Seeing - Judgment Search Results
Sees Vs. Baksho
Court: Punjab and Haryana
Decided on: Jan-28-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Rs.No.3878 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 28th January, 2014 Sees Appellant Versus Baksho Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE Mr.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG1 Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers...
See Vs. City of Seattle
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jun-05-1967
See v. City of Seattle - 387 U.S. 541 (1967) U.S. Supreme Court See v. City of Seattle, 387 U.S. 541 (1967) See v. City of Seattle No. 180 Argued February 15, 1967 Decided June 5,...
Sees John Vs. Sales Tax Officer
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Mar-10-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)KLT837
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. Petitioner is challenging Ext. P5 demand notice for recovery of arrears of sales tax and interest for the assessment years 1986-87, 91-92 and 92-93.2. According to the petitioner, petitioner was entitled to...
18-section briefs on any result in this list
See (Dsidc) Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-29-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % W.P.(C) No. 4974/2011 29th August , 2013 SEE (DSIDC) ......Petitioner Through: Mr. S.C.Kalra, Adv. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Through: ...... Respondents Mr....
Authority (See Nagendra Nath Bora Vs. Commissioner of Hills Division a ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-23-2012
(as it then stood) are not greater than those under Article 226 and it must be limited to seeing that a tribunal functions within the limits of its authority (see Nagendra Nath Bora versus Commissioner of Hills
Sees Ram Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-01-1996
Reported in: 63(1996)DLT890; 1996(38)DRJ663
Devinder Gupta, J. (1) The petitioner has sought the quashing of order of dismissal from service dated 6.3.1991 passed by the Commandant, 67 Bn., Border Security Force in exercise of powers conferred under Section 11(2) of...
See Vana Na Ramah Iyer and anr. Vs. S.R.M.A.G. Gopala Iyer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1918
Reported in: (1918)35MLJ355
1. The 4th and 5th defendants in this case who are the appellants, brought a suit, O.S. No. 305 of 1913, in the District Munsif's Court of Ambasamudram, against the 2nd defendant. The 2nd defendant was...
Fisheries Products Co. Vs. Abraham S See and Depew
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jan-01-1925
FISHERIES PRODUCTS CO. v. ABRAHAM S SEE & DEPEW - 269 U.S. 566 (1925) U.S. Supreme Court FISHERIES PRODUCTS CO. v. ABRAHAM S SEE & DEPEW, 269 U.S. 566 (1925) 269 U.S. 566 The FISHERIES PRODUCTS...
Whether Reporters of Local Papers May Be Allowed to See the Vs. Promil ...
Court: Punjab and Haryana
Decided on: May-10-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.10081 of 2013 Date of Decision : May 10, 2013 Promila .....Petitioner versus Chief Administrator, PUDA and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE...
Whether Reporters of Local Papers May Be Allowed to See the Vs. State ...
Court: Punjab and Haryana
Decided on: May-10-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.10150 of 2013 Date of Decision : May 10, 2013 Punjab Leather Federation .....Petitioner versus State of Punjab and another .....Respondents CORAM :...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »
Hover bars for counts · drag or use +/− to zoom · click a bar to filter by year
AI Brief (18 sections) + Semantic Search - 7 days free