Search Results Page

Search Results

41 - 50 of 2733 (0.27 seconds)

Bypl vs . Anand Etc. on 7 June, 2014

company. It is on record that the company did not procure the document pertaining to occupancy or the ownership of the inspected premises. No independent ... alleged inspection. It is on record that the company did not procure the document pertaining to tenancy or occupancy or the ownership of the inspected
Delhi District Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bypl vs . Naresh Kumar on 22 November, 2014

examination in chief of witnesses. 8. The company did not procure the documents pertaining to occupancy or the ownership of the inspected premises. No inquiry ... confirmed in which accused was acquitted as company failed to procure the documents of occupancy / ownership. The name of accused is given in the inspection
Delhi District Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bypl vs . Naresh Kumar on 18 December, 2014

accused was also not disclosed. 9. The company did not procure the documents pertaining to occupancy or the ownership of the inspected premises. No inquiry ... confirmed in which accused was acquitted as company failed to procure the documents of occupancy / ownership. 10. The company was under obligation to prove
Delhi District Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bypl vs . Mohd.Haroon on 28 November, 2014

which was red in colour. 9. The company did not procure the documents pertaining to occupancy or the ownership of the inspected premises. No inquiry ... confirmed in which accused was acquitted as company failed to procure the documents of occupancy / ownership. 10. The company was under obligation to prove
Delhi District Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bypl vs . Amit & Ors. on 10 November, 2014

remember there numbers. 10. The company did not procure the documents pertaining to occupancy or the ownership of the inspected premises. No inquiry in this ... confirmed in which accused was acquitted as company failed to procure the documents of occupancy / ownership. 11. The company was under obligation to prove
Delhi District Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bypl vs . Mohd.Rafiq on 1 December, 2014

BYPL Vs. Mohd.Rafiq 9. The company did not procure the documents pertaining to occupancy or the ownership of the inspected premises. No inquiry ... confirmed in which accused was acquitted as company failed to procure the documents of occupancy / ownership. 10. The company was under obligation to prove
Delhi District Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs Kamaljeet Kaur & Ors on 21 March, 2014

enquired about it. He admitted that he had not procured any documents from airport or airlines during investigation, which bears the signatures of accused ... accused. Except the disclosure statement, he had not procured any document to confirm whether the accused is the similar person who was traveling
Delhi District Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
Previous   1 2 3 4 5   6 7 8 9 10 Next