Skip to content

Advanced Search Results

Act1: cantonments act 1924 section 146 · Page 1 of about 5 results (0.015 seconds)

Pulse this search Log in to save a LexPulse alert for this search

AI Studio

AI Brief on every result

Start a 7-day free trial - 18-section briefs and case chat on any judgment in these results, plus Semantic Search on your next query.

Apr 22 2016

Adi Dara Patel and Others Vs. S. R. Jondhale and Others

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Apr-22-2016

Subject : Land Acquisition

Union territory or within the local limits of a cantonment declared as such under section 3 of the Cantonments Act, 1924 (2 of 1924), means the State Government. 157. The submission of Mr. Chidambaram is that assuming everything under … common judgment. 2. For the purpose of complete enumeration of facts, we will refer to Writ Petition No. 1468 of 2009. 3. This petition prays for issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

May 10 1951

Raja Suryapalsingh and ors. Vs. the U.P. Govt.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : May-10-1951

Subject : Constitution

Acts : Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950; Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951 - Sections 4(2), 27, 113 and 114; Constitution of India - Articles 13, 14, 19(1), 25, 25(1), 26, 31, 31(2), 31(4), 245, 246 and 294; ; Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 6; Govt. of India Act - Sections 299; ; Crown Grants Act, 1895 - Sections 3; Constitutional Law; Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 - Sections 3 and 4

Reported in : AIR1951All674

to membership of a particular body; see, for example, the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926, Section 4, the Cantonment Act, 1924, Sections 13(8), 18(4) & 13(5), the United Provinces District Boards Act, 1922, Section 4(2) & the … membership of a particular body; see, for example, the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926, Section 4, the Cantonment Act, 1924, Sections 13(8), 18(4) & 13(5), the United Provinces District Boards Act, 1922, Section 4(2) & the United Provinces

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Jun 19 1995

Vimar Seguros Y Reaseguros, S. A. Vs. M/V Sky Reefer

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jun-19-1995

Subject : MRTP

provisions to that effect in their domestic versions of the Hague Rules, see, e. g., Sea-Carriage of Goods Act 1924, § 9(2) (Australia); Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, No. 1 of 1986, § 3 (South Africa). In … of Appeals without exception have invalidated foreign forum selection clauses under § 3(8). See Union Ins. Soc. of Canton, Ltd. v. S. S. Elikon, 642 F.2d 721 , 723-725 (CA4 1981); Conklin & Garrett, Ltd v. MN … "aris[e] from ... failure in the duties or obligations provided in this section," § 3(8) is concerned with the liability imposed elsewhere in § 3, … F. 2d, at 723; G. Gilmore & C. Black, Law of Admiralty 146-147 (2d ed. 1975). Thus, if the security interests in some bills of

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

18-section briefs on any result in this list

Apr 18 1960

Chandan Lal Joura Vs. AmIn Chand Mohan Lal and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Apr-18-1960

Subject : Commercial

Acts : Negotiable Instruments Act - Sections 118; Evidence Act -Sections 114; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Order 11, Rules 18 and 21 - Order 17, Rule 3

Reported in : AIR1960P& H500

1915: (AIR 1915 Lah 439); and Karam Chand v. Jinda Ram, AIR 1924 Lah 404.(30) The provisions of O. 17, R. 3, Civil Procedure Code, … defendant No. 3 had revealed the following information. The defendant-firm used to supply to the military at Jullundur Cantonment certain articles on the basis of tender contracts entered into with 'C. R. I. A. S. C.,' Jullundur … of the firm on 13th of May, 1949, as alleged; and(b) whether a sum of Rs. 25,000/- was actually paid to defendant No. 2 or whether the pronote was passed by way of an illegal gratification for … the defendants to rebut the presumption that the pronote was for consideration. Section 118(a) is as under:'Until the contrary is proved, the following presumption shall … Das v. Sir Kishen Pershad, AIR 1918 PC 146.(19) Our attention was also drawn to a Full

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Apr 22 1932

The District School Board Vs. Bhagwan Vasudev Marathe

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Apr-22-1932

Subject : Civil

Reported in : AIR1932Bom651; (1932)34BOMLR1500

rules framed by Government underRule 145 of the Bombay Primary Education Rules 1924. It is not necessary to go into that question, for possession of … Act, VI of 1923, and rules 141 to 146 of the rules under the Bombay Primary Education … not essential for a corporation. The point has been covered by the decision in the case of The Cantonment Committee, Poona v. Barjorji Bamanji I.L.R. (1889) Bom. 296 where it was observed as follows (p. 289):-This Committee … plaintiffs, who are teachers, serving in the District School Board of Bijapur, constituted under the Bombay Primary Education Act, IV of 1923, as amended by Act XV of 1927, for damages for degradation and punishments inflcited by … sued in the same manner as the District Local Board incorporated under Section 47 of the Bombay Local Boards Act (VI of 1923), and if

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

AI Brief (18 sections) + Semantic Search - 7 days free

  • ‹ Prev
  • Next ›

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial