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

In Re: Dhruvarajsing Vishwanathsing

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Civil

Reported in : AIR1946Bom65; (1945)47BOMLR681

sometime in November, 1943. The petitioner submitted that the detention of the dtenu under Rule 129 of the Defence of India Rules, 1939, was not bona fide and was illegal, ultra vires and beyond the powers conferred

Amichand Valanji and ors. Vs. G.B. Kotak and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Constitution

Acts : Defence of India Act, 1962 - Sections 3(1), 3(2), 40 and 44; ;Defense of India Rules, 1962; Gold Control Rules; ;Constitution of India - Article 226

Reported in : AIR1966Bom70; (1965)67BOMLR234

the constitution of India, wherein the vires of the Gold Control Rules, contained in part XIIA of the Defence of India Rules, have been challenged. In the prayer clauses of the petition no doubt, validity of the

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

A.P. Civil Liberties Committee (Apclc) Rep. by Its President, Mr. S. S ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Subject : Criminal

Acts : Right to Information Act (RTI), 2005 - Sections 6, 6(3), 8(1) and 19; Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 1, 21, 25, 81, 105, 123, 145 and 157; Arms Act, 1959 - Sections 25 and 27; Explosive Substances Act, 1908 - Sections 5; APPS - Sections 8; Commission of Inquiries Act, 1962; Customs Act, 1962 - Sections 106, 106(2) and 155; Gold (Control) Act, 1968 - Sections 108; Ku Klux Klan Act, 1871; Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 6, 34, 52A, 76 to 106, 135, 147, 148, 149, 201, 202, 203, 204, 216, 217, 221, 299, 300, 302, 304, 304A, 307, 332, 408, 420, 452, 499, 500 and 506; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 2, 37, 39, 40, 41, 43, 46, 46(1), 46(2), 46(3), 129 to 132, 132(1), 132, 132(2), 133, 134, 149, 151, 152, 153(3), 154, 154(1), 154(2), 154(3), 155, 156, 156(1), 156(3), 1

Reported in : 2009(1)ALT754

and the other attacked the Inspector with a knife and inflicted bleeding injuries. The S.I. fired in private defence resulting in instantaneous death. The deceased was identified as Durga Prasad. Thereupon Cr. No. 448/02 was registered under

Rishi Kesh Singh and ors. Vs. the State

Court : Allahabad

Subject : Criminal

Acts : Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 3, 101, 104, 105 and 114; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908; Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 6, 76, 96 and 299; Constitution of India - Article 141

Reported in : AIR1970All51; 1970CriLJ132

witness to prove that he was the victim of an assault by his opponent. The plea of private defence will fail in each case. The result will be that each case will end in conviction. In most

Ram Pratap and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others

Court : Allahabad

Subject : Property

Acts : Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 4, 4(1), 5, 5A, 6, 9, 9(3) and 17; Uttar Pradesh Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1976; Cantonment Act, 1924

Reported in : 1999(3)AWC2049; (1999)2UPLBEC1452

party respondent in 1998, on behalf of the Union of India, a short affidavit was filed by the Defence Estates Officer. Allahabad, along with an application. The application prays that the notifications acquiring defence land be quashed

Atma Ram Vs. District Judge, Dehradun and Others

Court : Allahabad

Subject : Tenancy

Acts : Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Order XV, Rule 5 and 5 (1) and (2)

Reported in : 1998(4)AWC602

of demand on the petitioner. The tenancy of the petitioner was also terminated by the same notice. The defence of the petitioner was lhat he has been paying rent to the plaintiff regularly and after the receipt