Query No.2. Under which section LIC officer Mrs Anjali Prashant Ketkar
ask relative of policy holder to provide the pan card to provide ... policy.
Query No. 3. Under which section LIC officer Mrs Anjali Prashant Ketkar
noted pan card details without concern of pan card holder
Giriraj Enterprises And Ors. vs Dr. Manojhar S. Ketkar And Ors. on 2 February, 2017
A/01/64 1/3
BEFORE
Abhay D Ketkar vs M/O Finance on 21 July, 2023
1 O.A.No. 200/00541/2019
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR BENCH
JABALPUR
Original ... MEMBER
HON'BLE SHRI KUMAR RAJESH CHANDRA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Abhay D Ketkar,
S/o Late Shri D.V. Ketkar
aged about 57 years
working
Shobha Ramchandra Ketkar vs Proprietor Of Avirat Udhyog Mandir on 5 January, 2017
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
MAHARASHTRA
Appeal No. A/00/851
(Arisen
Deviprasad Chandrakant Ketkar vs M/S.Whirlpool Of India Ltd.(Woil) on 31 August, 2009
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
MAHARASHTRA STATE ... order : 31/08/2009
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM, MUMBAI SUBURBAN
Mr.Deviprasad Chandrakant Ketkar
11-12 Poornima
62 Pestom Sagar, Chembur
Mumbai 400 089 ..Appellant
from the Laboratory. On 19/12/1995 he called Dr.N.S.
Ketkar and took his opinion about case of the complainant. Dr.Deshpande brought ... Director of Ob-Gyn professional of Pune
World.
2)
Dr.N.S. Ketkar, Radiologist and Sonologist.
3)
Dr.S.N. Deshpande, Senior Ob-Gyn Consultant
Sheth Builders Pvt. Ltd.,
Having its office at: 202, Kalamandir,
Chitrakar Ketkar Marg,
Behind Adarsh Petrol Pump,
Ville Parle (E), Mumbai 400 057.
Through ... Directors,
Mr.Hasmukh Sheth,
R/at: 202, Kalamandir,
Chitrakar Ketkar Marg,
Behind Adarsh Petrol Pump, Ville Parle (E),
Mumbai 400 057.
2. Mr.Hasmukh Sheth
ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Gopal Krishnaji Ketkar v. Mohammed Haji Latiff and Ors. . The learned Counsel further submitted that ... regard to their charges. He cited the case of Gopal Krishnaji, Ketkar v. Mohammed Haji Latiff and Ors. . He pleaded that in another case decided
under
31. Thus, we are? of the firm view that Mr. Ketkar cannot be given relief from penalty merely because he did not physically deal
observed if there is no antecedent title among the parties.
• Gopat Krishanji Ketkar v. Mohamed Haji Latif AIR 1968 SC 1413, Irudayam Ammal v. Salayath ... Sampatti, Official Liquidator v. Dunlop India 87 Comp. Cas. 398.
Gopal Krishanji Ketkar (supra)
Even if the burden of proof does
