From

Varnish - Judgment Search Results

Pulse this search Log in to save a LexPulse alert for this search

Jun 09 1993

Neo-shine Varnishes Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Decided on: Jun-09-1993

Reported in: 1993(48)LC23(Bombay)

alia, recites that during the course of investigation it was noticed that the petitioners had cleared paints and varnishes without proper documents. The enquiries revealed that the petitioners had issued paints and varnishes to various Government departments

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Feb 18 1983

Bharat Varnish Mfg. Co. Vs. the State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Decided on: Feb-18-1983

Reported in: [1983]53STC365(Bom)

Sujata Manohar, J.1. The assessees, M/s. Bharat Varnish Mfg. Co. are a firm manufacturing paints, varnishes, etc. For the period from 1st January, 1971, to 31st

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Jan 13 1919

Standard Varnish Works Vs. Steamship bris

Court: US Supreme Court

Decided on: Jan-13-1919

Standard Varnish Works v. Steamship "Bris" - 248 U.S. 392 (1919) U.S. Supreme Court Standard Varnish Works v. Steamship "Bris",

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

18-section briefs on any result in this list

Try free for 7 days How AI Brief works

Jan 25 1989

Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Sterling Varnishes

Court: Karnataka

Decided on: Jan-25-1989

Reported in: 1989(20)ECC109; ILR1989KAR920

Hiremath, J1. Respondent is the manufacturer of industrial varnishes whose product is liable to excise duty under the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944. The Central Government

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

May 31 2005

Bank of Baroda Vs. Indochem and Varnish Industries

Court: DRAT Allahabad

Decided on: May-31-2005

Reported in: II(2006)BC56

4 are guarantors of the defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 1 is manufacturing and doing business of resin, varnish etc. at Haldwani in the district of Nainital. Defendant No. 1 through defendant No. 2 took a cash

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

May 31 1995

C.C.E. Vs. Shankar Varnish and Phenyle

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Decided on: May-31-1995

Reported in: (1995)(79)ELT163TriDel

Matched in: Parties C.C.E. Vs. Shankar Varnish and Phenyle

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Mar 22 1996

Chandigarh Administration Through the Estate Officer, Union Territory ...

Court: Supreme Court of India

Decided on: Mar-22-1996

Reported in: AIR1996SC3318; JT1996(4)SC375; (1997)115PLR259; 1996(3)SCALE680; (1996)8SCC374; [1996]3SCR819

facts are that the site bearing No. 187-B, Industrial area, Chandigarh was allotted to M/s. Johnson Paints & Varnish Co. for industrial use. The allottee was Kulraj Singh Paul, S/o Sardar Gurbax Singh. The allotment came to

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Sep 16 2003

Noble Paints Private Limited (Formerly Known as Noble Paints and Varni ...

Court: Mumbai

Decided on: Sep-16-2003

Reported in: 2004(3)BomCR356; [2004(101)FLR27]; 2004(1)MhLj420

first party in May 1996 as a Production manager. The second party was working in production department in varnish section. He was also required to work in the laboratory to test the products. In the course of

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Jun 12 2003

Dilip P. Mehta Vs. Mercury Paints and Varnishes Limited and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Decided on: Jun-12-2003

Reported in: 2003(6)BomCR261

Khandeparkar R.M.S., J.1. Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner. None present for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, though served. Perused the records.2. The petitioner challenges the judgment and order dated 15-3-1999, passed by the...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Mar 16 2006