S 100 - Judgment Search Results

S.C.T. Al. Alagappa Chettiar Vs. S.S.C.T. Chidambaram Chettiar

Court: Chennai

Reported in: AIR1931Mad619

holding that in the absence of such notes an award should be sot aside at the instance of one of the 1925 they referred their disputes by means of muchilika, Ex. C, to three arbitrators residing in Devakotta and on 29th April

Superintendent, R.M.S. (C) Division Vs. R.M.S. (C) Division Co-operati ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1944Cal135

The opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 who are also sorters in the same Department stood sureties for the debt. Khudiram NO. 2 was Rs. 130 a month, the first Rs. 100 of the salary as well as half of the remainder

M/S. C.J. and Company Vs. Commissioner, Customs and Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(138)ELT123TriDel

Shipping Bills and they made a request to amend the Shipping Bills. The adjudicating authority confiscated the goods under Section 113(sic)

M/S C. Natvarlal and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

would be 901890, under the residual category in medical or surgical appliances. In view of this uncertainty and also on the

M/S. C.M. Rajgardhia Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce, Jsr.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta

of issuance of duty paying documents. Inasmuch as the issue stands decided I do not find any merits in the appellants'

S.C. Sharma Vs. Union of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000IVAD(Delhi)10

of which it is contended that grant of extension of service of any person in the Air Force would not be

S.C. Parasher, Deputy Director General (Retd.), All India Radio Vs. Un ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 109(2004)DLT86; 2004(72)DRJ410; [2004(101)FLR42]; 2004(3)SLJ396(Delhi)

1998 the Government of India issued a Memorandum on the subject of implementation of Governments decisions on the recommendations of the

S.C. Bahl and anr. Vs. Magh Raj and anr.

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: AIR1961Raj39

documents which he was asked to produce were confidential under Sec, 54 of the Income Tax Act and the court had

S. C. Bahl and Another Vs. Magh Raj and Another.

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: [1961]42ITR308(Raj)

provided in this Act, be entitled to require any public servant to produce before it any such return, accounts, documents or

S.C. Puttappaji Vs. D. Mallappa and ors.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: AIR1944Mad420

10th October 1938, the Court passed the order 'Proclaim and sell.' Because of the filing of a petition under Act 4