Lin - Judgment Search Results

Sr.Lins Kizhakkel vs Union of India

Court: Kerala

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MAY 2024 / 2ND JYAISHTA, 1946 PETITIONERS: 1 SR. LINS KIZHAKKEL, SABC, ST.JOHN'S PROVINCE, REGN NO K/274/2004, CHIRAKKADAVU, KANJIRAPALLY - 686 507, KOTTAYAM DIST 2 SR. AMAL JOSE

Lin Suresh vs Shaji Mon

Court: Kerala

Matched in: Parties Lin Suresh vs Shaji Mon

Budi Mathsya LIn Vs. the State of A.P., Rep.by Public Prosecu

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Matched in: Parties Budi Mathsya LIn Vs. the State of A.P., Rep.by Public Prosecu

industrial Linnings Vs. Cit

Court: Gujarat

Reported in: [2003]130TAXMAN258(Guj)

A.R. Dave, J. At the instance of the applicant-assessee, the following question has been referred to this court under the provisions of section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act')'Whether,...

Edward Dlima Vs. Smt.LIn Dlima

Court: Madhya Pradesh

Matched in: Parties Edward Dlima Vs. Smt.LIn Dlima

Nokar Dibyaswari Debi Vs. Narayan LIn Kumari Debi

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1941Cal291

Matched in: Parties Nokar Dibyaswari Debi Vs. Narayan LIn Kumari Debi

M/S Sundaram Brake Linnings vs the Assistant Commissioner

Court: Chennai

Reserved on : 15.04.2026Judgment Delivered on: 02.06.2026Coram:THE HONOURABLE Dr.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL --- M/s.Sundaram Brake Linnings Ltd., Padi, Chennai. .. Appellant in all the appeals Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai (Co.Circle

Cc, TuticorIn Vs. M/S. Vishal CotspIn Lin

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Matched in: Parties Cc, TuticorIn Vs. M/S. Vishal CotspIn Lin

The State of Jharkhand, Through the Executive Engineer, Swarnrekha Mul ...

Court: Jharkhand

Reported in: AIR2006Jhar98; 2006(3)ARBLR307(Jhar); [2006(3)JCR334(Jhr)]

No. 1 submitted the bid which was accepted; an agreement was entered into between the Executive Engineer, Kharkai Link Canal Division and respondent No. 1; and work order was issued in favour of the respondent No. 1.