Indian Boilers Act 1923 5 Of 1923 Section 28 - Judgment Search Results

M/S. Lakshmi Rice Mills Vs. the Chief Inspector of Boilers

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1993Mad89

found that the petitioner has violated the provisions of the indian boilers act 1923 the petitioner will have remedies available to that the petitioner has violated the provisions of the indian boilers act 1923 the petitioner will have remedies available to it the petitioner will have remedies available to it under the act if the orders passed are against it this writ petition using any boiler as defined in the indian boilers act 1923 this has to be decided by the concerned authorities hence the petitioner has to be accepted consequently the order dated 5 5 1992 should be held to have been passed without

The Union of India (Uoi), Owning the Southern Railway by the General M ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1970)2MLJ212

in invoking the presumption under section 114 g of the indian evidence act and the principle of res ipsa loquitur sic to carriage by railways and by repeal of the 1854 act the liability of the railways was again treated as that from the narrow gauge to broad gauge at murtazapur on 5th march 1959 in the suit wagon without the same being court was also in error in invoking the presumption under section 114 g of the indian evidence act and the principle

Balakrishnan Vs. the State by Special Police Establishment Madras Bran ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : 1994CriLJ1258

accused 24 appeal allowed criminal illegal gratification section 161 of indian penal code 1860 and sections 5 1 d and 5 to be guilty under s 5 1 d of the act when it is not proved that he had abused his the accused p w 3 denied the suggestion as incorrect 5 p w 4 rajasekaran is the inspector in the central sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and under section 5 1 d read with s 5 2 of the

Union of India, Madras and anr. Vs. Sri Rajendra Mills Ltd.,

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1971Mad53; (1971)IIMLJ41

properly put on board a vessel held that under the indian carriers act the carrier can avoid the liability it is but we are concerned in this case with the railways act of 1870 1809 before this amendment in 1961 12 the the assistant traffic superintendent at the survey held on 9 5 1959 3 the defendant admitted that 100 bales of pressed before amendment in 1961 and contract act ix of 1872 sections 151 and 152 goods booked under railway risk loss of

K. Rukmani (Died), Vs. Adikesavan (Died) and ors.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (2009)6MLJ1195

execution of oral documentary evidence a section 91 of the indian evidence act 1872 is extracted hereunder for ready reference evidence and recovery of possession onlhy article 65 of the limitation act would be applicable in the judgment relied upon by the only the first defendant also informed the defendants 2 to 5 that the suit property was sold by the father of to lead evidence to contradict its terms in view of section 91 of the evidence act there is no case that the suit property as the one belonging to them absolutely 28 in the judgment reported in 2007 3 scc 114 m

A.T.S.V.S Siddha Medical College and Hospital and anr. Vs. the Secreta ...

Court : Chennai

is 32 the inspection team of the central council of indian medicine during inspection found the following irregularities i total eligible to sub section 5 of section 13a of the imcc act 1970 to appear on 7 7 2011 before the designated of patient in opd is less than 100 per day 5 the case of the petitioner is that as per the patients in opd as the college was running two opd sections in support thereof the petitioner produced documentary evidence 10 the council of indian medicine visited the petitioner s college on 28th and 29th march 2011 for giving permission to admit students

Carborundum Universal Ltd. and anr. Vs. the Trustees of Port of Madras

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1994)1MLJ133

inconsistent with the provisions of the act or of the indian ports act 1905 generally for carrying out the purposes of to the dock manager and any other officer or officers acting under the authority of the docks manager that is a of bye law 31 of the port trust bye laws 5 since the contesting defendant respondent raised a plea of notice trust therefore though for the purpose of judging their responsibility sections 151 152 and 161 of the contract act will have

Jeyaraj Vs. the State Represented by the Inspector of Police.

Court : Chennai

persons this has been recognized under section 24 of the indian evidence act in fact confession is the best form of wife medical evidence death by poisoning section 27 indian evidence act recovery the accused suspected his wife s fidelity also then accused took them in the van driven by p w 5 balamurugan to p w 11 dr meenakshisundaram s hospital in their father jayaraj was convicted on 30 9 2010 under section 302 ipc 2 counts in s c no 102 of they have withstood the lengthy cross examination of the defence 28 it is the evidence of p w 2 that on

Annamalai Cotton Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. the Chairman, Tamilnadu Electricit ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1996Mad364

to give such finding under sec tion 39 of the indian electricity act a regular criminal court is competent to hold supply contract or within the scope of the electricity supply act this subject according to him falls only under the indian accordance with the terms and conditions of supply of electricity 5 on receipt of such notice a reply was sent by the respondent board that although the division bench referred to section 18 c still the board had enough power under section and conditions ofsupply of electricity and restriction and control orders 28 paragraph 11 00 of the terms and conditions of supply

J.B. Khanna and Company Vs. S. Asad

Court : Chennai

Reported in : 2008(5)MhLj1469; LC2008(3)19

another decision is relied on by the appellant defendant in indian express newspapers pvt ltd jaganmohan wherein it is held that pirator and that a mere suspicion cannot give cause of action for filing a suit and there are number of tiger anr it is laid down as follows civil p c 5 of 1908 order39 rules 1 and 2 copyright act 14 order39 rules 1 and 2 copyright act 14 of 1957 section 55 infringement of copyright application for injunction restraining defendants from cannot be held to operate and accordingly bar the suit 28 according to the p w 1 s respondent plaintiff evidence