Rules 3 And 6 - Judgment Search Results

Jitendra Gupta Vs. Ramchandra Sardare

Court: Gujarat

Reported in: (1991)2GLR792

had already moved the Court by applications Exhs. 12 and 14 to pass a decree under Order XXXVII Rule 6 since no application for leave to defend was filed as required by Order XXXVII Rule 5 and … the matter for pronouncement of judgment was passed.2. The petitioner has sued the respondent for recovery of Rs. 3,685/- with interest on the ground that the respondent failed to repay the amount of Rs. 3,000/- borrowed from

Digvijay Cement Company Limited Vs. Union of India

Court: Gujarat

Reported in: 1986(10)ECC359; 1987(10)LC7(Gujarat); 1986(25)ELT879(Guj); (1987)1GLR641

(2) The Collector may, on application made in this behalf and subject to the condition mentioned in sub-rule (3) and such other conditions as may from time to time be prescribed by the Central Government, permits a manufacturer … us and the learned advocates representing the parties also addressed us accordingly. 6. Rival Contentions : Mr. V. B. Patel for the petitioners submitted that … : Whether the first petitioner company is entitled to proforma credit under Rule 56-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 framed under the provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 on the two inputs viz.

Emkay Exports a Partnership Firm and Mrs. Kanchan S. Chaudhary, Partne ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(5)ALLMR388; 2008(4)BomCR522; 2008(4)MhLj843

of the stated exceptions. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.I. Rooplal (supra) held as under:. Precedents which enunciate rules of law form the foundation of administration of justice under our system. This is a fundamental principle which … whether appellants are entitled to challenge the order passed by Court granting conditional leave to defend under Order 37 of the Civil Procedure Code while assailing the final decree passed in summary suit on the ground of … Procedure against the defendants. The plaintiff took out Summons for Judgment No. 669 of 2004 against the defendants. Upon service, the defendants filed affidavit in

Grasim Industries Ltd. Vs. Cit

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2009]317ITR241(Bom)

was required to be done Under Rule 3(6) of the Indian Income-tax (Computation of Capital of Industrial Undertakings) Rules, 1949. It was contended that the said rule was declaratory and a request was made that the order

Somras Distillers Vs. State of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary, Fina ...

Court: Mumbai Nagpur

also not possible. According to the learned senior counsel, the provisions of the Maharashtra Country Liquor Rules, specially Rules 3, 6(42) 7, 8, 10, 31 and Forms CL-1, 2 and 3 which mention the conditions of licence clearly

Dahiben Vs. Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur and Others

Court: Mumbai Nagpur

of the Tribal. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 6 of the said Act before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. The notice issued … provisions of the said Act as well as provisions of the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the said Rules) to support his submissions. He further placed reliance upon the … returnable forthwith. The facts in brief are that one Smt. Jankibai, the predecessor of the respondent Nos.3A to 3D had moved an application on 16/03/2004 under provisions of the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act,

R.C. Sundaravalli Vs. T.D. Shakila

Court: Chennai

Reported in: AIR2002Mad82; (2001)3MLJ681

7 Rule 11, Order 10 Rule 2, Order 13 Rule 1 and Order 14 Rules 1 (5), 2 and 6 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and Rule 3 (6) of Civil Rules of Practice - suit filed

M/S. Jindal Paper and Plastics Ltd. Vs. M/S. Kedia Distilleries Ltd. a ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000VIAD(Delhi)122; 86(2000)DLT473

mentioned application. Since these orders were not complied with the Plaintiff has filed I.A. 10357/99 under Order XI, Rule 21 read with Order XVII, Rule 3 for striking out their defense and for decreeing the suit. Despite

Rabinarayan Moharana Vs. State of Orissa and ors.

Court: Orissa

Reported in: AIR2003Ori93

to the post of President, District Consumer Redressal Dispute Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the rules made thereunder. He explained that under Rule 3 (6) (g) & (h) of the Orissa Consumer Protection Rules, … reasonable opportunity of defending himself against the allegations of having accepted the bribe of Rs. 5,000/-. Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the report of the Revenue Divisional Commissioner are quoted herein below :'5. The accused Rabinarayan Moharana stated

Arati Das Vs. State and ors.

Court: Orissa

Reported in: AIR2006Ori13; 100(2005)CLT169

notification dated 6th July, 1993, which was published in the Orissa Gazette on 19th July, 1993. Sub-rules (5) and (6) of Rule 3 are relevant and liable to be perused which are reproduced as under :'(5) *** ***