Skip to content

Advanced Search Results

Defendent: m a shah · Page 1 of about 4,350 results (0.424 seconds)

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.

Nov 24 2008

Medical Director Vs. State of Gujarat and 2 ors.

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Nov-24-2008

Subject : Trusts and Societies

Acts : Bombay Land Revenue Code - Sections 62

Reported in : (2009)2GLR1048

Advocate for Respondent : M.L. Shah, AGP for Respondents 1 - 3

ORDERIn view of the above circumstances, the Revision Application of the applicant Trust is partly admitted and the order passed by the Collector, Gandhinagar, dated 17.5.94 is hereby dismissed, and taking into consideration the aforesaid observations,...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Nov 24 2005

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Amarsinghji Mills Ltd.

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Nov-24-2005

Subject : Direct Taxation

Acts : Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 71, 72, 72(1) and 256(1); Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 - Sections 24(2); Finance Act, 1955

Reported in : [2006]286ITR129(Guj)

Advocate for Respondent : M.J. Shah and; J.P. Shah, Advs.

D.A. Mehta, J.1. The Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'A', has referred the following question under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (the Act) at the instance of the GIT :Whether the Tribunal is right in law...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Dec 07 1961

Madhaji Lakhiram Vs. Mashrubhai Mahadevbhai Rabari and ors.

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Dec-07-1961

Subject : Tenancy

Acts : Tenancy Laws; Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 - Sections 32(1), 88-C and 88-C(5); Constitution of India - Article 227

Reported in : AIR1962Guj235; (1962)0GLR438

Advocate for Respondent : M.R. Barot,; M.C. Shah and; V.J. Desai, Advs.

Miabhoy, J.1. Two questions arise for decision by this Full Bench. The first is whether a decision given by an appellate authority under Sub-section (5) of Section 88C of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act,...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

18-section briefs on any result in this list

Feb 05 1999

M/S. M.K. Shah Engineers and Contractors Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Feb-05-1999

Subject : Arbitration

Acts : Arbitration Act, 1940 - Sections 16, 20, 30 and 33; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 34

Reported in : AIR1999SC950; 1999(1)ARBLR646(SC); JT1999(1)SC315; (1999)IIMLJ19(SC); 1999(1)SCALE272; (1999)2SCC594; [1999]1SCR419; 1999(1)LC450(SC)

Advocate for Respondent : M.K. Shah For (Party-in-Person), ; A.K. Chitale, ; Sakesh Kum

ORDERR.C. Lahoti, J.1. These two civil appeals have been preferred by two contractors feeling aggrieved by the orders of trial court upholding the objections preferred by the respondent-State under Sections 16 and 30 of the Arbitration...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Dec 07 1990

Special Land Acquisition Officer, Broach Vs. Punjabhai Narshibhai Pate ...

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Dec-07-1990

Subject : Property

Acts : Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 23

Reported in : AIR1991Guj161; (1991)1GLR482

Advocate for Respondent : M.C. Shah and; V.J. Desai, Advs.

S.D. Dave, J.1. This common judgment shall govern the disposal of these 10 appeals arising out of the awards pronounced by the Ld. Assistant Judge, Broach dated 2510-1978, awarding the additional compensation in 10 L.A.R. Cases...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Apr 24 1958

Mumbai Mhijibhai Patel and ors. Vs. Trikamlal Laxmidas and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Apr-24-1958

Subject : Property

Acts : Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act, 1947 - Sections 2(4), 2(5), 4 and 7; Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Sections 59-A and 60; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Order 34, Rule 1

Reported in : (1958)60BOMLR1092

Advocate for Respondent : M.C. Shah, Adv.

ORDER(1) This revision petition raises an interesting point of law. The facts necessary to be stated in order to dispose of this point of law are as follows: One Fakirbhai Jijibhai was the owner of S....

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Dec 05 2003

Shree Dwarka Lohana Mahajan Sadavrut Fund Vs. Joint Charity Commission ...

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Dec-05-2003

Subject : Trusts and SocietiesCivil

Acts : Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 - Sections 50A; Constitution of India - Article 14

Reported in : AIR2004Guj147

Advocate for Respondent : Dipen Desai, AGP

ORDERM.S. Shah, J.1. Rule. Mr. Dipen Desal, learned AGP waives service of rule for the respondent.2. What is challenged in this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is the order...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Feb 17 1989

B.P. Chauhan and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Feb-17-1989

Subject : Service

Reported in : (1989)2GLR883

Advocate for Respondent : Mr. M.S. Shah

P.M. Chauhan, J.1. Petitioners B.P. Chauhan and J.S. Patel, initially appointed as Clerks on February 24, 1961 and June 17, 1961 respectively, by the Director of Ports, Gujarat State. Ahmedabad and subsequently promoted as Senior Clerks...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Jan 24 1962

Ganchi Laxmichand Ambaram Vs. Tulsidas Madhavdas

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Jan-24-1962

Subject : Civil

Acts : Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 2(2), 11 and 47 - Order 21, Rules 22 and 23

Reported in : AIR1963Guj1; (1962)GLR1032

Advocate for Respondent : M.C. Shah, Adv.

P.N. Bhagwati, J.1. This Revision Application raises an interesting question as to how far the principle of construelive res judicata applies in execution proceedings. Opponent No. obtained a decree against the applicant on 14th April 955...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Feb 22 2000

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Jagdishchandra Kanchanlal Parikh and o ...

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Feb-22-2000

Subject : Insurance

Acts : Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 - Sections 95 and 96; Workmens' Compensation Act, 1923

Reported in : I(2002)ACC198; 2002ACJ198; (2001)1GLR634

Advocate for Respondent : S.D. Patel,; P.V. Nanavati and; M.C. Shah, Advs.

D.C. Srivastava, J. 1. This appeal and the cross-objections of the claimants involve common question of law and facts, hence both are proposed to be disposed of by a common judgment.2. The appeal has been filed...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

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

  • ‹ Prev
  • Last »

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial