Re Transfer - Judgment Search Results

Railroad Transfer Svc., Inc. Vs. City of Chicago

Court: US Supreme Court

revocation also where a licensee fails "to carry out any representation made to the Commissioner before the issuance of such license," arises from more than a decade of controversy between Railroad Transfer Service, Inc., and the City of Chicago over the city's

Central Transfer Co. Vs. Terminal R. Assn.

Court: US Supreme Court

and delivery of property . . . upon just and reasonable terms, and every unjust and unreasonable classification, regulation, and practice Assn. - 288 U.S. 469 (1933) U.S. Supreme Court Central Transfer Co. v. Terminal R. Assn., 288 U.S. 469 (1933) Central

Topa S/O Dhenu Rathod Vs. Maheshkumar S/O Shankarlal

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1996(2)BomCR703

the additional issues has no merit and deserves to be rejected.7. The trial Court by an order dated 14-9-1993 rejected the of sale in her favour under which there was no transfer of title, was itself void being against the provisions of

Adkins Transfer Co., Inc. Vs. Dornbos

Court: US Supreme Court

v. DORNBOS, 393 U.S. 322 (1969) 393 U.S. 322 ADKINS TRANSFER CO., INC., ET AL. v. DORNBOS ET AL. APPEAL FROM

Topa Mallah ? Jhora Vs. State of Jharkhand

Court: Jharkhand

the appellant with the murder-weapon. She further stated that the relationship between the appellant and the informant was not good and Session Judge, Gumla in Session Trial No. 63 of 2004. Topa Mallah @ Jhora Son of late Munna Mallah @ Jhora,

Raju @ Rajesh @ Topa Vs. State of M.P.

Court: Madhya Pradesh

Reported in: 2002(3)MPHT459; 2002(4)MPLJ225

Bardi Bai (P.W. 1). The Trial Court also believed the recovery of weapon of offence i.e., axe from the possession of Ajit Singh, J. 1. Appellant Raju alias Rajesh alias Topa, the sole accused in this case, has been convicted under

Transfer Industry Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(108)ELT562TriDel

Kgs. They accept that the goods were not cleared in retail packings but they were under the bonafide impression that these

ishwar Nath Topa and ors. Vs. Surender Singh Ahluwalia

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR1969Delhi289; 5(1969)DLT439

had paid nothing towards the principal. The mortgages claimed to recover Rs. 30,423.50paise principal and interest, by the sale of the representatives of the judgment-debtor for permission to sell the mortgaged property privately. The following issue was settled with respect to the

Wetzel Vs. Minnesota Ry. Transfer Co.

Court: US Supreme Court

and there is nothing to show that it did not realize for the widow and heirs its market value. Indeed, the it did not show that the warrant was not actually transferred by the widow, acting for herself and her children (except

National Mut. Ins. Co. Vs. Tidewater Transfer Co., Inc.

Court: US Supreme Court

an expurgated version of a banned original; it is the real thing. To circumvent the limits of Article III, it is 304 U. S. 77 -80; Black & White Taxicab & Transfer Co. v. Brown & Yellow Taxicab & Transfer Co., 276