Re V Alexander - Judgment Search Results

O.V.Alexander vs Treesa Mohanan@ Lilly

Court: Kerala

17TH MAGHA, 1945 CRP NO. 745 OF 2019 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT OS 414/2010 OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT, KOCHI REVISION PETITIONER/S: O.V.ALEXANDER AGED 58 YEARS S/O.VINCEN, HOUSE NO.1/1081, (1/934) ODATHAPRAMBU, KUNNUMPURAM, NORTH THAMARAPARAMBU DESOM, FORTKOCHI VILLAGE, KOCHI TALUK

P.V.Alexander Vs. the Superintendent of Police(Rural S.P.),

Court: Kerala

of 2013 (P) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- P.V.ALEXANDER, MANAGING DIRECTOR, MERCY HOSPITAL, VALAKOM P.O., KOTTARAKKARA. BY ADV. SRI.SYAM J.SAM RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE(RURAL S.P.), KOTTARAKARA, KOLLAM-691 576.2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM-691 576.3.

C.V. Alexander Vs. Joseph Chacko

Court: Kerala

Reported in: [1995]82CompCas368(Ker)

complainant in the lower court. He filed this appeal in challenge of the order of acquittal of the respondent of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the Act'). 2. The … premise that the respondent was acquitted. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that even if the defence version is accepted the respondent cannot escape from Section 138 of the Act. The section deals with a cheque

T.V. Alexander Vs. Gift-tax Officer and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: [1989]176ITR251(Ker)

made. Tax was determined. But it was not paid. The assessing authority took more than 15 years to realise the irrecoverability of the tax due from the donor who is none other than the mother of the … consider. It may not be ordinarily assumed that the Gift-tax Officer would incorporate a false statement with a view to harass and harm the petitioner. I am not prepared to act upon the statement of the petitioner

Raju J. Vylattu vs P.V. Alexander

Court: Kerala

AT VYLATTU HOUSE, FORT KOCHI,FORT KOCHI VILLAGE,KOCHI-1, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT BY ADVS. SRI.T.MADHU SRI.K.V.BINOD RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE: 1 P.V. ALEXANDER PROPRIETOR,ST.MARY'S OIL MILLS,, DEVELOPMENT AREA,AROOR,AROOR P.O, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT PIN- 688 5342 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC … ST 1125/2005 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - III, KOCHI CRA 685/2010 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC-II),ERNAKULAM REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: RAJU J VYLATTU S/O.LATE V.T.JOSEPH,, AGED 38 YEARS,RESIDING AT VYLATTU HOUSE, FORT KOCHI,FORT KOCHI VILLAGE,KOCHI-1, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT

Raju J Vylattu vs P.V. Alexander

Court: Kerala

AT VYLATTU HOUSE, FORT KOCHI,FORT KOCHI VILLAGE,KOCHI-1, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT BY ADVS. SRI.T.MADHU SRI.K.V.BINOD RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE: 1 P.V. ALEXANDER PROPRIETOR,ST.MARY'S OIL MILLS,, DEVELOPMENT AREA,AROOR,AROOR P.O, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT PIN- 688 5342 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC … ST 1125/2005 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - III, KOCHI CRA 685/2010 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC-II),ERNAKULAM REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: RAJU J VYLATTU S/O.LATE V.T.JOSEPH,, AGED 38 YEARS,RESIDING AT VYLATTU HOUSE, FORT KOCHI,FORT KOCHI VILLAGE,KOCHI-1, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT

M/S Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. P.V. Alexander

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

oil mill got damaged and though he had filed claim for damages amounting to Rs.3,50,000/-, the opposite party repudiated the claim stating that the damage occurred in the insured premises would not fall within the purview of … the side of the opposite party. 4. Heard both sides. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant/opposite party vehemently argued before us that the order of the Forum below directing the opposite party to pay Rs.3,40,000/- with

New York Life Ins. Co. Vs. Alexander

Court: US Supreme Court

NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO. V. ALEXANDER - 300 U.S. 637 (1937) U.S. Supreme Court NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO. V. ALEXANDER , 300 U.S. … The motion of the appellees to dismiss the appeal is granted, and the appeal is dismissed for the reason that the judgment sought here to be reviewed is based upon a nonfederal ground adequate to support it.