High Court At Patna Establishment Of Permanent Bench At Ranchi Act 1976 Section 2 Establishment Of A Permanent Bench Of High Court At Patna At Ranchi - Judgment Search Results
Home > Cases Phrase: high court at patna establishment of permanent bench at ranchi act 1976 section 2 establishment of a permanent bench of high court at patna at ranchi Page 1 of about 740,945 results (1.005 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)
the afore-mentioned question to the High Court for decision. The High Court shall consider the reference in the light of the Tax Tribunal shall refer the afore-mentioned question to the High Court for decision. The High Court shall consider the reference in a dealer within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act. The decision of the Deputy Commissioner was set aside by that the assessee was a dealer within the meaning of Section 2(11). Learned counsel submitted that to the facts of the and was not a dealer within the meaning of Section 2(11).5. Learned counsel for the Commissioner of Sales Tax has drawn
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTTechni-glass Limited Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Reported in: 1990LC539(Bombay); 1981(8)ELT147(Bom)
would be 'glassware' came to be considered by the Allahabad High Court in Commissioner, Sales Tax. U.P. Lucknow, v. Banaras Bead as are indicated in the trade brochure shown to the Court the final product could be regarded as 'glassware' and would 'glass' or 'glassware', but the petitioners have not succeeded in establishing their contention before the Assistant Collector of Central Excise and v. The State of Maharashtra, 16, S.T.R. 452, the Nagpur Bench of this Court was required to consider the term 'glassware' I, Part X to the C.P. and Berar Sales Tax Act. It held that the term would include glass sheets. It the expressions 'glass' and 'glassware' to be found in Item 23A, glass will have to be understood as understood in ordinary
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTParshotam Sarup Aggarwal Vs. the Collector of Stamps and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1974Delhi155; 9(1973)DLT429; 1973RLR406
under section 57(1) of the Indian Stamp Act, to the High Court at the instance of a parly even when the section 57(1) of the Indian Stamp Act, to the High Court at the instance of a parly even when the C.C.R.A. clause is concerned, the matter is concluded by a Full Bench decision of this Court in M/s. Dhoomi Mal Ram Chand having been charged under section 147 of the Municipal Corporation Act, 19'7 was legally payable.'(2) Because of the conditional reference, P.S of the reference, made by the Collector of Stamps under section 56(2) of the Indian Stamp Act by expressing a definite Rs. l,000.00 be not recovered from him. Thereupon, on November 20, 1967, Aggarwal filed an application under section 57 of the
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTMohammed Salim Mohammed Yunus Shaikh Vs. Kamudchandra Keshavlal Patel ...
Court: Gujarat
Reported in: (2007)2GLR1399
a purshis that the suit proceedings are stayed by the High Court. It also appears that the defendants produced a computer or that such interpretation would amount to contempt of this Court.5. At this stage, we also cannot help referring to Circular J.1. This is an application under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 alleging that the order dated 16.2.2006 passed by respondent petitioner filed Special Civil Application Nos. 5597 to 5599 of 2005 challenging interlocutory orders passed by the Small Causes Court in
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTErumeli Estate Vs. Industrial Tribunal and ors.
Court: Kerala
Reported in: (1962)IILLJ144Ker
Section 17 and the provisions of Section 17A it is highly desirable that the award is published within the time mentioned the union, in view of this decision of the Supreme Court, found considerable difficulty in supporting the award relating at any dispute, and all persons who subsequently became employed in that establishment or part, would be bound by the settlement. In other be that the award itself is void and therefore no action can be taken on the basis of this award.3. This employees will be entitled, if at all, to compensation under Section 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act but a more specific the employees' union during the course of conciliation proceedings on 25 February 1954, would bind not only the members of the
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
Private Secretaries (Grade I Stenographers) in different benches of the High Court of Gauhati were in different scales of pay. This which is given in the classification of the Gauhati High Court Rules. As there was no such post mentioned in the Eastern States, the Benches of the Gauhati High Court were established in different States on different dates and the Officers and a writ appeal before the High Court and the Division Bench set aside the Judgment of the learned Single Judge, and I. The claim of the appellant was that on his transfer to the Agartala Bench of the Gauhati High Court, the Grade I only on 12.6.1987. He joined the service on 28.8.1987 whereas the respondent No. 4 was appointed as early as
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
Bench ostensibly in the exercise of as they said, the High Court's power ofRevision'. When the matter came in revision before the Constitution of India, the Full Court of the High Court had framed these Rules in 1952.The procedure for exercise of aloneor in division courts, shall bethe same as immediatelybefore the establishment ofthe Dominion.'16. The Government of India Act, 1935, was repealed Places of sitting of Judges,--The Chief Justice shall determine the permanent place of sitting of a Judge and may from time and not by a single Judge or by a Division Bench of the High Court. The manner in which the High of original nature whether emanating from the Contempt of Courts Act or under Article 215 of the Constitution of India.(6) For not only from the provisions contained in Sub-section (3) of Section 51 of the Act, but inheres in him in the order passed by the learned single Judge on 15th March. 2001, has not been complied with by the appellants. By the
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 held that this defence fails as the defendant has not established the fact of his being a minor on that date.2. be defeating the provisions of Section 11 of the Contract Act with reference to minors. Nothing of the kind is true. age and competent to contract. The definition of 'consideration' in Section 2(d) of the Contract Act includes services already rendered to executed by him in favour of the plaintiff, on the 22nd of November, 1919. The bond was executed in lieu 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 him.6. The accused appellant is personally present before the Court. An admonition has been administered to him. He has expressed 1973 read with Section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act may be extended in the present case.4. Mr. Khan, learned incident is alleged to have taken place en 30th March, 1976. According to the school certificate the date of birth of February, 1978. The accused was tried for an offence under, Section, 307 IPC, but was convicted under Section 323, IPC, and x 2 cm on right leg mid of shin2. Bruise 2 x 5 cm on the right knee joint3. Bruise 5
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTNaraIn Singh Vs. Chiranji Lal
Court: Allahabad
Reported in: AIR1924All730; 79Ind.Cas.945
Kuar was a minor on the date of execution. The High Court at Calcutta laid the burden of proving this on on the date of the execution of the pro-note. The Court below has held that this defence fails as the defendant held that this defence fails as the defendant has not established the fact of his being a minor on that date.2. The definition of 'consideration' in Section 2(d) of the Contract Act includes services already rendered to the promisor. The appellant urges decreeing this claim we shall be defeating the provisions of Section 11 of the Contract Act with reference to minors. Nothing 163 : 24 M.L.J. 62 : 28 C.L.J. 192 : 20 Bom. L.R. 851 : M.L.T. 46 : 45 I.A. 97
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT- << Prev.
- Next >>