Air 7953 Mad 58 - Judgment Search Results

State of Andhra Pradesh, Etc., Etc. Vs. S.K. Mohinuddin, Etc., Etc

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1994SC1474; 1993(3)SCALE315

invalidating this clause is set aside writ petition nos 777 7953 82 691 of 1986 and 1085 of 1990 are allowed grant in aid has been released pursuant to the order made by the high court and payments have been made to and those who would have retired at the age of 58 years w e f 1st october 1979 will be given

Kuppa Krishna Hegde Vs. Mhasti Goli Naik

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : (1931)33BOMLR633

allahabad high court in mt mumtaz begam v mt lachhmi air1929all174 sulaiman j seems to have taken the same view in may also refer in this connection to vithoba madhav v madhav damodar ilr 1918 42 bom 344 20 bom l r the transaction does not necessarily become by virtue of section 58 of the transfer of property act a mortgage by conditional

Trimbak Tumdushet Rangari Vs. Ziparu Chaturdas Bairagi

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : AIR1933Bom190; (1933)35BOMLR147

unnecessary delay the order rejecting the claim is an order made against the claimant within order xxi rule 63 if the 1920 were application rejected costs on applicant order xxi rule 58 so far as material provides that where any claim is

S. Narayanan Vs. the District Board by Its President

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1949)2MLJ111

referred to ivaturi veera subramaniam v president district board narasapur air1941mad733 but that did not deal with a claim based upon performance of what he thought was his duty under the madras local boards act as he interpreted the same accepted a board 1934 68 m l j 125 i l r 58 mad 746 was discussed by beasley c j in padmanabhuni

Ningauda Girimallappa Patil Vs. Nabisaheb Abalal Patil

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : AIR1942Bom263; (1942)44BOMLR543

b kandasami v sivagamnatha and cmanore bank ltd v madhavi air1942mad41 are cases falling under the first class where the order paid into court or satisfaction of the decree is otherwise made through the court or the decree is set aside or the executing court did not fall under o xxi rule 58 this decision is inconsistent with that of the single judge

Rana Abhai Singh Vs. the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Patna and ...

Court : Patna

of 1992 writ petn no 1022 of 1989 reported in air 1993 sc 2493 constituted a evaluation committee consisting of eight good in the light of overall consideration and the evaluation made by the concerned district judges hon ble inspecting judges and which is precisely prima facie done in the present case 58 after having examined the principles laid down by the hon

Bhoganadham Seshaian Vs. Budhi Veerabhadrayya (Died) and ors.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : AIR1972AP134

view is supported by the following decisions narayanan v krishanaru air 1951 trav co 78 and hira lal singh v ramjiram it cannot override the special circumstances to which we have made reference the parties expressly or in any case tacitly agreed years rule and we allow him to so amend it 58 in kumara venkata perumal v velayuda reddi 27 mad lj

Budhavarapu Venkata Surya Gopalam and ors. Vs. Adivi Bapiraju and ors.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : AIR1960AP587

ramachandnidu v gulab chand finn 1957 2 andh wr 169 air 1958 andh pra 709 where an order made tor retransmitting nadar v rama nadar ilr 1937 mad 616 air 1937 mad 385 fb that an order rejecting the execution petition is 5 the facts in veerappa setti v munisami achari ilr 58 mad 301 air 1934 mad 710 were that a decree

Debi Singh and ors. Vs. Jagdish Saran Singh and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : AIR1952All716

the previous judgment reported in mathura kurmi v jagdeo singh air1927all321 was also a party to this judgment 99 the fourth hossain rowthen 1 mad 1 pc in some of the madras and bombay cases a distinction was drawn between a mortgage may nevertheless be a mortgage within the definition in section 58 a and of the class provided for in section 98

Durga Dei Vs. Sadananda Prusty and ors.

Court : Orissa

Reported in : AIR1952Ori182

binding upon this court in babbal kumari v mulchand marwari air 1934 pat 580 it was held that article 11 of default on 6th september 1921 another application for execution was made on 19th of that month and it will be remembered mx babbal kumari jayashwalin v mitlchand marwari air 1934 pat 580 there can also be no doubt that where the attachment