Creaturize - Judgment Search Results

Narayan Prasad Lohia Vs. Nikunj Kumar Lohia and ors.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: AIR2002SC1139; 2002(2)ALLMR(SC)600; 2002(1)ARBLR493(SC); (2002)IICompLJ374(SC); [2006(1)JCR97(SC)]; JT2002(2)SC222; 2002(2)MPHT154; 2002(2)SCALE232; (2002)3SCC572; [2002]38

what stage. It must be remembered that arbitration is a creature of an agreement. There can be no arbitration unless there

State (Union of India (Uoi)) Vs. Ram Saran

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: [2004(101)FLR447]; [2004(2)JCR220(SC)]; JT2003(9)SC578; 2003(10)SCALE454; (2003)12SCC578

have full force and efficacy. It is well settled that creature of any statute cannot consider the vires of a particular

Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. and anr. Vs. Balasore Technical School

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: AIR1999SC2262; 89(2000)CLT5(SC); JT1999(2)SC480; (1999)122PLR286; 1999(2)SCALE327; (2000)9SCC552

not incorporated into the award and an Arbitrator being a creature of the contract must operate within the four corners of

A.P.Dairy Dev.Corp.Federation Vs. B.Narasimha Reddy and ors.

Court: Supreme Court of India

for the reason that co- operative society itself is a creature of the statute, the rights of the society and that

Indian Council for Enviro Legal Action Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Supreme Court of India

citing the Pinochet case stated that:The Supreme Court is a creature of statute. But it has inherited all the powers that

State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. M. Madhusudhan Rao

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: 2008(2)ALD917(SC)

than not, results in embellishment and exaggeration, which is a creature of an afterthought. A delayed report not only gets bereft

Hardeo Rai Vs. Sakuntala Devi and ors.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: AIR2008SC2489; (SCSuppl)2008(3)CHN13; (2008)8MLJ698(SC); 2008(7)SCALE662; 2008AIRSCW3435; AIR2008SC2489; 2008(7)SCC46; 2008(4)LH(SC)2526; 2008(3)ICC602

by agreement of the parties. A Mitakashra Coparcenary is a creature of law. It is, thus, necessary to determine the status

Hinsa Virodhak Sangh Vs. Mirzapur Moti Kuresh Jamat and ors.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: AIR2008SC1892; 2008(3)BomCR345; (2008)3GLR2501(SC); JT2008(3)SC421; (2008)3MLJ751(SC); RLW2008(4)SC3529; 2008(3)SCALE582; (2008)5SCC33; 2008AIRSCW2117; 2008(5)LH(SC)3277

Paryushan as the period of abstinence during which no living creature would be slaughtered, and averred that the petitioners' right to

State of Gujarat Vs. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat and ors.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: AIR2006SC212; (2006)1GLR294; [2006(2)JCR272(SC)]; JT2005(12)SC580; RLW2006(1)SC705; 2005(8)SCALE661; (2005)8SCC534; 2006(1)LC240(SC)

rivers and wild life, and to have compassion for living creatures;' Articles 48-A and 51-A have been introduced into the body

R. Sai Bharathi Vs. J. Jayalalitha and ors.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: 2004CriLJ286; 2003(4)CTC577; JT2003(9)SC343; 2003(10)SCALE68b; (2004)2SCC9

Rajendra Babu, J.1. These two sets of criminal appeals arise out of two criminal cases filed against Respondents Nos. 1...