Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: goa daman and diu opinion poll act 1966 repealed section 28 offences at opinion poll Page 5 of about 2,725 results (0.441 seconds)

Nov 07 2001 (HC)

Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh

Court : Himachal Pradesh

Reported in : 2002CriLJ1880

..... stated about the accused having been informed of his right of being searched before a magistrate or a gazetted officer.19. the apex court in joseph fernandes v. state of goa (2000) 1 scc 707 : 2000 cri lj 3485 where the accused was informed that 'if you wish you may be searched in the presence of a gazetted officer or a .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 14 2011 (HC)

State (Gnct) of Delhi Vs. Akhlaq and anr

Court : Delhi

..... normal habit of returning in the afternoon, and indeed not returning at all, underlined his involvement in the crime.6. the prosecution relied on the decision reported as state of goa v sanjay thukran 2007 (3) scc 755, to say that there is no strait jacket formula applicable to cases of circumstantial evidence where the prosecution relies on the accused being .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 11 2000 (HC)

Balvinder Singh and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 2000CriLJ4759; 2000(55)DRJ133; 2000(72)ECC48

..... secretary who alone was competent to deal with the representation had gone out on tour to bombay on 25.12.1999 and his tour programme from bombay to puna and goa was to be decided at bombay. it is fairly accepted that 1st and 2nd january, 2000 were holidays and the finance secretary returned on 3.1.2000 and disposed of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 04 2017 (HC)

Durgesh Jha vs.state of Nct of Delhi

Court : Delhi

..... sharing the same event with her mother, is clearly understandable. we would like to extract the following passage from the judgment of this court in tulshidas kanolkar v. state of goa: crl.a.658/2015 page 10 of 16 5. we shall first deal with the question of delay. the unusual circumstances satisfactorily explained the delay in lodging of the first .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 10 2006 (SC)

G.M. Tank Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR2006SC2129; 2006(3)CTC494; (2006)3GLR2348; [2006(3)JCR309(SC)]; 2006(3)KLT514(SC); (2006)IIILLJ1075SC; (2006)3MLJ143(SC); RLW2006(3)SC2480; 2006(5)SCALE582; (2006)5SCC44

AR. Lakshmanan, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 18.8.2003 in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1085 of 2002 filed by the appellant herein. By its impugned final judgment, the High Court dismissed the L.P.A. filed by the appellant herein.Brief facts:3. The appellant joined the service in 1953 as an Overseer. The appellant was regularly submitting his property return showing all his movable and immovable properties. As per the Department, the movable and immovable properties were disproportionate to his known sources of income. The Anti-Corruption Bureau carried out an investigation against the appellant and submitted a report and on the basis of the said report, a charge sheet dated 20.2.1979 was issued alleging that the appellant had illegally accumulated the excess income by way of gratification. The appellant submitted his explanation on 15.5.1979 and denied the allegations as well as charges made in the charge sheet. A departmental en...

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 26 1976 (HC)

Dr. D.C. JaIn Vs. the University of Jodhpur and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : AIR1977Raj89; 1976(9)WLN820

ORDERM.L. Joshi, J. 1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner challenges the validity of the appointment of non-petitioner No. 3 Dr. S. Divakaran as Professor Structural Engineering, Dean Faculty of Engineering and his nomination to the Syndicate in the capacity of Dean and prays for quashing the same. It has also been prayed that the petitioner be declared entitled to be nominated to the Syndicate instead.2. The case of the petitioner as set up in the writ petition, briefly stated, is as follows:--3. The petitioner was authorised to exercise the powers of Dean of Faculty of Law by the Vice Chancellor's order dated 8-10-1974 till further orders. The petitioner alleges that this order did not meet the requirement of Statute 4 (1), and was rather made with malice and bias which the Vice Chancellor bore against him as he did not like to nominate the petitioner on the Syndicate. The petitioner further avers that under Statute 4 of the University Statute...

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 24 2008 (HC)

Oberoi Constructions Private Limited a Company Registered Under the Co ...

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 2008(3)ALLMR546; 2008(3)BomCR408; (2008)110BOMLR951

..... lands to be in residential or industrial zones or n.a.permission is issued, such actions will not bind the entire state government or the forest department. in goa foundations v. the state of goa reported in 2001 (3) mh. l.j., the submission was that the minister of industries expressed readiness to issue industrial licence for establishment of a new undertaking .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 29 2004 (HC)

Ranga Reddy District Sarpanches' Association and Ors. Vs. Government o ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : 2004(2)ALD1; 2004(1)ALT659

P.S. Narayana, J.1. Ranga Reddy District Sarpanches Association, represented by its President and Convenor Sri Girish Sanghi and others had invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning certain provisions of A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and certain Government Orders and Rules by filing W.P. No. 12348/2002. Federation for Empowerment of Local Government by its Presidum Member, Lok Satta by its General Secretary and Dr. Jayaprakash Narayana filed W.P.MP. No. 22300/2003 in W.P. No. 12348/2002 to implead them as Respondents 3 to 5 and in view of the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the application the said W.P.M.P. No. 22300/2003 is allowed and proposed parties are impleaded as Respondents 3 to 5. The contesting parties had put in lengthy pleadings and also placed ample material before the Court in support of their respective contentions. Likewise, Prasanna, Chairperson, District Level Committee, Zilla Parishad, Nalgond...

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 16 1992 (HC)

A.R. Kukalekar Vs. Goa Housing Board and anr.

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 1993(2)BomCR486

..... such authority and in such manner as may be laid down by regulations.'annexure-i of the regulations of 1983 provides that the secretary of the goa, daman and diu housing board shall be the chief executive of the board. he shall exercise for proper control and superintendence over the functions of other employees of ..... out of one of the auxiliary contentions advanced by mr. nadkarni. according to mr. nadkarni, regulations of 1983 merely amend the earlier regulations being the goa, daman and diu housing board cadre, recruitment of staff, functions, powers, and sphere of duties of officers and other employees regulation, 1974. according to him, the regulations ..... 'the act'). the said post of financial controller is not one of the posts contemplated under the act but one created later. annexure-ii to the goa, daman and diu housing board cadre, recruitment of staff, functions, powers and sphere of duties of officers and other employees (fourth amendment) regulations, 1983 (hereinafter, for the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 08 1977 (SC)

State of Karnataka Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1978SC68; (1977)4SCC608; [1978]2SCR1

Beg, C.J.1. 'India, that is Bharat, shall be union of States'. The very first mandate of the first article of our Constitution to which we owe allegiance thus prohibits, by necessary implication, according to the plaintiff in the original suit now before us under Article 121 of the Constitution of India, any constitutionally unjustifiable trespass by the Union Government upon the domain of the powers of the States. The State of Karnataka, has, therefore, sued for a declaration that a notification dated 23-5-1977 (hereinafter referred to as 'The Central Notification') constituting a Commission of Inquiry in purported exercise of its powers under Section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), is illegal and ultra-vires. This declaration is sought on one of two alternative grounds : firstly, that the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, does not 'authorise the Central Government to constitute a Commission of Inquiry in regard to matters falling excl...

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //