Advanced Search Results

Vipul and ors. Vs. State of U.P. (Now State of Uttarakhand)

Court : Uttaranchal

Subject : Defence

313 of Cr.P.C., in reply to which they alleged the same to be false. However, no evidence in defence was adduced. After hearing the parties, the trial court found all the five accused guilty not only in

Tan Bug Taim Vs. Collector of Bombay

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Civil

Reported in : AIR1946Bom216; (1945)47BOMLR1010

to the proprietor of the Kokwah Chinese Restaurant, Dhanraj Mahal, calling upon him under Rule 75A(5) of the Defence of India Rules, 1939, to furnish him within one week from date information on the various points therein

Binod Rao Vs. Minocher Rustom Masani

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Constitution

Reported in : (1976)78BOMLR125

the Emergency. In the wake of this Proclamation 'of Emergency the Parliament passed on December 4, 1971 the Defence of India Act, 1971 (Act No. 2 of 1971). In pursuance of the powers conferred by Section 3

Pannalal Lahoti Vs. State of Hyderabad

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Subject : Criminal

Reported in : 1954CriLJ1093

referred by a Full Bench of three judges to a Fuller Bench of five judges:(1) Whether the Hyderabad Defence Regulation, having regard to its preamble, language, emergency and the constitutional set up at the State then existing

Ram Kishan and ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Subject : Criminal

Reported in : 2007CriLJ2865; RLW2008(1)Raj329

upon hearing her cry, number of persons came and inflicted injuries on the person of Bhopal Singh. In defence, the statement of D.W. 1 Kanwar Singh was recorded and documentary evidence Exhibit D-1 to Exhibit D-6 was

K.T.K. Thangamani (Detenu, Central Jail) Salem and anr. Vs. the Chief ...

Court : Chennai

Subject : Constitution

Acts : Defence of India Act, 1962 - Sections 3(2)(15) and 44; Defence of India Ordinance, 1962; Constitution of India - Articles 14, 21, 22, 352(1) and 359(I); Defence of India Rules, 1962 - Rule 30(1) and 30(4); Defence of India Act, 1939

Reported in : AIR1965Mad225; 1965CriLJ714

the existence of a state of emergency under Art. 352(1) of the Constitution. On the same date, the Defence of India Ordinance IV of 1962 was promulgated. On 22nd and 23rd November 1962 orders were passed under

Shib Nath Banerjee and ors. Vs. A.E. Porter and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Subject : Criminal

Reported in : AIR1943Cal377

us by their relations have been detained in different jails in pursuance of orders passed under Rule 26, Defence of India Rules, on diverse dates between 24th October 1940 and 8th March 1943. Those applications were made

Attorney-General Vs. De Keyser's Royal Hotel, Limited

Court : House of Lords

Subject : Land Acquisition

doubt as to each party's position. The Crown took as a right, basing that right specifically on the Defence of the Realm Act. The Receiver did not offer physical resistance to the taking, and was content to

Spiller and Another (Appellants) Vs. Joseph and Others (Respondents)

Court : UK Supreme Court

Subject : Land Acquisition

is considerable. It involves consideration of one of the most difficult areas of the law of defamation, the defence of fair comment. Over 40 years ago Diplock LJ in Slim v Daily Telegraph Ltd [1968] 2 QB

The Union of India, through the Indian Army, HQ, MGandG Area, through ...

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Land Acquisition

part of Block VI of Colaba Division will be a kind gesture towards serving and retired offices of Defence Services, more particularly to our heroes who bravely and successfully participated in Kargil operation . It was further