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 … or has been suspended by the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, the Command, under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 58, shall be punishable with fine which may extend to fifty thousand rupees and the cost of sealing the

Kanaka Durga Winres Vs. the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Subject : Sales Tax

Acts : Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act - Sections 20(1); Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules - Rule 58

Reported in : 2001(4)ALT258

Order passed by Commissioner was in violation of principles of natural justice and Rule 58 of Rules. - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag.

Bodla Ravindranath Vs. Chintala Venkata Laxmi and ors.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Subject : FamilyLimitation

Acts : Limitation Act, 1963 - Schedule - Articles 57 and 58

Reported in : 2003(2)ALD426; 2003(4)ALT105

on mere basis of false adoption without first seeking declaration from competent Court that adoption was invalid. - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. … suit was filed on 20.1.1982 and therefore the same is barred by limitation as per Articles 57 and 58 of the Schedule to Limitation Act, 1963. The plaintiff without asking for declaration under Section 34 of the

Committee of Management, Chaudhary Chotu Ram Post-graduate College, Mu ...

Court : Allahabad

Subject : Constitution

Acts : Uttar Pradesh University Act, 1973 - Sections 58(1); Presidents Act, 1973 - Sections 57 and 58(2); Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 226

Reported in : AIR1996All45; (1995)2UPLBEC790

material facts of notice - held, both notice and Order served jointly have to be read together. - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. … as the College) is affiliated to Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut, State Government in exercise of powers under Section 58(1) of U.P. State University Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) served a show cause notice on

Nirmal Kumar Jain, Addl. District Judge, Saharanpur Vs. State of U.P. ...

Court : Allahabad

Subject : Service

Acts : Uttar Pradesh Judicial Officers (Retirement on Superannuation) Rules, 1992 - Rules 2 and 4; Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1975 - Rule 22(3); Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 309; Uttar Pradesh Fundamental Rules - Rule 56

Reported in : 1998(1)AWC108; (1998)1UPLBEC200

complete absence of any proof to justify impugned Order - liable to be quashed as invalid-petition allowed. - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. … on Superannuation) Rules. 1992 were notified on 20.10.92 enhancing the age for theretirement of the Judicial Officers from 58 years to 60 years. These rules have overriding effect on the U. P. Fundamental Rule 56 contained in

Agrawal Pathshala Mohalla Mandi Bans, Moradabad Vs. Karim Bux and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Subject : PropertyCivil

Acts : Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 115 - Order 21, Rule 58

Reported in : AIR1969All139

of Order 21 without deciding on merits - held, the Court acted illegally and with material irregularity. - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. … J.1. This revision is directed against an order rejecting the objection under the proviso to Order 21, Rule 58 C. P. C.2. It appears that the property in dispute was attached on 6th January 1964 and an

Naseem Begum and anr. Vs. S.M. Kaleem

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Subject : TenancyLimitation

Acts : Limitation Act, 1963 - Articles 58 and 65

Reported in : 2004(2)ALD292; 2004(1)ALT34

title starts from date on which landlord dispossessed - held, Article 65 will apply in such circumstances. - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. … this regard. The learned Counsel also had advanced a contention that in a case of this nature, Article 58 of the Limitation Act 1963 alone is applicable and not Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and

Bhaskara Rao, K.V. Vs. Andhra Bank and anr.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Subject : Labour and Industrial

Acts : Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1980 - Sections 12(2) and 19; Andhra Bank (Officers) Service Regulations, 1982 - Regulation 19

Reported in : 2002(4)ALT218; (2002)IIILLJ718AP

for age of superannuation of 60 years and shall have to retire at age of 58 years. - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag.

Krishna Kumar Saxena and ors. Vs. Chief Justice of the High Court of J ...

Court : Allahabad

Subject : Civil

Acts : Advocates Act, 1961 - Sections 1(3), 16 to 28, 50(2), 55 and 58(4); Advocates (Amendment) Act, 1962; Legal Practitioners Act, 1879 - Sections 6, 7, 8, 9, 16, 17, 18, 19, 37 and 41

Reported in : AIR1969All112

- could not be said to be practicing as a pleader or vakil - enrollment held invalid. - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. … Court. On 27th October, 1967, the Joint Registrar replied that the power to 'admit' was not reserved by Section 58 of the Advocates Act, Consequently admitting new pleaders after 1st December, 1961, was unauthorised.Subsequently on 17th November, 1967,

Kothapalli Koteswara Rao Vs. Murukonda Subba Rao and ors.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Subject : Civil

Acts : Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) (Amendment) Act, 1976 - Sections 97(2) - Order 21, Rules 5, 58, 58(1), 59 and 63

Reported in : 2002(6)ALD609; 2004(1)ALT168

inherent jurisdiction to entertain it - held, suit instituted by plaintiff to set aside Order not maintainable. - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. … passed by the Executing Court in a claim petition filed under the provisions contained in Order XXI Rule 58 C.P.C. The appellant in S.A.No.534 of 1990 is not a party to the said suit. After contest on