High Court At Bombay Extension Of Jurisdiction To Goa Daman And Diu Act 1981 Preamble 1 High Court At Bombay Extension Of Jurisdiction To Goa Daman And Diu Act 1981 - Judgment Search Results
Home > Cases Phrase: high court at bombay extension of jurisdiction to goa daman and diu act 1981 preamble 1 high court at bombay extension of jurisdiction to goa daman and diu act 1981 Page 1 of about 740,945 results (1.028 seconds)Commissioner of Sales Tax, Bombay Vs. Amandi Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Reported in: JT1993(2)SC181; 1994(38)KarLJ94; 1993(1)SCALE779; 1993Supp(2)SCC322; [1993]90STC167(SC)
1. The High Court at Bombay rejected the Sales Tax Application made on afore-mentioned question to the High Court for decision. The High Court shall consider the reference in the light of the judgments 1. The High Court at Bombay rejected the Sales Tax Application made on behalf of the a dealer within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act. The decision of the Deputy Commissioner was set aside by (II) of Section 2 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 19592. The High Court rejected the application in limine stating that
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTTechni-glass Limited Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Reported in: 1990LC539(Bombay); 1981(8)ELT147(Bom)
reveal care and caution which should be revealed by such high functionaries exercising revisional powers in a serious manner. 3. As as are indicated in the trade brochure shown to the Court the final product could be regarded as 'glassware' and would that the learned Collector of Central Excise exercising his appellate jurisdiction has passed the order in a manner that does not of the first Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944; the entire item may be set out and it in Glass Engineering Handbook by H. B. Shand (2nd Edn. 1958). The aforesaid chapter deals with cellular glass and the learned
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTParshotam Sarup Aggarwal Vs. the Collector of Stamps and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1974Delhi155; 9(1973)DLT429; 1973RLR406
Stamp Act before the Authority for a reference to the High Court on the following two questions :- '(1)On the facts (not chargeable with a fee under the law relating to court-fees for the time being in force) empowering a specified person under section 56(2) of the Indian Stamp Act. (5) The Authority by its order dated September 14, 1967, gave a finding 40 (a) of the First Schedule to the Indian Stamp Act and would, thereforee, attract duty as a conveyance lor a question relates to the interpretation of Article 40(a) of Schedule 1-A of the Indian Stamp Act. The clause provides that in
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTMohammed Salim Mohammed Yunus Shaikh Vs. Kamudchandra Keshavlal Patel ...
Court: Gujarat
Reported in: (2007)2GLR1399
to file an affidavit and produce authentic order of the High Court continuing the stay. It is specifically stated that in Court on the administrative side issued to instruct the subordinate Courts to give top priority to old cases. The said Circular No. 453 of 1990 would, therefore, obviously fall within the scope of the said Circular dated 17.5.2002. The preamble of the J.1. This is an application under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 alleging that the order dated 16.2.2006 passed by respondent within the scope of the said Circular dated 17.5.2002. The preamble of the circular states that it has been noticed by produce affidavit clearly mentioning that HRP Suit No. 453 of 1990 is stayed or will not produce the order of the
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTErumeli Estate Vs. Industrial Tribunal and ors.
Court: Kerala
Reported in: (1962)IILLJ144Ker
a conciliation settlement entered into between the management and the High Range Estate Employees' Association.11. Therefore, the question will be what that according to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court that a conciliation agreement in respect of common matters pertaining by Mr. Abraham is that the industrial tribunal had no jurisdiction to enquire into this matter covered by issue 1 and the definition of the 'dependants' found in the Workmen's Compensation Act. Although that was the specific issue raised, Mr. K.P. Abraham that the conciliation proceedings had failed. Consequently, on 3 February 1954, the conciliation officer Bent a report under Section 12, Sub-section
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTRam Shankar Bhattacharjee Vs. Gauhati High Court and ors.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Reported in: AIR2005SC245; 2005(1)CTC73; [2009(104)FLR309]; [2005(1)JCR151(SC)]; JT2005(11)SC98; 2004(10)SCALE288; (2005)9SCC702
with effect from 23.8.1990 at the Principal seat of the High Court at Gauhati. The present appellant filed a Writ Petition the North Eastern States, the Benches of the Gauhati High Court were established in different States on different dates and the I. The claim of the appellant was that on his transfer to the Agartala Bench of the Gauhati High Court, the Private Secretaries are entitled to a special pay of Rs. 100. The Private Secretaries (Grade I Stenographers) in different benches of
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTY.C. Simhadri, Vice Chancellor, B.H.U. and ors. Vs. Deen Bandhu Pathak
Court: Allahabad
Reported in: 2001(4)AWC2688; (2001)3UPLBEC2373
215 of the Constitution it may be staled that the High Court as an institution has the seisin of the relevant the Chief Justice and all other Judges of the High Court under Article 216 of the Constitution of India. It Is to erect and establish tike High Court at Madras and Bombay for those Presidencies respectively, and that the High Court to why his sentence should not be enhanced, was within the jurisdiction of that Bench or not. While dealing with the said as immediatelybefore the establishment ofthe Dominion.'16. The Government of India Act, 1935, was repealed by the Constitution of India. Article 225 Division Courts appointed or constituted under the provisions of Section 13 of the Charter Act and that by Section 14 of
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTChiranji Lal Vs. NaraIn Singh
Court: Allahabad
Reported in: (1924)ILR46All568
reference to this, their Lordships say:Their Lordships agree with the High Court. The onus to prove minority is on the defendant on the plaintiff and has cited two cases of this Court of the years 1909 and 1912 respectively in which that be defeating the provisions of Section 11 of the Contract Act with reference to minors. Nothing of the kind is true. this claim we shall be defeating the provisions of Section 11 of the Contract Act with reference to minors. Nothing of
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTMustafa Vs. State and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Reported in: 1978WLN(UC)128
1,000/- to the satisfaction of the Deputy Registrar of the High Court at Jaipur to maintain peace and to be of to the satisfaction of the Deputy Registrar of the High Court at Jaipur to maintain peace and to be of good appearing on behalf of the State has not opposed the extension of the benefits of the provisions of Section 360, CrPC CrPC read with Section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act to the accused appellant.5. Having considered the entire set of cm x scalp deep en frontal parietal region9. Lacerated wound 1x cm x scalp deep on frontal aspect of scalp10. Lacerated
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTNaraIn Singh Vs. Chiranji Lal
Court: Allahabad
Reported in: AIR1924All730; 79Ind.Cas.945
reference to this their Lordships say:Their Lordships agree with the High Court. The onus to prove minority is on the defendant on the date of the execution of the pro-note. The Court below has held that this defence fails as the defendant be defeating the provisions of Section 11 of the Contract Act with reference to minors. Nothing of the kind is true. 8 L.W. 163 : 24 M.L.J. 62 : 28 C.L.J. 192 : 20 Bom. L.R. 851 : M.L.T. 46 : 45
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT- << Prev.
- Next >>