Advanced Search Results

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 … Nanavaty, Advocate Crl. L.P. 70/2015 Etc. Page 3 of 10 + CRL.L.P. 269/2015 DELHI CANTONMENT BOARD Through: Mr. Ankur Bansal, Advocate ........ Petitioner versus ASHOK

Mt. Ram Pati Kunwar Vs. Phool Singh and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Subject : Civil

Reported in : AIR1932All377

plaintiff. The plaintiff-appellant shall have her costs from the contesting defendant Phool Singh in all the Courts. - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. … point is really only of academic interest, now that the matter has reached the appellate Court, since under Section 269, Agra Tenancy Act, 1926, I have clearly the power to decide the matter in controversy upon the merits.8.

Mumtaj Vs. The Director General of Defence Estates and Others

Court : Chennai

Subject : Land Acquisition

the land, in St. Thomas Mount-cum-Pallavaram Cantonment Board, which is, presently, governed under the provisions of the Cantonment Act, 2006. The lands in the cantonment area are regulated, by the Cantonment Land Administration Rules, 1937. Under the said … Vasavi Cooperative Housing Society Limited and others reported in (2014) 2 SCC 269. 15. The learned Senior Counsel had also relied on a decision of … Munsif Court, Alandur. During the pendency of the said suit, the officers of the St. Thomas Mount-cum- Pallavaram Cantonment Board had started to demolish the construction being put up at the Dargah, on 30.1.2014, on the instructions … the petitioner had sent a legal notice to the 10th respondent, under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code. 6. It had been further stated

Narottam Das Vs. Jagannath and anr.

Court : Allahabad

Subject : Civil

Reported in : AIR1948All44

this objection was not raised before the learned single Judge, we pass 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. … appeal lies against this order. Even before the present Tenancy Act, the view of this Court, based on Section 269 of Act 8 III. of 1926, was that no appeal lay against an order of remand vile Rameshwar

Bhatele Ramesh Chand Vs. Dr. Shyam Lal and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Subject : Civil

Reported in : AIR1946All34

predecessor dated 1st September 1938 and pass suitable orders. Costs here and hitherto shall abide the event. - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. … expressed a similar view in Balakrishna Udayar v. Vasudeva Aiyar ('17) 4 A.I.R. 1917 P.C. 71 at p. 269. The above makes it perfectly clear that it is impossible to define either 'a case,' 'any case' or

Ram Kishore Jaiswal Vs. B. Kavindra NaraIn and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Subject : Civil

Acts : Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 42; Uttar Pradesh Abolition of Zar-e-Chaharum Act, 1951

Reported in : AIR1955All59

of word 'Zamindar' - also held, that plaintiffs as plot proprietors were not entitled to claim 'Zar-e-Charharum'. - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. … No. 13 of 1932, D/- 10-4-1934 (All) (C). This Letters Patent Appeal had arisen out of suit No. 269 of 1927 for 'zar-i-chaharum' filed in the court of the Munsif of Banaras by Gajadhar Shukul who was