Non U - Judgment Search Results
State of U.P. and Ors Vs. All U.P. Consumer Protection Bar Ass.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Decided on: Nov-21-2016
state and district level; conditions of eligibility for appointment of non-judicial members; administrative powers which have been or should be conferred … OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.2740 OF2007STATE OF U P AND ORS .....APPELLANTS VERSUS ALL U P CONSUMER PROTECTION
State of u.p. Through Principal Secretary Vs. All u.p. Consumer Protec ...
Court: Supreme Court of India
Decided on: May-18-2018
provisions mentioned above. The model rules shall provide for the payment of salary, allowances and for the conditions of service of … INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.(s). 2740 OF2007STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH THROUGH APPELLANT(s) PRINCIPAL SECRETARY & ORS. VERSUS ALL U.P.
U. Manjunath Rao Vs. U. Chandrashekar
Court: Supreme Court of India
Decided on: Aug-04-2017
soul to the judgment. Absence of analysis not only evinces non-application of mind but mummifies the core spirit of the judgment. … APPEAL NO.9951 OF2017(Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No.27646 of 2014) U. Manjunath Rao Appellant(s) Versus U. Chandrashekar & Anr. Respondent(s) JUDGMENT
Turn these results into brief-ready notes
U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd. and ors. Vs. U.P. Rajya Setu Nigam ...
Court: Supreme Court of India
Decided on: Feb-13-2004
Reported in: AIR2005SC4067; 2004(5)ALD39(SC); 2005(5)ALLMR(SC)942; JT2004(2)SC440; (2004)IILLJ9SC; 2004(2)SCALE466; (2004)4SCC268; 2004(2)SLJ406(SC); (2004)2UPLBEC1567
except however, that they would not be entitled to any payment of arrears for the period during which they did not … roll employees. The respondents were working at the bridge construction unit of the appellant at Kanpur in various capacities. The terms
State of U.P. and ors. Vs. U.P. Sales Tax Officers Grade Ii Associatio ...
Court: Supreme Court of India
Decided on: Apr-16-2003
Reported in: AIR2003SC2305; 2003(3)AWC2094(SC); [2003(97)FLR620]; JT2003(4)SC79; 2003(4)SCALE33; (2003)6SCC250; [2003]3SCR617; (2003)2UPLBEC1720
as mentioned above based on their engagement in developmental or non-developmental activities, was given a go-bye by the government. To the … Dharmadhikari, J.1. The State of Uttar Pradesh is in appeal against the judgment of the Division
U.P. Co-operative Cane Unions Federations Vs. West U.P. Sugar Mills As ...
Court: Supreme Court of India
Decided on: May-05-2004
Reported in: AIR2004SC3697; 2004(3)CTC590; (2004)5SCC430
in the mind of the Constitution Bench was the factual non fixation of the price by the State Government but not … ORDERSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH130. In C.A. No. 460 of 1997, the Division Bench
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. State of U.P. and anr.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Decided on: Nov-29-2004
Reported in: I(2005)ACC51; AIR2005SC446; 2005(1)AWC220(SC); JT2004(10)SC173; 2004(10)SCALE28b; (2005)1SCC444
Allahabad High Court by which the scheme dated 13.2.1986 published under Section 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and the
State of U.P. and anr. Vs. U.P. Rajya Khanij Vikas Nigam S.S. and ors.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Decided on: May-02-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)AWC2833(SC); [2009(121)FLR424]; JT2008(6)SC489; 2008(9)SCALE1; 2008(8)Supreme453
global industrialization and liberalized economic policy introduced by the Government, non- resident Indians (NRIs) were attracted and several industrial entrepreneurs in … 1997. By the said order, the writ petition filed by Uttar Pradesh Rajya Khanij Vikas Nigam Sangharsh Samiti ('Samiti' for short)
U.P. State Road Trasnport Corporation Vs. U.P. Rajya Sadak Parivahan K ...
Court: Supreme Court of India
Decided on: Mar-09-2007
Reported in: [2007(113)FLR343]; (2007)2LLJ546SC; 2007(4)SCALE302; (2007)10SCC758; 2007AIRSCW2406; 2007IILLJ546(SC)
against the impugned judgment and order dated 6.9.2005 of the Uttaranchal High Court in Writ Petition No. 774 of 2002. The
U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Vs. U.P. Power Corpn. Ltd.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Decided on: Oct-18-2011
Reported in: (2011)10SCC223; 2011AIRSCW6299; 2012(2)SCJ588
order dated 3.2.2006, that it had been held that the payment of supervision charges at the rate of 5% (under the … 1. The appellant herein, the Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad (hereinafter referred to as, the
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »
Try AI Brief & Semantic Search - 7 days free