Rajkot Fine Chemicals (P) Ltd. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors.
Judges: B J Reddy, S V Manohar
22 January, 1997·ORDER B.P. Jeevan Reddy and Sujata V. Manohar, JJ.1. The appellant herein is the purchaser and the fourth respondent is the manufacturer. The fourth respondent was the third petitioner in the High Court (having been transposed from the array of the respondents to the array of the petitioners). Certa...
Supreme Court Of India
Smt Angoori Devi vs State Of U P & Ors
Judges: Faizan Uddin, Suhas C Sen Act Headnote
22 January, 1997·PETITIONER:THE SECRETARY (ESTT)RAILWAY BOARD & ANR. ETC.Vs. RESPONDENT:SHRI D. FRANCIS PAUL ETC.DATE OF JUDGMENT: 15/07/1996 BENCH:RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K.G.B. PATTANAIK (J) CITATION:JT 1996 (7) 706 ACT:HEADNOTE:JUDGMENT:WITH SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.14887 OF 1996 (CC-3212/96) O...
Supreme Court Of India
Smt Angoori Devi vs State Of U P & Ors
Judges: Faizan Uddin, Suhas C Sen Act Headnote
22 January, 1997·PETITIONER:G. NARAYAN RAO Vs. RESPONDENT:THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER DATE OF JUDGMENT: 15/07/1996 BENCH:RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH:RAMASWAMY, K.G.B. PATTANAIK (J) CITATION:JT 1996 (6) 721 1996 SCALE (5)476 ACT:HEADNOTE:JUDGMENT:O R D E R The petitioner questions the correctness of the judgment and...
Supreme Court Of India
Income Tax Officer , Jodhpur vs Purushottam Das Bangur & Anr
Judges: S C Agrawal, G T Nanavati Act Headnote
22 January, 1997·PETITIONER:INCOME TAX OFFICER, JODHPUR Vs. RESPONDENT:PURUSHOTTAM DAS BANGUR & ANR.DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22/01/1997 BENCH:S.C. AGRAWAL, G. T. NANAVATI ACT:HEADNOTE:JUDGMENT:[WITH CIVIL APPEALS NOS. 3234-35 OF 1983] J U D G M E N T CIVIL APPEALS NOS. 3041-43 OF 1983 These appeals are directed against t...
Supreme Court Of India
Smt Angoori Devi vs State Of U P & Ors
Judges: Faizan Uddin, Suhas C Sen Act Headnote
22 January, 1997·PETITIONER:RUDRADHAR R. TRIVEDI Vs. RESPONDENT:STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGHTHE SECRETARY & ANR. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 15/07/1996 BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K.G.B. PATTANAIK (J) CITATION:1996 SCALE (5)475 ACT:HEADNOTE:JUDGMENT:O R D E R We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.Notif...
Supreme Court Of India
Smt Angoori Devi vs State Of U P & Ors
Judges: Faizan Uddin, Suhas C Sen Act Headnote
22 January, 1997·PETITIONER:SMT. ANGOORI DEVI Vs. RESPONDENT:STATE OF U.P. & ORS.DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22/01/1997 BENCH:FAIZAN UDDIN, SUHAS C. SEN ACT:HEADNOTE:JUDGMENT:SEN, J.J U D G M E N T This is a case under Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter described as ‘the Act) which involves interp...
Supreme Court Of India
Brahmdeo Choudhary vs Rishikesh Prasad Jaiswal & Anr
Judges: A S Anand, S B Majhudar Act Headnote
22 January, 1997·PETITIONER:SARVINDER SINGH Vs. RESPONDENT:DALIP SINGH & ORS.DATE OF JUDGMENT: 02/08/1996 BENCH:RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K.G.B. PATTANAIK (J) CITATION:1996 SCALE (6)59 ACT:HEADNOTE:JUDGMENT:Present:THE 2ND DAY OF AUGUST, 1996 Hon’ble Mr.Justice K.Ramaswamy Hon’ble Mr.Justice G.B.Pattanaik R....
Supreme Court Of India
Superintending Engineer,Public ... vs Kuldeep Singh and Ors
Judges: K Ramaswamy, S Saghir Ahmad, G B Pattanaik
21 January, 1997·O R D E R This special leave petition arises from the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, made on 6.9.1996 in OA No. 330/CH/89. Admittedly, the respondent belongs to Scheduled Castes and was eligible for promotion as Head-Draftsman. For the promotion to the said post, the...
Supreme Court Of India
Tractors And Farm Equipment Ltd. vs Collector Of Customs, Madras
Judges: B J Reddy, S V Manohar
21 January, 1997·1. Heard the counsel for the parties. We are of the opinion that the Tribunal is right in holding that the sub-assemblies imported by the appellant do not fall under the description of Internal Combustion Piston Engine, within the meaning of Entry 60 of Notification No. 341 of 1976, even if the said...
Supreme Court Of India
Raka Electricals vs Collector Of Central Excise
Judges: A Ahmadi, S Bharucha
21 January, 1997·ORDER A.M. Ahmadi, CJI and S.P. Bharucha, JJ.1. We have heard learned Counsel for the appellant. He tried to persuade us to take a view different from the view taken by the authorities as well as the Tribunal below that armatures are not rotors and, therefore, the appellant would be entitled to exem...
Supreme Court Of India
Don’t wait for legal issues to escalate
By continuing past this page, you agree to our Terms of Service, Cookie Policy, Privacy Policy, Refund Policy and Content Policies. © 2023 - Uber9 Business Process Services Private Limited. All rights reserved.