S L R - Judgment Search Results

m/s.l.r.brothers,indo Flora Ltd. Through Its Director Vs. Comissioner ...

Court: Supreme Court of India

led to absurdity in interpretation and a subsequent substitution of such words to make the intention clear. In the present case, JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.7157 OF2008M/s. L. R. Brothers Indo Flora Ltd. Appellant Versus Commissioner of Central Excise Respondent JUDGMENT A. and an interpretation which makes a part of the statute redundant has to be avoided. In view of the above discussion,

Kamal Gupta & Anr. versus M/S L.R Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Etc.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: [2025]9S.C.R.137

take place only between parties to an arbitration agreement and Section 35 of the Act does not make the arbitral award proceedings was considered by the learned Judge. On 07.08.2024, the learned Judge permitted the non-signatory intervenors to be present, either personally of the agreement and the sole arbitrator being required to resolve the disputes between parties to the agreement, a nonsignatory to

Kelu Manikaran Vs. Pakarvoor Manakal Jatavedan Nambudripad's L.R. Nara ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (1911)21MLJ465

to cases where a party is directed to carry out something is conceded. No reason is suggested why those cases where view was taken in Venkatachellam Chetty v. Veerappa Pillai I. L. R. (1905) M. 314. The question whether the plaintiff is of a deceased decree holder are not parties was not raised in the court of 1st instance. The appeal is dismissed

Velu Manikaran Vs. Pakarvoor Manakal Jatavedan Nambudirapad's L.R. Nar ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 6Ind.Cas.289

to cases where a party is directed to carry out something is conceded. No reason is suggested why those cases when an act, and the operation of that Clause is not limited to the cases contemplated by the second clause.4. That the 1. The appellant was restrained by a decree from taking wat6r which the respondents carry

Pittsburgh, C C and S L R Company Vs. Lightheiser

Court: US Supreme Court

WILLIAM R. ROSS. No. 178. Supreme Court of the United States December 7, 1908 Mr. Allen Zollars for plaintiff in error. 136; Pittsburgh, C. C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Lightheiser, 168 Ind. 438, 78 N. E. 1033; Pittsburgh, C. C. U.S. 348 , 44 L. ed. 192, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 136; Pittsburgh, C. C. & St. L. R. Co. v.

San Pedro, L.A. and S.L. R. Co. Vs. United States

Court: US Supreme Court

Co. v. United States - 247 U.S. 307 (1918) U.S. Supreme Court San Pedro, L.A. & S.L. R. Co. v. United only $900, the writ of error must be dismissed. Export Lumber Co. v. Port Banga Lumber Co., 237 U. S. 388 than an hour. At this point, the engine crew was relieved, their places being taken by men sent from Otis, a