Cantonments Act 1924 Section 95 - Judgment Search Results
Home > Cases Phrase: cantonments act 1924 section 95 Court: allahabad Page 1 of about 594 results (0.397 seconds)Gajraj Singh Son of Sri Attar Singh and Meerut-rohata-barnava-binauli- ...
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2006(3)AWC2915
required under section 61 read with section 255 of the cantonments act 1924 2 of 1924 inviting objections and suggestions from above said as required under section 63 of the said act now therefore in exercise of the powers conferred by section government as contemplated under section 60 of the cantonment act 1924 and toll in question being imposed as measure to increase succession act 1925 the openins part of section 29 sub section 2 is intended to be a qualificatory or excepting provision
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTRaja Suryapalsingh and ors. Vs. the U.P. Govt.
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1951All674
..... the indian bar councils act 1926 section 4 the cantonment act 1924 sections 13 8 18 4 13 5 the united provinces district boards act 1922 section 4 2 the united provinces municipalities act 1916 section 9 the scheme of ..... have seen fit to confide this sovereign trust landes the administrative process p 95 puts the matter thus the legislative process the judicial process the executive process all imply .....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTAbul Kalam and Another Vs. Prescribed Authority and Others
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2000(3)AWC2472; (2000)3UPLBEC2499
could not be made under section 25 1 of the act since it has to be made at least by 1 grounds mentioned in clauses a b and c of sub section 1 the expression used in the sub section clearly pre form of objection that 83 members had participated out of 95 members but there was a ground mentioned in the order
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTDaya Shankar Vs. Smt. Bachi and ors.
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1982All376
proving a signature or a writing which the indian evidence act recognises are 1 by calling the person who signed or relied upon as substantive evidence and the technical requirement of section 145 of the evidence act stood substantially waived in view
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTShri Hathiya Ram Math and Another Vs. Bhawani Nandan Yati
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2000(3)AWC2577
that the application of section 21 of the general clauses act is clearly excluded on the other hand it was held there cannot be any two opinions as is apparent from section 21 of the general clauses act but there is a
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTBilas Kunwar Vs. Desraj Ranjit Singh and ors.
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1915)ILR37All557
for rs 9 000 the bungalow in dispute in this action he raised the purchase money by a mortgage on his received notice to quit and he has denied her title section 116 of the indian evidence act is perfectly clear on
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTMohd. Siddiq Vs. District Judge, Faizabad and Another
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1999(4)AWC3577
regard is clear from perusal of section 19 of the act in which the word revision under section 18 have been by u p act no 28 of 1976 language of section is as follows 19 re allotment in the event of
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTDr. A.J. Faridi Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1970All383
g of clause 6 of rule 35 which defines any act as prejudicial act that is likely to promote feelings of all apply its mind it is certainly a possible view section 44 of the defence of india act 1962 to which
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTKanchan Kumar Chaudhary Vs. District Judge, Mau and Others</B>
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1999(1)AWC152
proceeding could or ought to be taken under the said act and c proceedings with respect to rights in such land section 5 2 a as observed earlier 8 thus both sections 5 2 and 49 of the act operate with the
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTManmohan Das and ors. Vs. BahauddIn and ors.
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1957All575
be accepted bahauddin does not say that any payment was actually made by the defendant appellants or their ancestors in fact paramasiva thevar v pulukaruppa thevar ilr 47 mad 525 air 1924 mad 137 z36 a division bench of the madras high this behalf the word plaintiff itself has been defined in section 2 8 to include his predecessor in interest taut the the malikana interest does not necessarily disappear head note e 95 similarly in mukhdeo singh v harakh narsyan air 1931 pat
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT