Advanced Search Results
State Vs. Tukaram Khandu
Mumbai
Oct-14-1955
Criminal
Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 - Sections 66, 85, 85(1), 85(1)(1) and 85(1)(2); Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1898 - Sections 35; Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 71
AIR1956Bom279; 1956CriLJ584
R.J. Rele, Adv.
Dixit, J. 1. This is an appeal against an acquittal preferred by the State in a prosecution arising under Section 66(b) and Sections 85(1)(1) and 85(1)(2) of the Bombay Prohibition Act. 'The acquittal of the accused...
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskShankar Sadu KamaThe Vs. Chunilal Rupchand Dakale and anr.
Mumbai
Mar-18-1958
Limitation
Indian Limitation Act, 1908 - Sections 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 22, 29 and 29(2); Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act, 1947 - Sections 2(4), 2(5), 4, 4(1), 14, 43, 43(2) and 46; Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief (Amendment) Act, 1948; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908
AIR1959Bom294; (1958)60BOMLR901; ILR1958Bom1177
M.V. Paranjpe, Adv. and ;R.J. Rele, Adv. for ;Y.V. Chandrachud, Adv.
Dixit, J.1. On 14-9-1935, the petitioner executed in favour of the first opponent a document purporting to be a deed of sale. The petitioner is a resident of Poona, while the first Opponent resides at Saswad...
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskBharatiya Kamgar Karmachari Mahasangh Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. ...
Mumbai
Oct-22-2001
Labour and Industrial
Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 - Sections 19; Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 10; Constitution of India - Article 226
[2002(92)FLR700]; (2002)ILLJ651Bom
R.J. Rele and ;Piyush Shah, Advs. for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and ;M.S. Karnik, Adv. for Respondent No. 3
1. We have heard counsel for the parties.2. The case of the Petitioner-Union (in Writ Petition No. 7541 of 2000) is that the persons employed in the canteen run by respondent No. 1 - Indian Oil...
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskAI Brief (18 sections) + Semantic Search - 7 days free
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›