direct
investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. barely on the protest
application filed on behalf of the defendants in the suit ... made any request or prayer to take action under Cr.P.C .
The protest application was not in the nature of complaint under section
Wilfred D'Souza met the Governor at 4.00 p.m. protested about deliberate stalling of proceedings by the Treasury Benches and the role ... same day, the Speaker met the Governor at 5.00 p.m. and informed him of his inability to conduct the proceedings of the House
Sena Medal to the Government. The S.G.P.C. is requested to convey the protest of the petitioner as also to return the Medal ... Gurudwara at Dadar, Bombay. Considering the routing of the protest through the S.G.P.C. as an affirmation of petitioner desiring to join
thereafter paid a sum of Rs. 74,934.47 p. under protest and cleared the consignment. On or about 5th November, 1971, the Petitioners made ... Petitioners filed an appeal against the demand for Rs. 74,934.47 p. The Appellate Collector of Customs, Bombay gave the Petitioners a hearing
apply accordingly.
p. On 19.1.1954, the Secretary of the trust issued
a letter to G.P.Goswami (Respondent No.3 in W.P ... Secretary of the trust
issued a letter to G.P.Goswami protesting against
the subletting of the premises allotted to him
without the content
before the Metropolitan Magistrate, under the caption
"Protest Petition u/s 178(3) of Cr.P.C. in reply of documents
provided ... protest petition. However,
the protest petition must necessarily satisfy ingredients of
complaint before Magistrate takes cognizance under Section
190(1)(a) of the Cr.P
31st October, 1993. The return was filed as A.O.P under protest. The A.O., accordingly, assessed the assessee as A.O.P
Shoji Trade Corporation on 18 December, 2009
Author: P.B. Majmudar
Bench: P.B. Majmudar , R.V. More
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ... Federal & Rashmikant, for respondent No.1. (Appearing under protest)
CORAM: P.B. MAJMUDAR &
R.V. MORE, JJ.
DATE: DECEMBER 18, 2009.
::: Downloaded
plaintiff deposited the amount due towards the arrears of Rs. 9433.80P. under protest. According to my opinion, the plaintiff had no alternative at that
Supreme Court in
the case of Dharma Prathishthanam vs. Madhok Construction (P) Ltd.,10 and it
is submitted that the arbitrator appointed by the respondents ... because the petitioners had also nominated their
arbitrator and had appeared under protest before the arbitral tribunal, the defect in
appointment of the arbitral tribunal
