V G - Judgment Search Results

State of Tamilnadu (by Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax) Vs. V. ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: [1993]201ITR412(Mad)

received by the assessee as rent in leasing out its land of 53 acres to its sister concern, V. G. P. Golden Beach Resort Ltd., for the latter carrying on the business of developing the said lands as … as agricultural income, is only stated as follows : 'The company has leased out agricultural lands to the V. G. P. Golden Bench Resort on a monthly rent of Rs. 36,000. The income derived from the land is

V G Jagdishan Vs. M/s. Indfos Industries Private Limited

Court: Supreme Court of India

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.OF2022(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.12511 OF2016 V G Jagdishan ..Appellant (S) Versus M/s. Indofos Industries Limited ..Respondent (S) JUDGMENT M. R. Shah, J.1. Leave granted.2. Feeling

V.V.G. Reddy Vs. Apsrtc, Nizamabad Region and anr.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: AIR2009SC1654; JT2009(2)SC36; (2009)IILLJ489SC; 2009(1)SCALE577; (2009)2SCC668; 2009(3)SLJ316(SC); 2009(2)LC621(SC):2009AIRSCW1176:2009(2)LHSC1346

single judge of the High Court, directing:The controversy in this writ petition is no more res integra, in view of the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in APSRTC, Khammam Region and Anr. v. P. … S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. Appellant is before us questioning the judgment and order dated 21.9.2007 passed by a Division Bench of the

V.G. Saraf and Sons Vs. H. Ranjith and anr.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: 2009(3)BomCR592; 2009CriLJ2788; JT2009(4)SC107; 2009(3)SCALE784; (2009)5SCC141:2009AIRSCW2261:2009(4)LHSC2277

bills.6. It is noticed that the High Court has not examined the matter in proper perspective. The probative value of the documents produced and the acceptability of the evidence of PW-1 has not been examined. That being … Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Kerala High

V.G. Shankaranarayana Bhat Vs. Girija (D) by Lrs. and anr.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: AIR2009SC2515; JT2009(8)SC212

V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. A judgment passed by the Karnataka High Court in Land Reforms Review Petition, dismissing the same, … The said Revision was filed by the present appellants as the legal representatives of the original landlord.2. One Govinda Bhat owned agricultural lands, which were leased in favour of one Kariyappa Gowda in 50s. Kariyappa Gowda cultivated

A.v.g.v. Ramu Vs. A.s.r. Bharathi

Court: Supreme Court of India

COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.22913 OF2017(ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) No.31476/2016) A.V.G.V. Ramu ...Appellant(s) VERSUS A.S.R. Bharathi ….Respondent(s) JUDGMENT Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.1. 2. Leave granted. This appeal is filed by the husband

V.G. George Vs. Indian Rare Earths Ltd. and anr.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: AIR1999SC1409; 1999(2)ARBLR47(SC); (1999)3CALLT25(SC); JT1999(2)SC629; 1999(2)SCALE482; (1999)3SCC762; [1999]2SCR531; 1999(2)LC1133(SC)

was entitled to refund of the earnest money deposited. Hence the present appeal.6. We have heard Mr. T.L. Vishwanatha Iyer, Sr. learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. G.B. Pai, Sr. learned Counsel for the respondents.7. Before

V.G. Nigam and Others Vs. Kedar Nath Gupta and Another

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: AIR1992SC2153; 1993(1)ALT24(SC); 1992CriLJ3576; [1992(65)FLR983]; JT1992(5)SC569; 1992(2)SCALE655; (1992)4SCC697; 1992(2)LC767(SC)

of the Tribunal's order. We therefore imposed a fine of Rs. 500/- on him. Respondent No. 4 by virtue of illegal promotions in his favour continuing on the chair had been responsible for the outcome of contempt … appellants for contempt of Court not for not complying with the order passed by it within extended time granted by the tribunal itself but for failure to carry out its directions faithfully and in the letter and

A.V.G.P. Chettiar and Sons and ors. Vs. T. Palanisamy Gounder

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: AIR2002SC2171; 2002(4)ALD53(SC); JT2002(4)SC572; (2002)3MLJ24(SC); 2002(4)SCALE479; (2002)5SCC337

the background in which the issues before us arise needs to be stated. 4. In 1900, one Mandi Venkata Naicker endowed his property in Trust for religious and charitable purposes by aregistered deed dated 7th September 1900. … to as 'the Act'). 2. The appellants have assailed the decision of the High Court primarily on three grounds: i) that the suit premises belongs to a religious charitable Trust and, therefore, theprovisions of the Act were

V.G. Quenim and anr. Vs. Bandekar Brothers Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: JT2002(Suppl1)SC464; (2002)10SCC513; 2002(5)WLN762

the property and second, attaching the property before the delivery of the judgment. We are, therefore, of the view that the order passed by the trial court, directing the defendant-appellants to furnish security, failing which the property … ORDER1. Leave granted.2. The plaintiff-respondent herein filed four separate suits for recovery of money against the defendant-appellants herein. It is alleged