Does - Judgment Search Results

United States Vs. United States Gypsum Co.

Court: US Supreme Court

..... gypsum company the burden of establishing the reasonableness of the requested royalty and this court does not now decide where the burden of proof of value lies or who has the .....

Kishen Singh Vs. Dungaria and Karinga

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: AIR1952Raj166

..... allegation that he has taken forcible possession of the land ordinance no 9 of 1949 does not apply 5 in the present case the plaintiff brought the suit on the allegation .....

Pelisetti Venkatasubba Rao Vs. the State of Madras, Represented by the ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: AIR1951Mad208; (1951)IMLJ423

..... petnr for explanation prom a perusal of the order it is also clear that it does contain a statement of the reasons of the govt for the action taken it cannot .....

T.M. Arumugam Vs. the State of Madras and anr.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: AIR1951Mad115; (1951)IMLJ169

..... the petitioner in his affidavit before this court denied most of these allegations but he does not state that he is not a member of the communist party as stated in .....

Manager, United Commercial Bank Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Labour and anr.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: AIR1951Mad141; (1951)ILLJ1Mad; (1951)IMLJ213

..... appeal under section 41 2 of madras act xxxvi 38 of 1947 this question however does not call for decision in the present case labour and industrial industrial dispute section 41 .....

Ganpat Singh Vs. Zora

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: 1950CriLJ1606

..... for the proposition that the accused may be guilty of criminal trespass even though he does not personally set foot on the land in dispute i do not wish to express .....

Hazarimal Vs. the State and ors.

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: 1950CriLJ1601

..... contention re lianoe is placed upon the deposition of p w 4 the learned magistrate does not appear to have relied upon the testimony of p w 4 the court appears .....

Raj Kumar Vs. the State

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: 1950CriLJ1206

..... as it purports to be under the provisions of the extradition act 4 but that does not end the matter it has been conceded on behalf of the applicant that there .....

Amba Lal Vs. the State

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: 1950CriLJ1108

..... persons for all three of them possess a separate arms license for a gun it does not stand to reason that any one of them would have ordinarily thought of keeping .....

In Re: Sakthi Velu

Court: Chennai

Reported in: AIR1951Mad212; (1950)2MLJ767

..... a jury which is not perverse or unreasonable on the ground that the judge himself does not agree with the verdict or that he thinks that the court of appeal might .....