The Cpio, Supreme Court Of India, Tilak ... vs Subhash Chandra Agarwal & Anr. on 2 September, 2009
DHBA also refers to observations made by the Supreme Court, in
K.Veeraswami v. Union of India 1991 (3) SCC 655, and says that judges
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 200 (1.41 seconds)Trilok Chand Jain vs Dagi Ram Pindi Lall And Ors. on 14 December, 1973
taken by a Division Bench of the High. Court of Madras (Veeraswami and Krishnaswamy Reddy JJ.), in the case of Ve. v. Sivagami Achi (supra
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Delhi-I vs National Industrial Corporation on 16 April, 1982
madras High Court in CIT v. Veeraswami Nainar [1965] 55 ITR 35, were held to be not relevant as they pertained to different situations ... separate development rebate reserve fund is essential. Approving of the decision in Veeraswami Nainar [1965] 55 ITR 35 (Mad), it notes
P.V. Narsimha Rao vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 12 September, 1997
P.V. Narsimha Rao vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 12 September, 1997
Equivalent citations
Kusum Sharma vs Mahinder Kumar Sharma on 14 January, 2015
three-Judge Bench in Vimla (K.) v. Veeraswamy
(K.)[2], while discussing about the basic purpose
under Section 125 of the Code, opined that Section
Thomas Cook (India) Limited vs Hotel Imperial And Ors. on 9 January, 2006
Balaji Trading Co. v. Veeraswamy 1980 (1) AIR 28, a contrary view has been taken that till evicted by due process of law, a trespasser
L.K. Advani vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 1 April, 1997
observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.Veeraswamy v. Union of India and others , . Thus there is no reason, whatsoever ... observations of their Lordships, of the Supreme Court as reported in K.Veeraswamy 's case (supra), wherein it was observed by their Lordships
D.T.T.D.C. vs D.R. Mehra And Sons on 12 March, 1996
Balaji Trading Co. vs. Veeraswamy (1980(1) Air 28, a contrary view has been taken that till evicted by due process of law, a trespasser
Dr. R.R. Kishore vs C.B.I. on 5 October, 2006
Vineet Narain case is erroneous that the Constitution Bench decision in K. Veeraswami v. Union of India is not an authority for the proposition that ... decision runs contrary to observations and findings contained in para 28 of Veeraswami case.
8. Having regard to the aforesaid, we are of the view
Kusum Sharma vs Mahinder Kumar Sharma on 6 August, 2020
three-Judge Bench in Vimla (K.) v. Veeraswamy (K.)
(1991) 2 SCC 375 while discussing about the basic purpose
under Section 125 of the Code