Ex Ord - Judgment Search Results

Skinner Vs. Orde and ors.

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: (1875)ILR1All230

comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such … Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC

Hanamant and Ord vs Sindhutai and Anr

Court: Karnataka Kalaburagi

vehicle etc.,3. Based on pleadings, Tribunal framed issues andrecorded evidence. Claimant no.1 and Balkrishna Kadam (eye witness) were examined as PWs.1 and 2 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P8 marked. Official of Insurer was examined as RW.1 and Ex.R1

S.E. Orde Vs. Mrs. T.C. Deacon and anr.

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: AIR1952All582

was asked where she would get the money from to re-buy the property, which had been sold in execution of a decree against her, she stated that her Son in-law & daughter would help her with money: … Malik, C.J. 1. This is a revision against an order passed by the learned first Civil Judge of Meerut rejecting an application for leave to sue in forma

L.W. Orde Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: AIR1918All126(2); (1918)ILR40All367; 44Ind.Cas.923

R., 33 Bom., 483, where the principles applicable to the acquisition of land in respect of which there exists more than one interest have been discussed and laid down. We do not see that these principles have … sum awarded by the Collector, but his objections failed, and he has appealed to this Court against the order of the District Judge. The memorandum of appeal before us raises three points, two of which may be

Ramvresh vs Delhi Cantonment Board and Ord

Court: Delhi

vendors subject to the holding capacity finalized by the TVC. The TVC further directed the Revenue Superintendent to examine the representations of the vendors, as brought out on the agenda site, in the light of the criteria … on the decision of this Court in W.P.(C) 2667/2026 titled Danveer Yadav vs. Delhi Cantonment Board, wherein vide order dated 25th February, 2026 in respect of similarfacts the Court had recorded as under:“3. The Petitioner claims to

Gita Enterprises, a Partnership Firm Vs. the Union of India (Uoi), Thr ...

Court: Jharkhand

Reported in: AIR2007Jhar92; 2007(2)CTLJ415(Jhar); [2007(3)JCR382(Jhr)]

of the Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1972 (BMMC Rules for short) reads as follows:40. Penalty for unauthorized extraction and removal of minor minerals...(10)-To prevent evasion of royalty it is provided that works contractor shall purchase the … and so it is regulatory in nature.27...The obligation placed upon contractors is not too onerous to be complied.29...In order to check evasion thereof the State must be deemed to be vested with all powers to check that

J.Poornachandra Babu Vs. the Senior Divisional Engineer/Co-ord/Gtl

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Hyderabad

officer conducted an oral inquiry on 5.11.2005. The applicant was under medical treatment on 5.11.2005 and after medical examination in the Railway Hospital, he was issued with fitness certificate on 5.11.2005. Therefore, it is the case of … ORAL ORDER : ( As per Hon'ble Mrs.Bharati Ray, Member (J) ) Heard Mr.Ramana Allu, the learned Counsel for the

B. Ram Babu Vs. the Sr.Divisional Engineer (Co-ord), South Central Rai ...

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Hyderabad

29.12.2008 to Vijayawada in the middle of the academic year and his daughter is appearing for final year examinations of Intermediate in the month of March/April and his mother is aged 74 years and also sick. Though … ORAL ORDER {As per Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.Lakshmana Reddy, Vice Chairman } Heard Mr.K.Phani Raju, learned counsel for the applicant

Amar Singh and Others Vs. Union of India Through the Secretary to Govt ...

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Chandigarh

Progression Scheme has been made operational w.e.f. 1.9.2008 retrospectively qua the applicants; and for quashing thereof to that extent. Or in the alternative declaration may be issued that the cases of the applicants are not required to … file a joint Application. 2. The applicants have filed this OA praying for the following reliefs:- “i) Quash order dated 25.8.2011 (Annexure A/1), whereby the claim of the applicants for grant of MACP benefit w.e.f. 19.5.2009 has

Mrs. G.H. Orde Vs. A. Skinner and ors.

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: AIR1945All331

the provisions of Section 49 of the Act because she made the application in her capacity as the executrix of her deceased husband's will. She gave lists of her deceased husband's property and of the debts which … Allsop, J.1. The appellant, Mrs. G. H. Orde, made an application under the Encumbered Estates Act. She apparently relied on the provisions of Section 49 of