Advanced Search Results

Bholai Khan Vs. Abu Jafar

Court : Allahabad

Subject : Civil

Reported in : (1899)ILR21All267

the merits in the Court of First Instance--Act No. XII of 1881 (N.W.P. Rent Act), Section 208. - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag.

A.J. Faridi and anr. Vs. Chairman, U.P. Legislative Council (R.V. Dhul ...

Court : Allahabad

Subject : Constitution

Acts : Constitution of India - Articles 168, 174, 183, 185, 185(1), 194(3), 196, 201, 203(1), 208, 208(1), 212(1), 226 and 246; Procedure Rules - Rule 143

Reported in : AIR1963All75

not ultra vires of the Constitution of India and chairman not acted in excess of his power. - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. … as also other Rules relating to Procedure and Conduct of Business of the Council, were framed under Article 208(i) of the Constitution, which entitles a House of the Legislature to make rules subject to the provisions of

Queen-empress Vs. Ahmadi

Court : Allahabad

Subject : Criminal

Reported in : (1898)ILR20All264

triable by the Court of Session to take the evidence of the witnesses produced by the accused. - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. … was put in by Musammat Ahmadi Begam asking the Court to take the evidence of her witnesses under Section 208* of the Criminal Procedure Code before taking her statement. Upon that petition the first order passed is dated

Emperor Vs. Satish Chandra Ghosh

Court : Allahabad

Subject : Company

Reported in : (1917)ILR39All412

Act), Sections 207(ii) and 208 - Voluntary winding up--Appointment of liquidator--Liability of liquidator acting under irregular appointment. - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag.

Delhi Cantonment Board vs.smt Shamim Bano

Court : Delhi

Subject : Land Acquisition

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) by Delhi Cantonment Board (the complainant), a statutory authority constituted under the Cantonments Act, 2006, seek leave to appeal against acquittal of the respective respondents by identical judgments rendered by the court of … R.K.GAUBA ORDER (ORAL) TARSEM SINGH ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Shekhar Nanavaty, Advocate 1. These thirteen petitions presented under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) by Delhi Cantonment Board (the complainant), a statutory authority

N.R. Srinivas Vs. Madduri Mallareddy and ors.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Subject : CivilProperty

Acts : Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Order 39, Rules 1 and 2; Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 35 and 102; Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 - Sections 5A; Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books (Amendment) Act, 1984; Property Laws; Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Sections 54; Contract Act, 1872 - Sections 208; Record of Rights Act - Sections 2(4)

Reported in : 2005(1)ALD268

appeals are allowed. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. … said termination affects the rights of third parties. In this context it is necessary to take into consideration Section 208 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, which deals with the effect of termination of agent's authority against the

Mohd. Abdul Subhan Vs. State of A.P. and ors.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Subject : Criminal

Acts : Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1978 - Sections 207, 208 and 209

Reported in : 2001(2)ALD(Cri)507; 2001(2)ALT(Cri)297

209 (1) (b) - bail cannot be cancelled as respondents have been appearing before Court for trial. - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. … Rs 5000/- by his order Dt, 6-4-99. Accordingly they executed the bonds. After complying with the provisions of Section 208 of the Criminal Procedure Code ('the Code' for brevity) the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court

Bansilal Yadav Vs. Suraj Chand Bhagat and ors.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Subject : Tenancy

Acts : Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 - Sections 10(2) and 22; Limitation Act - Sections 5; Transfer Property Act - Sections 5 and 105; Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Rules, 1961 - Rules 3, 7(4), 7(5), 8, 8(3), 22(4), 22(5) and 22(6); Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Sections 10 and 151 - Order 5, Rule 20 - Order 9, Rule 13 - Order 5, Rule 20 - Order 39, Rules 1 and 2

Reported in : 2007(2)ALD302; 2007(2)ALT491

thousand only) to be paid by the landlord/revision petitioner to the tenants/respondents in each Civil Revision Petition. - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. … 15-8-183 and Suraj Chand Bhagat, tenant in respect of the portion of the premises bearing No. 15-8-207 and 208. The old numbers of the said mulgies bearing Nos. 15-8-182 and 15-8-183 also correspond to old Nos. 15-8-207

The Purtabpore Co. Ltd. Vs. Cane Commissioner, Bihar, New Secretariat, ...

Court : Allahabad

Subject : Civil

Acts : Constitution of India - Article 226(1A); Sugarcane Control Order, 1966

Reported in : AIR1969All105

cause of action arose within the territories of U.P. - High Court could not entertain the petition. - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. … Sugar Factory Limited, Mairwa, for the purposes of sugarcane during the seasons 1966-67 and 1967-68. The list included 208 villages. All these villages were situate in the district of Saran in the State of Bihar. Feeling aggrieved

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 4, Chennai Vs. M/s. Mansi Fin ...

Court : Chennai

Subject : Direct Taxation

(a) and (b) of Section 2(14)(iii) of the Act. i.e. within the jurisdiction of a municipality or a cantonment board having population of not less than ten thousand or in an area not being more than eight … are rebutted. 7.10 The Bombay High Court in the case of CWT v. H.V. Mungale [1984] 145 ITR 208/12 Taxman 201 held that the Supreme Court had pointed out that the entries raised only a rebuttable presumption