L T - Judgment Search Results

L & T Constructions Equipment Limited Vs. State Of Karnataka

Court: Karnataka

R ... PETITIONER (BY SRI KEMPEGOWDA FOR M/S.ANUP S. SHAH LAW FIRM, ADVOCATES (VIDEO CONFERENCING)) AND1 STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY … FILED UNDER ARTICLE226OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED1802.2020 AT ANNX-G ISSUED BY THE R-3 ONLY

L & T Constructions Equipment Vs. State Of Karnataka

Court: Karnataka

AND OPEN SPACE ETC. IN WRIT PETITION No.57920/2015 BETWEEN1 SMT. LATHA K W/O LATE T K RAMESH AGED ABOUT43YEARS, 2. SRI … ARVIND PAI ... PETITIONER (BY SRI NANDAKUMAR C.K, ADVOCATE) AND1 THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY URBAN

L & T Hydrocarbon Engineering Ltd. Vs.oil and Natural Gas Corporation ...

Court: Delhi

the bidding process.34. We have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsels for the parties, perused the records and carefully gone … server after saving the eight attachments, on ONGC‟s server before the cut off time of 14:00:00 hours, and recorded at 13:59:02

L. T. Barringer and Co. Vs. United States

Court: US Supreme Court

approved an application of certain Texas carriers to reestablish the loading charge. [ Footnote 4 ] Insofar as Birkett Mills v. … 2, though primarily related to the line-haul, is not restricted to it. Merchants' Warehouse Co. v. United States, supra. At least

L.T. Overseas Limited Vs. Food Corporation of India and anr.

Court: Punjab and Haryana

Reported in: IV(2006)BC418; (2006)143PLR449

petitioner are of no assistance to the petitioner.13. The principles laid down in M/s BSES Ltd.'s case (supra), are again not … demand, without proof or condition. However, it has been found that there are two exceptions to this rule. Firstly, when there

L.T. Rajan, Vs. K. Ramasamy and K. Palpandian

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2002)3MLJ468

The appellants have also raised the following substantial questions of law:-'1. Whether the judgement of the lower Appellate Court is vitiated … as follows:-Defendants 2 to 7 are the heirs of one Tulasiram, who was a tenant under one Jehangir in respect of

L & T Infrastructure Finance Company Ltd & Ors vs.state & Anr

Court: Delhi

Agro Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “KALP”) and the land in question was W.P.(CRL) & 72/11, Crl.M.C. 53Page 3 of … referred to as “APIL”) was being run by accused no.2 to 11 as shown in the complaint and accused no.2 and

L.T. Karle and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT

Reported in: (2004)(172)ELT80Tri(Bang.)

by the Tribunal in the case of Leela Scottish Lace Ltd. v. CC (supra) and upheld the manufacture of goods by … 2(c) of Notification No. 67/98-Cus. (N.T.), dated 1-9-1998 issued under the Customs & Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 1995. In the

P.L.T.L. Lakshumanan Chetty Vs. NA. Su. PA. Subramanian Chetty

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 50Ind.Cas.69

1. In this case the defendant had been held liable on a contract, Exhibit A, which he made with the … that this was a sham transaction got up to enable the plaintiff to sell the house to other purchasers for a

L&t Sucg Jv Cc27 Delhi vs.delhi Metro Rail Corporation Limited

Court: Delhi

decrease in cost resulting from any change in taxes, duties, levies". Another clause which is applicable is SCC Clause 22. Clause … not payable when the agreement dated 22nd January, 2013 with the DMRC was executed. Further, Clause 23;11.1.3(v) of SCC would not