M/S Hotel Leela Venture Ltd vs Commr.Of Customs(Gen) Mumbai
Judges: S H Kapadia, Aftab Alam
22 January, 2009·The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.Appellant is an importer. Appellant claims exemption under Notification No. 30/88 dated Ist March, 1988 saying that items imported were "heat pumps" for space heating, water heating and cooling applications. He placed reliance on the Table annexed to...
Supreme Court Of India
H.H. Pooranandaswamiji (D) Thru ... vs Sharadamma
Judges: B N Agrawal, G S Singhvi
22 January, 2009·Exemption allowed.Delay in filing substitution application is condoned. Applications for substitution are allowed. No notice need be issued to the legal representatives of the deceased respondents as they have already entered appearance.Heard learned counsel for the parties.The trial court dismissed...
Supreme Court Of India
M/S Hotel Leela Venture Ltd ( S ) vs Commr Of Customs(Gen ) Mumbai ( With Appln(S ) For Stay And Prayer For Interim Relief & Office Report )
Judges: S H Kapadia
22 January, 2009·ITEM NO.1 COURT NO.5 SECTION III S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 4981 OF 2007 M/S HOTEL LEELA VENTURE LTD. Appellant (s) VERSUS COMMR.OF CUSTOMS(GEN) MUMBAI Respondent(s) (With appln(s) for stay and prayer for interim relief &...
Supreme Court Of India
E K Lingamurthy & Anr vs Settlement Commissioner ( It&Wt ) & Anr
Judges: S H Kapadia, Aftab Alam
22 January, 2009·IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS.382-383 OF 2009 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos.19393-19394/2007) E.K. Lingamurthy & Anr Appellant(s) Versus Settlement Commissioner (IT&WT) & Anr. Respondent(s) O R D E R Leave granted.In thes...
Supreme Court Of India
New India Assurance Co Ltd ( S ) vs M/S Abhilash Jewellery
Judges: Markandey Katju, R M Lodha
22 January, 2009·Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 7972 OF 2002 NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. Appellant (s) VERSUS M/S. ABHILASH JEWELLERY Respondent(s) O R D E R Heard learned counsel for the parties. This appeal has been filed against the order of the ...
Supreme Court Of India
T Madhava Reddy And Anr vs Land Acquisition Officer-Cum-Mandal Revenue Officer
Judges: B N Agrawal, G S Singhvi
22 January, 2009·IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.4070 OF 2001 T. Madhava Reddy and Anr. Appellant(s) Versus Land Acquisition Officer-Cum-Mandal Revenue Officer Respondent(s) O R D E R Heard learned counsel for the parties.The Land Acquisiti...
Supreme Court Of India
S L Jaiswal vs Disciplinary Committee, Bar Council Of India
Judges: B N Agrawal, G S Singhvi
22 January, 2009·IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.4013 OF 2001 S.L. Jaiswal ...Appellant(s) Versus Disciplinary Committee, Bar Council of India ...Respondent(s) O R D E R Heard learned counsel for the parties.By the impugned orde...
Supreme Court Of India
H H Pooranandaswamiji ( D ) Thr L Rs vs Sharadamma ( D ) Thr L Rs
Judges: B N Agrawal, G S Singhvi
22 January, 2009·IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.3376 OF 2001 H.H. Pooranandaswamiji (D) Thr. L.Rs. Appellant(s) Versus Sharadamma (D) Thr. L.Rs. Respondent(s) O R D E R Exemption allowed.Delay in filing substitution application is condoned. Applications for su...
Supreme Court Of India
T S Ramachandra Shetty vs Chairman, Karnataka Housing Board & Another
Judges: Dalveer Bhandari, H S Bedi
22 January, 2009·Dalveer Bhandari, J.We are disposing of Civil Appeal Nos.3332 to 3334 of 2001 by this judgment. The facts of these appeals are identical. For the sake of convenience, the facts are being taken from Civil Appeal No.3332 of 2001. Appellant’s land measuring 1 acre 32 guntas in Survey No.32/1 a...
Supreme Court Of India
M/S Sushila Chemicals P Ltd & Ors vs Bharat Coking Coal Limited & Ors
Judges: Altamas Kabir, Cyriac Joseph
22 January, 2009·1 Delay condoned.2 Leave granted.3 There are as many as 45 appellants before us. At the very out set it has been pointed out that out of the said 45 appellants, 27 appellants, namely, appellants Nos. 1,2,5,6,14,15,17,18, 19 to 27,30,31,32, 33, 35,36,37,41,42 & 44 have filed two separate applications...
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.