Ruling - Judgment Search Results
Home > Cases Phrase: ruling Page 1 of about 83 results (0.055 seconds)Fisher Vs. Rule
Court: US Supreme Court
was the only heir, and as such, according to the ruling then and theretofore prevailing in the Land Department, Page 248
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTPraveen Rule Vs. Central Board of Secondary Education
Court: Madhya Pradesh
observation made by this Court in paragraph 4 of the order that when an element of public interest is created and
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT“hence the Rule (Sic. Present) Case Is a Revolving Around the Deposi ...
Court: Punjab and Haryana
25.1.2012, which, in substance, is as under :- Hence, the rule (Sic. present) case is a revolving around the deposing of
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTParker Vs. Rule's Lessee
Court: US Supreme Court
Lessee, 13 U.S. 9 Cranch 64 64 (1815) Parker v. Rule's Lessee 13 U.S. (9 Cranch) 64 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTSupreme Ruling of Fraternal Mystic Circle Vs. Snyder
Court: US Supreme Court
Fraternal Mystic Circle v. Snyder, 227 U.S. 497 (1913) Supreme Ruling of the Fraternal Mystic Circle v. Snyder No. 4 Submitted
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTTej Pal-decree-holder Vs. Tara Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Reported in: AIR1914All467; 24Ind.Cas.93
The application purported to have been made under Order XXI, rules 100 and 101, and Section 47 of the Code of
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTAdvance Ruling P. No. 14 of 1997, in Re
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1998]234ITR335(Delhi)
3 months, vide Rule 18A of Companies (Central Governments') General Rules and Forms, 1956 (Appendix 1).(2) Indian business accounts.Three copies of
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT“that a Decree for Declaration to the Effect That Vs. Union of India ...
Court: Punjab and Haryana
Courts to examine these aspects and wherever necessary make requisite rules, regulations or practice direction so as to provide appropriate guidelines
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTThe Decree-holder (The then Vs. Bearing No.2524/1988, Seeking
Court: Delhi
Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, indicates a rule of pleading. In Lotu Bandu Sonavane v. Pundalik Nimba Koli,
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTKhub Chand Vs. Lachman Das-decree Holder
Court: Allahabad
Reported in: AIR1930All415; 122Ind.Cas.758
Munsif should be taken to be proceedings under Order 21, Rule 97 and accordingly he remitted an issue to the lower
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT- << Prev.
- Next >>