

Jay Laxmi Salt Works (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarat

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: 1994ACJ902; (1995)1GLR818; JT1994(3)SC492; (1995)109PLR1; 1994(2)SCALE797; (1994)4SCC1; [1994]3SCR866; MANU/SC/0692/1994

Matched in: Parties Jay Laxmi Salt Works (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarat

Jay Engineering Works Ltd. Vs. Government of India and ors.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: 1997(90)ELT19(SC); (1997)10SCC597

Matched in: Parties Jay Engineering Works Ltd. Vs. Government of India and ors.