M Re - Judgment Search Results

M S vs.m

Court: Delhi

is single handedly bringing up two children and thus the maintenance fixed, in our view, is reasonable.10. In the light of Court further interpreted the phrase unable to maintain herself. The relevant para 6 reads as under: 6. The object of the

M vs.m S

Court: Delhi

of the Act, therefore, cannot be construed so as to make the effect of amendment of the law by insertion of petitioner also refused to give her to separate accommodation. The respondent has no hesitation to restore the matrimonial life if the

M. Vs. G. Baluswamy Iyer V. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: AIR1956Mad47; [1955]28ITR235(Mad)

penalty. In other words, the suggestion was that the Magistrate must be deemed to have inflicted a further punishment by his were followed in Masks case touch the point arising in relation to the loss on the goods not confiscated, and this

M. Vs. Kibe V. Commissioner of Wealth-tax.

Court: Madhya Pradesh

Reported in: (1987)63CTR(MP)156; [1987]168ITR82(MP); [1987]34TAXMAN364(MP)

Reference to Valuation Office. - (1) For the purpose of making an assessment (including an assessment in respect of any assessment as provided by section 16A of the Act.For all these reasons, our answer to the question referred to this court is

M. Vs. S. Kathirvelu Nadar V. Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: [1968]68ITR786(Mad)

with members of the family living together. No doubt, commensality may be a test of jointness, but a division is not only dealt with 310 acres out of 410. An ancillary reason is that the other properties including buildings have not been

M vs.A

Court: Delhi

Ashish Sehrawat, Advocate ........ Petitioner petitioner in person versus Through: Mr. V. Shukla, Advocate ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. respondent urged at the time of the hearing that the respondent wants to cure the formal defects in the divorce petition

M vs.p.b.

Court: Delhi

for 25,00,000/- while undertaking to return this money before second motion, but sum of 25,00,000/- has not been returned by petitioner. which she has made statements contrary to those which were recorded at the time of dissolution of marriage.3. The marriage of

M. Vs. Shanmugavel Nadar and Sons V. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madra ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: [1948]16ITR355(Mad)

Pillai accepted as correct the following proposition of law in Maynes Hindu law (9th edition) at page 398 :-'Where a managing us nor could it be properly the subject of a reference, depending, as it does, entirely on the grant of a

M. Vs.v.s.

Court: Delhi

of normal wear- MAT. APP. 73/2018 Page 4 and-tear of married life and that the husband has successfully been able to levelling serious allegations against him and his family members which resulted in an enquiry. The enquiry concluded that the same were

M vs.A

Court: Delhi

petition, some kind of powder given by a tantric was mixed in his food by the respondent due to which the ground of cruelty on various grounds inter alia that the respondent had treated the appellant with cruelty; there were continuous fights