Ment - Judgment Search Results

Mente Murali K Rao(D) Tr.Lr.Wife Vs. Union of India Tr.Gen.Mgr.Cen.Rly ...

Court: Supreme Court of India

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.7716 OF 201.(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION(C)NO.27603 OF 2012.MENTE MURALI KRISHNARJUNA RAO (D) THROUGH LR. WIFE ... APPELLANT(S) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA THROUGH GENERAL MANAGER CENTRAL...

Mente Subba Rao Vs. Penmetsa Venkataraju and ors.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: AIR1964AP339

Chandra Reddy, C.J.1. The subject-matter of these appeals and the parties are the same. Therefore, all the appeals could be dealt with together. The facts leading to these appeals lie in a narrow compass and could...

Gujarat Industrial Develop-ment Corporation Etc. Vs. Commissioner of I ...

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: AIR1997SC3275; (1998)1GLR577; [1997]227ITR414(SC); JT1997(7)SC442; 1997(5)SCALE520; (1997)7SCC17; [1997]Supp3SCR466

other relating to Section 10(20A) of the I. T. Act. Answers were given by the High Court, as mentioned above, against the Corporation.4. Learned Counsel for the appellant Corporation stated, at the outset, that he does not

Dr.Rohini vs the Director, Ayush Depart Ment

Court: Kerala

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMPRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY THURSDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 27TH MAGHA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 5177 OF 2023 PETITIONER: DR.ROHINI.R. AGED 32 YEARS ,W/O...

Pious, S/O. Ment'S D'Cruz, vs State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

DATED 26.04.2006 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, KOLLAM IN SESSIONS CASE NO.259/2000]APPELLANT/S: PIOUS, S/O. MENTE'S D'CRUZ, AGED 37 YEARS RESIDING AT PARAKKALA VILA VEEDU,, SOUTH OF MADANKAVU, KALACKODU CHERI, POOTHAKULAM VILLAGE, PARAVUR, KOLLAM.

Pentamedia Graphics Limited, Ment and softowers Rep. by Dr. V. Chandra ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: [2008]145CompCas327(Mad)

the Bombay Stock Exchange wrote a letter to Pentamedia Graphics Ltd. that due to non-availability of the information mentioned therein in its letter, the matter could not be placed before the Listing Committee Meeting. Hence the Stock