Search Results for "coconut oil"

34 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 34 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Upholds Conviction of Accused for Rape and Unnatural Offence on 3-Year-Old Girl. Testimony of Minor Victim Held Sufficient for Conviction Under Sections 376(2)(f) and 377 IPC.

The case involves two cross-appeals arising from the conviction of Patiram Gangaram Shelokar for the rape and unnatural offence committed on a 3-year-...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Disposes of Writ Petitions Challenging Customs Restriction on Import of Colour Picture Tubes and Video Tape Deck Mechanisms. Court Examines Whether Public Notice No. 109/89 Dated 21 March 1989 Renders Imports Under Pre-Issued Additional Licences Invalid.

The petitioners, manufacturers of colour televisions, imported Video Tape Deck Mechanism (VTDM) and Colour Picture Tubes (CPTs) against additional lic...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Dismisses Revenue's Appeal, Classifies Car Matting as Carpet Under Chapter 57 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. HSN Explanatory Notes and Specific Description Principle Applied to Hold That Car Matting Is More Specifically Described as Carpet Than as Motor Vehicle Accessory.

The case involved two appeals by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-III against a common decision of the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Acquits Accused in Rape Case Due to Inconsistent Evidence and Lack of Corroboration. Conviction under Sections 376, 451, 506 IPC Set Aside as Prosecution Failed to Prove Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt.

The appellant, Anil Vithoba Shinde, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nasik, in Sessions Case No.163 of 1998 for offences punishable und...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Allows Appeal in Family Settlement Dispute — Upholds Validity of Pre-Emptive Right Clause. Clause requiring written concurrence of all co-sharers before sale to third party is valid and binding; High Court erred in holding it vague and void.

The dispute arose from a family settlement dated 31.03.1982 among three brothers, including the appellant Tilak Raj Bakshi (plaintiff), the first defe...