Advanced Search Results

Maharaja Shree Umaid Mills Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Subject : Excise

Acts : Constitution of India - Articles 14, 278, 291, 294, 295 and 306; Contract Act, 1872 - Sections 56 and 197; Rajasthan Excise Duties Ordinance, 1949 - Sections 30; Finance Act, 1950 - Sections 11 and 13; Rajasthan Administration (Amendment) Ordinance, 1949 - Sections 8 and 9; Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 115; Central Excise Act, 1944 - Sections 3; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Order 13, Rule 4

Reported in : AIR1960Raj92

Advocate for Appellant : G.S. Pathak,; Chand Mal and; Sumer Chand, Advs.

Jagat Narayan, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the Maharaja Shri Umaid Mills Ltd., Pali, against the Union of India, the State of Rajasthan, the Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi and...

Uttam Gulabrao Sakhare Vs. Champatrao Gulabrao Gawande

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Tenancy

Acts : Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Order 1, Rule 10; Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 116

Reported in : (1958)60BOMLR1150

Advocate for Appellant : V.L. Prabhune, Adv.

(1) This is a defendatns second appeal from a suit for possession instituted by the plaintiff who calims to be the defendants's landlord andfor recovery of arrears of rent.(2) The house in question is situated at...

Ramkumar Chunilal Agarwala and ors. Vs. Hazarimal Bansilal Kumbhar and ...

Court : Rajasthan

Subject : Civil

Acts : Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 24, 38 and 41

Reported in : AIR1961Raj157

Advocate for Appellant : M.M. Vyas, Adv. for Ram Kumar

Sarjoo Prosad, C.J.1. These are connected cases and arise out of the same set of facts and circumstances. They can be, therefore, conveniently disposed of by this judgment.2. On the 8th of September, 1952, Ram Kumar,...

H.H. Brij Indar Singh Vs. Lala Kanshi Ram

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Limitation

Reported in : (1917)19BOMLR866

Dunedin, J.1. The facts out of which this case arises are very clearly and succinctly stated by Mr. Justice John stone in his judgment of the 6th April, 1909, which is part of the necessary history...

Bai Chandan Vs. Chhotalal Jekisondas

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Civil

Reported in : AIR1932Bom584; (1932)34BOMLR1273; 140Ind.Cas.381

Rangnekar, J.1. The petitioner filed an application in the Court of the Third Joint Subordinate Judge at Ahmedabad for leave to sue in forma pauperis. The learned Judge issued a notice to the opponent and also...

Ashok Kumar and anr. Vs. the State of Rajasthan and anr.

Court : Rajasthan

Subject : CriminalBanking

Reported in : 1994(1)WLN686

B.R. Arora, J.1. These three miscellaneous petitions raise a common question of fact and the law and, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The petitioners were tried by the learned Additional Sessions...

MoldIn @ Moliya Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Subject : Criminal

Reported in : RLW2007(1)Raj43

Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Goyal

Khem Chand Sharma, J.1. This criminal appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. arises out of the judgment dated 31.7.2002 passed by the learned sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur whereby the learned Sessions Judge has convicted the appellant...

Dalpat Singh and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Subject : Criminal

Acts : Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 302, 334 and 379

Reported in : 2005CriLJ749; RLW2005(1)Raj153; 2004(4)WLC613

Advocate for Appellant : Vikram Chaudhary and; I.R. Chaudhary, Advs.

Sunil Kumar Garg, J. 1. The abovementioned two appeals are being decided by this common judgment and order as both arise out of the same judgment and order dated 6.7.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions...

Ram Sarup and ors. Vs. Shikhar Chand and anr.

Court : Allahabad

Subject : Tenancy

Acts : Uttar Pradesh (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 - Sections 3(1), 3(2) and 3(3); Uttar Pradesh (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction (Amendment) Act, 1954; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 115

Reported in : AIR1961All221

Advocate for Appellant : Hari Swarup, Adv.

Mootham, C.J.1. I had the advantage of reading the judgment prepared by Beg, J. but regret that I am unable to agree with the conclusion at which he has arrived,2. The essential facts are not in...

Widow of Harikishan and anr. Vs. Bheek Singh and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Subject : Civil

Reported in : AIR1952Raj58

Advocate for Appellant : Mangimal, Adv.

Kshem Chandra Gupta, J. 1. This is a miscellaneous Second Appeal in execution proceedings. The appellants had obtained a decree on the 10th of April, 1912 for Rs. 355/4/- against the respondents. The petition for its...