Advanced Search Results

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.

Nirmal Chand Vs. Gaya Prasad Dikshit and anr.

Court : Allahabad

Subject : PropertyCivil

Acts : Limitation Act, 163 - Schedule - Article 65

Reported in : AIR1979All54

dispossessing does not raise presumption of abandonment of title - relief of possession not barred by limitation. - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. … whether this forebearance on the part of Dr. Rama Shankar vested rights of ownership in Dixit under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, Before proceeding any further it is necessary also to mention that there is not

Ram Krishna Kapoor Vs. Behari Lal Ram Sahai and anr.

Court : Allahabad

Subject : PropertyCivil

Acts : Limitation Act, 1908 - Schedule - Articles 109 and 120; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 65

Reported in : AIR1963All44

rents and profits till the confirmation of sale - realisation of rent from judgment debtor not wrongful. - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. … does not deal with the rights of the auction purchaser nor does it deal with the effect of Section 65, C. P. C., nor does it deal with the point as to whether for the period between the

Marothi Vs. Satyanarayana

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Subject : PropertyLimitation

Acts : Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 11; Limitation Act, 1963 - Schedule - Article 65

Reported in : 2002(6)ALD134

title - Article 65 to apply - adverse possession to be established by person who filed suit. - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag.

Muthineni Krishna Rao and Others Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Subject : Service

Acts : Constitution of India - Articles 14, 15, 15(4), 16, 16(4), 21, 32, 32-A, 35, 136, 141, 143, 217, 225, 226, 227, 309, 323 (A, A(2), B and B(3)), 356, 368 and 371-D; Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Sections 1 to 4, 5, 6, 6(2 and 3), 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 13((1-A) and 2), 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 20(2), 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 29-A, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 36-A and 37; Andhra Pradesh Direct Recruitment for Posts of Teachers (Scheme of Selection) Rules, 1994 - Rules 2, 3, 12, 13, 13(1), 14 and 15 to 19; Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Organisation of Local Cadres and Regulation of Direct Recruitment) Order, 1975; Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982 - Sections 78 and 79; Andhra Pradesh Panchayats Raj Act, 1994 - Sections 169(4), 195(4) and 268; Presiden

Reported in : 1998(6)ALD378; 1998(5)ALT772

only in accordance with qualifying marks mentioned in original notification and subsequent reduction of marks not valid. - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. … fixation is irrelevant and surplusage - held, age for Chairman and Vice Chairman for holding office is till 65 years and for member till 62 years. (iii) Selection - Rule13 (a) of Andhra Pradesh Direct Recruitment for

Cit Vs. Sb. Naseema Begum and ors.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Subject : Direct Taxation

Reported in : [2002]258ITR503(AP)

Matched in: Advocate S. R. Ashok, for the Revenue Y. Ratnakar, for the Assessees in R. G. Nos. 53, 69, 77 and 78 of 1989 B. Murali Krishna, for the Assessees in R. C. Nos. 65, 106, 107, 116 and

The Town Area Committee Vs. Rajendra Kumar and anr.

Court : Allahabad

Subject : Civil

Acts : Contract Act, 1872 - Sections 65

Reported in : AIR1978All103

of unjust enrichment - held, defendant having received benefit under contract were bound to pay balance amounts. - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. … under the contract were bound to pay the balance money due to the plaintiff. Reliance was placed on Section 65 of the Indian Contract Act which contains the principle of restitution after benefit, has been received and the

Ganga Dihal Rai Vs. Mahabir Prasad Pande and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Subject : Contract

Reported in : (1920)ILR42All7

of his contract--Suit for recovery of consideration paid--Execution of decree--Civil Procedure Code (1908), Order XXI, Rule 89. - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. … fact the contract in this case has not made an express provision inconsistent with the stipulation contained in Section 65, On the whole, we have come to the conclusion that the contract is not inconsistent with that section.

Chuni Lal Vs. Kheta Mal

Court : Allahabad

Subject : Contract

Reported in : (1880)ILR2All181

dismissed with costs in all the Courts. Arbitration - Insolvency--Contract--Act IX of 1872 (Contract Act), Section 65. - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag.

Kavali Hanumanna Vs. Huzurappa and Others

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Subject : PropertyLimitation

Acts : Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Sections 43 and 122; The Indian Contracts Act, 1872 - Sections 11; Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Sections 14; Limitation Act, 1963 - Articles 27, 65 and 137; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Sections 100; Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 126;

Reported in : 1999(6)ALD815; 1999(6)ALT626

claim by reversioners has to follow within limitation - claims becomes barred if not filed within limitations. - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. … have filed a suit within 12 years from the death of last female holder in terms of Article 65 explanation (b) of Limitation Act. Thus, their rights stood extinguished in terms of Article 27 of Limitation Act.