| First | Prev | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | Next | Last |
| Documents Found: 2660 |
| Title |
Forum |
Year |
Lady Jena Jamshedji Duggan and Feroze Homi Duggan vs Jean Duggan
[LexDoc Id : 414400]
|
HC (Bombay) |
2011 |
Vijay Kumar vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr.
[LexDoc Id : 414316]
|
SC |
2011 |
CC vs Asian Paints India Ltd.
[LexDoc Id : 443967]
|
CESTAT (Mumbai) |
2011 |
Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. vs Petroleum Workmen Union and Ors.
[LexDoc Id : 440179]
|
HC (Bombay) |
2011 |
Shree Ganesh Steel Rolling Mills Ltd. vs CC
Challenge to jurisdiction of preventive officer to issue show cause notice-Notice replied to and test report in petitioner’s favour, Respondents directed to pass appropriate orders-Show cause notice was challenged by the petitioner as void an initio by relying on a decision of Supreme Court and submitting that the impugned order [LexDoc Id : 437537]
|
HC (Madras) |
2011 |
CC vs Sai Enterprises
[LexDoc Id : 434174]
|
CESTAT (Mumbai) |
2011 |
Hero Honda Motors Ltd. vs CESTAT
Order of tribunal: Matter heard on question of stay without affording opportunity to argue appeal-Petitioner permitted to file application for review or recall or modification of order-The petitioner contended that it was not afforded an opportunity to argue the appeal inasmuch as the matter was heard on the question of stay. Since t [LexDoc Id : 431427]
|
HC (Delhi) |
2011 |
Rose Zinc Ltd. vs CC
[LexDoc Id : 423529]
|
CESTAT (Delhi) |
2011 |
CC and CE vs Lanco Industries Ltd.
[LexDoc Id : 422047]
|
CESTAT (Bangalore) |
2011 |
Ganesh Steel Rolling Mills Ltd. vs CC
Challenge to show cause notice: Jurisdiction of CC (Preventive)-High court not inclined to impugn the notice since respondents seized of the matter, Respondents to pass appropriate orders-The petitioner had challenged the show cause notice asking the petitioner as to why action should not be taken against it under the Customs Act 1962. [LexDoc Id : 420464]
|
HC (Chennai) |
2011 |
CIT vs T.O. Abraham
Unexplained investment - Judicial Notice-Seller admitting higher payment - Seller retracting statement-During an enquiry under FERA, the seller admitted in written statement that land was sold at Rs. 16 lacs per cent as against Rs. 4 lacs per cent state [LexDoc Id : 418906]
|
HC (Kerala) |
2011 |
Darshan Singh and Co. vs CC
[LexDoc Id : 417674]
|
CESTAT (Delhi) |
2011 |
Prasanthi Cashew (P) Ltd. vs OL
Sale of property of company: Eight days’ notice for sale-Extent of property fairly large, Notice period too short, Order refusing to confirm sale by holding that eight days’ time was palpably insufficient upheld-The OL had published notice for auction sale of properties of company in liquidation on 23 March 2011 and the sale was conducted on 31 March 2011. The [LexDoc Id : 416379]
|
HC (Kerala) |
2011 |
Bridge Stone Tyre Mfg. (Thailand), Bridge Stone India, Michelin Shenyang Tire Co. Ltd., Michelin Siam Co. Ltd., Hangzhou Zhongce Rubber Co. Ltd., Tata Motors Ltd. and Zhaoyuan Leo Rubber Co. Ltd. vs DA and Ministry of Finance
[LexDoc Id : 415893]
|
CESTAT (Delhi) |
2011 |
Shri Krishna Janmotsav Samiti Punjabi Bagh (REGD.) vs MCD and Anr.
[LexDoc Id : 414796]
|
HC (Delhi) |
2011 |
Madhu Saxena vs Delhi Development Authority
[LexDoc Id : 414795]
|
HC (Delhi) |
2011 |
J.R.B. Engg. Works vs Customs and Central Excise Settlement Commission and Anr.
Maintainability of settlement application: Non-registration and non-filing of declaration-Application not maintainable-The settlement commission had opined that since the petitioner was neither registered with the central excise department nor did it file any declarati [LexDoc Id : 414793]
|
HC (Delhi) |
2011 |
Formosa Plastics Corpn. vs Ashok K. Chauhan and Ors.
[LexDoc Id : 414789]
|
HC (Delhi) |
2011 |
Eknath Bayaji Gadkari vs Municipal Corpn. and Ors.
[LexDoc Id : 414580]
|
HC (Bombay) |
2011 |
V.K. Chaturvedi vs UOI and Ors.
[LexDoc Id : 414422]
|
HC (Delhi) |
2011 |
Budhadev Karmaskar vs State of West Bengal
[LexDoc Id : 414149]
|
SC |
2011 |
Modern Dental College and Research Centre and Ors. vs State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors.
[LexDoc Id : 429652]
|
SC |
2011 |
Shree Hari Chemicals Exports Ltd. vs UOI
Personal hearing an empty formality if one person heard and another decided-Order passed by quasi-judicial authority without complying with principles of natural justice invalid-A personal hearing would become an empty formality if one person heard and another decided. An order passed by a quasi-judicial authority without comp [LexDoc Id : 424548]
|
HC (Bombay) |
2011 |
CC vs Kohler India Corpn. (P) Ltd.
[LexDoc Id : 423357]
|
CESTAT (Bangalore) |
2011 |
CC vs Tata Tetley Ltd.
[LexDoc Id : 423233]
|
CESTAT (Bangalore) |
2011 |
| |
| First | Prev | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | Next | Last |
| |
