Standing Committee - Judgment Search Results

Standing Committee (Sandc) Vs. Karmobiles Limited and anr.

Court: Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC

of 67 State Road Transport Undertakings. It has its registered office at New Delhi and functions through various Standing Committees, which in turn are constituted by the General Body. The respondent No. 1 is one of the … 67 State Road Transport Undertakings. It has its registered office at New Delhi and functions through various Standing Committees, which in turn are constituted by the General Body. The respondent No. 1 is one of the manufacturers

Village Panchayat of Kanhan Pipri Vs. Standing Committee, Zila Parisha ...

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: AIR1968SC183; (1968)70BOMLR154; 1968MhLJ41(SC); [1968]1SCR213

petition prayed for the issue of a writ quashing the resolution dated April 6, 1964, passed by the Standing Committee, Zila Parishad, Nagpur, and for a writ of mandamus directing the Standing Committee not to interfere with the … 6, 1964, passed by the Standing Committee, Zila Parishad, Nagpur, and for a writ of mandamus directing the Standing Committee not to interfere with the right of the appellant to impose and collect the octroi duty pursuant to

Nimba Yadav Bhoi Vs. President, Standing Committee, Zilla Parishad, Ja ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(3)MhLj466

petitioner filed his reply on 15th June, 2000. But the same was followed by a resolution by the Standing Committee on 15th July 2000 to the effect that the petitioner should be removed from the office of the … 39(1) of the said Act which is relevant for the decision in the matter, reads thus :--'39(1). The Standing Committee may remove from office any member or any Sarpanch or Upa-Sarpanch who has been guilty of misconduct in

Village Panchayat of Kanhan-pipri, District Nagpur Vs. Standing Commit ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR1967Bom283; (1966)68BOMLR828; 1967MhLJ70

dated 19th September 1963.(9) Respondent no. 2 thereafter filed a further appeal before respondent no. 1 i.e. the Standing Committee of the Nagpur Zilla Parishad on 22nd October 1963. Document no 5 filed with the petition is the … itself not tenable, having been filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed by the rules.(10) Respondent no. 1 Standing Committee of the Zilla Parishad, after hearing both the parties which appeared before it, decided the appeal in favour

Bharath Sanchar Nigam Limited vs the Chair Person, Finance Standing Co ...

Court: Kerala

KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS ASST. GENERAL,MANAGER(ADMINISTRATION) MOLY DOMINIC. BY ADV SMT.S.K.DEVI,SC, BSNL RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE CHAIR PERSON, FINANCE STANDING COMMITTEE 2 THE SECRETARY BY ADV SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON … THE COVERING LETTER NO. A1/6492/17 DATED 02.02.2017 EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF APPEAL DATED 21ST DECEMBER 2017 PREFERRED BEFORE STANDING COMMITTEE, THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF HEARING NOTE DATED 5TH DAY OF JANUARY 2018 EXT.P7 TRUE COPY

Sri Salivahana Rural Education Society, Tekkali, Srikakulam District V ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2001(6)ALD778; 2001(6)ALT523

4702 of 1999 is filed by the petitioner-society challenging the proceedings of the 1st respondent- chairman, State Level Standing Committee and Commissioner and Director of School Education, Andhra Pradesh dated 22-2-1999 rejecting the application of the petitioner society … the matter that arises for consideration is one and the same.3. The Competent authority, viz., Chairman, State Level Standing Committee and Commissioner and Director of School Education having rejected the request of the petitioner for grant of No

The Director General, E.S.i. Corporation, Vs. Mohammed Asmathullah and ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2004)IILLJ693Mad; (2004)2MLJ168

in dearness allowance for a period of three years. The first respondent filed an appeal to the Chairman, Standing Committee against the order of the Director General. However, the said appeal was dismissed by an order dated 28.6.1997. … ought not to have passed the order by himself and should have only forwarded his report to the Standing Committee and which in turn should have exercised its powers after due consultation with the Union Public service Commission.