Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mahatma gandhi antarrashtriya hindi vishwavidyalaya act 1996 section 6 jurisdiction Page 93 of about 1,977 results (0.232 seconds)

Smt Supriya Shrinate Vs. M/s Mrt Music Ors

Court : Karnataka

..... india congress committee, represented by general secretary i/c , communication, publicity, media including social and digital media of the indian national congress mr. jairam ramesh.4. sri. rahul gandhi, s/o late rajiv gandhi, member of steering committee, indian national congress, having his address at312, tughalak lane, new delhi-110 011.5. ashok kumar, ... respondents (by sri. srinivasa raghavan .v, senior advocate .....

Krishnamoorthy Vs. Sivakumar and Ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

..... discipline and sanguine sanctity by constant affirmance of constitutional morality which is the pillar stone of good governance. while dealing with the concept of democracy, the majority in indira nehru gandhi v. raj narain[53]., stated that "democracy" as an essential feature of the constitution is unassailable. the said principle was reiterated in t.n. seshan, cec of india v. union .....

Gorakhpur Petro Oils Ltd. Vs. Additional Commissioner of

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad

Reported in : (2005)95TTJ(All.)489

1. This is an appeal by the assessee in which the assessee has challenged the assessment for the block period completed under the provisions of Chapter XIV-B of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act).2.1. The assessee has listed as many as 11 grounds of appeal in the original memorandum of appeal, which were later on regrouped as per the direction of the Bench. The grounds originally taken and as regrouped read as under : (i) That the learned AO has erred in law and on facts in making the following additions/disallowances while determining undisclosed income within the meaning of Section 158BB of the IT Act, 1961 : (a) Rs. 1,28,856 addition in financial year 1995-96 for alleged unaccounted sales outside the books of account vide para 11 of the Order. (b) Rs. 51,50,000 addition in financial year 1995-96 for alleged income from undisclosed sources vide para 78.2 of the Order. (c) Rs. 44,000 addition in financial year 1994-95 for alleged income from undisclosed sources as the unex...

Merit Enterprises Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad

Reported in : (2007)288ITR226(Hyd.)

..... ) and a.p. state civil supplies corporation v. dcit 83 itd 398 (hyd), and cwt v. ellis bridge gymkhana and ors. 229 itr 1.11. the learned counsel shri ajay gandhi, on behalf of unix electronics and smt. priti bhushan mehta, assessee-interveners adopted the same arguments as other assessee-interveners above.12.1. rival submissions heard and relevant orders read ..... .cit, patiala v. shahzada nand and sons and ors. 60 itr 392 (sc), at pages 399 to 401.vikrant tyres ltd. v. first ito 7. the learned counsel shri ajay gandhi on behalf of unix electronics pvt. ltd., and smt. priti bhushan mehta, assessee-interveners submitted that: the arguments made by the other interveners as above are reiterated. the main thrust .....

Marshall Vs. Marshall

Court : US Supreme Court

Marshall v. Marshall - 04-1544 (2006) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2005 MARSHALL V. MARSHALL SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES MARSHALL v . MARSHALL certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit No. 041544.Argued February 28, 2006Decided May 1, 2006 Among longstanding limitations on federal-court jurisdiction otherwise properly exercised are the so-called domestic relations and probate exceptions. Neither is compelled by the text of the Constitution or federal statute. Both are judicially created doctrines stemming in large measure from misty understandings of English legal history. In view of lower federal-court decisions expansively interpreting the two exceptions, this Court reined in the domestic relations exception in Ankenbrandt v. Richards , 504 U. S. 689 , and endeavored similarly to curtail the probate exception in Markham v. Allen , 326 U. S. 490 . Petitioner, Vickie Lynn Marshall (Vickie), a.k.a. Anna Nicole Smith, is the surviving...

Suomoto Proceedings in Flesh Trade Vs. State and ors.

Court : Jammu and Kashmir

Reported in : 2008(1)JKJ161

..... hurry to go to jammu and that he will return after one week and that i should see him then. he also disclosed that he was having his residence at gandhi nagar, jammu and he gave me telephone numbers of jammu also. after one week i again received a telephone call from the minister and he told me that he was ..... were two persons for assisting me and before that there was only one compounder, named mohd shafi. my assistance used to sit with me as he was translating kashmiri into hindi or urdu for me as well as he was giving medicines.... on being asked about one sabeena r/o srinagar, i state that i don't know her. however, i .....

Smt. Chilukuru Umadevi W/O Anjaneyulu Visakhapatnam and Another Vs. Ka ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by Smt. Chilukuru Umadevi and Ganapatineedu Venkata Narayana seeking writ of Certiorari to quash the award dated 14.2.2008 passed in LSA 143 of 2008 on the file of District Legal Services Authority (Lok Adalat) at Visakhapatnam.2. Background facts, in a nutshell, leading to filing of this writ petition by the third parties to the award dated 14.2.2008 passed in LSA 143 of 2008 are: Ganta Babu Rao-4th respondent owned 1100 square yards in Block No.11, Patta No.18, Sy.No.2 in Balayya Sastry Layout bearing Dr.No.49-54-7/1, Assessment No.100003/30169. He executed a possessory Agreement of sale-cum- irrevocable power of Attorney dated 9.10.2006 conveying the land owned by him and delivered possession to the petitioners. While so, Kalidindi Vijaya Lakshmi and Kalidindi Viswanatha Raju-respondents 1 and 2 filed O.S.No.1359 of 2006 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam against Mallu Dinis...

Havels India Ltd. Vs. Electrium Sales Ltd.

Court : Delhi

* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS (OS) No. 2221/2012 Date of Decision:16. 04.2013 HAVELS INDIA LTD. ....Plaintiff Through: Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Sr. Adv with Ms. Ferida Satarawala, Mr. Raghavendra M. Bajaj, Advs. Versus ELECTRIUM SALES LTD. ...Defendant Through: Mr. Arvind Nigam, Sr. Adv, with Mr. Atul Sharma, Mr. Milanka Chaudhury, Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advs. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA M.L. MEHTA, J.I.A. 16236/2012 (Under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC read with Section 9 of CPC) and IA No.21237/2012 (Section 8 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996) 1. Both these applications are filed by the defendants. The background facts leading to the filing of these applications by the defendant are thus:2. The plaintiff and Electrium (U.K.) had been having business dealings in terms of a Supply Agreement executed between them on September 30, 2002. The said agreement is still subsisting. The defendant, which is a co-subsidiary of Electrium (U.K.), has filed a Request for Arbitrati...

Dr.K.Nedumaran Vs. Medical Council of India

Court : Chennai

..... college after april 2010, since they were not paying regylarly except for those employed on a regular basis and also because, i got better offer subsequently in november 2010 from mahatma gandhi medical college where i am now working. i am shown the declaration from dt.02.03.2010. this has been signed by me and i confirm that the contents of ..... kandasamy, earlier working as associate professor, general surgery, in melmaruvathur adhiparasakthi institute of medical science and research, melmaruvathur, age :62. yrs., presently working as professor, mahatma gandhi medical college, pondicherry, presently residing at no.104, pg quarters, mahatma gandhi medical college, pondicherry, permanent residing of no.2-13, sitaram apartment, malaviya street, ram nagar, coimbatore-641 009, telephone # 0422-2236373 ., mobile # 9488750332, 9842250330. i .....

Lalita Kumari Vs. Govt.of U.P.and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

..... person is falsely implicated, he not only suffers from loss of reputation but also from mental tension and his personal liberty is seriously impaired. he relied on the maneka gandhi (supra), which held the proposition that the law which deprives a person of his personal liberty must be reasonable both from the stand point of substantive as well ..... officer has a doubt about the veracity of the accusation, he has to conduct preliminary inquiry, viz., e.p. royappa vs. state of tamil nadu (1974) 4 scc3 maneka gandhi (supra), s.m.d. kiran pasha vs. government of andhra pradesh (1990) 1 scc328 d.k. basu vs. state of w.b. (1997) 1 scc416 uma shankar sitani ..... interpretation would reduce the registration of fir to a mechanical act. parallelly, he underscored the impact of article 21 on section 154 of the code by referring to maneka gandhi vs. union of india (1978) 1 scc248 wherein this court has applied article 21 to several provisions relating to criminal law. this court has also stated that the .....