Marriage Laws Amendment Act 2001 Section 7 - Judgment Search Results
Home > Cases Phrase: marriage laws amendment act 2001 section 7 Year: 2018 Page 1 of about 454 results (2.034 seconds)Rajat Gupta vs.rupali Gupta
Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-15-2018
..... both the parties to a marriage whether such a marriage was solemnized before or after the commencement of the marriage laws amendment act 1976 iii that the ..... or clause vii of sub section 1 of section 13 xxx xxx contempt of courts act 1971 xxx xxx xxx xxx2 definitions in this act unless ..... prasad vs govt of a p and ors reported as 2001 1 scc516to urge that powers of contempt are inherent powers .....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTNavtej Singh Johar Vs. Union of India Ministry of Law and Justice Secr ...
Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Sep-06-2018
..... ipc will have cascading effect on existing laws such as section 32 d of the parsi marriage and divorce act 1936 section 27 7 1a a of the special marriage act 1954 which permits a wife to present a ..... britain continued to introduce and amend laws governing same sex intercourse to make them more equal including the lowering of the age of consent for gay bisexual men to sixteen in 2001 30 in may 2007 .....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTNandakumar Vs. The State of Kerala
Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Apr-20-2018
the age of eighteen years at the time of the marriage 12 voidable marriages 1 any marriage solemnised whether before or stood immediately before the commencement of the child marriage restraint amendment act the 1978 2 of 1978 the consent of such is more important than the conferment of the right such actualization indeed ostracises any kind of societal notoriety and keeps at the guardian in marriage of the petitioner was required under section 5 as it stood immediately before the commencement of the sans it the right of choice becomes a shadow it 7 criminal appeal no 597 of2018has to be remembered that the
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTAnila Dasgupta (Deceased) Thr Lrs vs.maya Bhattacharjee (Deceased) Th ...
Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-29-2018
under section 14 1 e of the delhi rent control act 1958 for eviction of the respondent plaintiff from the premises been allowed thus if the order allowing the application for amendment were to be set aside in this proceeding the order amendment does not constitute addition of a new cause of action or raising a new case and amounts to nothing more that though the petitioner defendant has instituted a petition under section 14 1 e of the delhi rent control act 1958 permanent injunction claimed in the suit 6 vide order dated 7th december 1987 in the suit reasoning that it was difficult
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTM/S Krbl Limited vs.m/s P K Overseas Pvt Ltd
Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-01-2018
135 read with section 27 2 of the trade marks act 1999 seeking reliefs in the nature of permanent injunction restraint moved an application under order vi rule 17 cpc for amendment of the suit the prime effect whereof was that the 135 read with section 27 2 of the trade marks act 1999 seeking reliefs in the nature of permanent injunction restraint filed by the petitioner plaintiff on 06 07 2010 under sections 134 and 135 read with section 27 2 of the the trial court for appropriate decision to be taken thereof 7 needless to add nothing in this order will be taken
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTCommissioner of Central Excise Etc. Vs. m/s.aishwarya Industries Throu ...
Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Apr-13-2018
3 of chapter 33 post amendment introduced by the amendment act in place of the erstwhile chapter no 2 is identical a kind sold by retail for such use the case laws which were reported in kothari products ltd v cce2002 139 oil 28 chapter note ii of chapter 33 prior to amendment and which has been substituted by chapter note 3 was marico to be sold under the brand name parachute the activities of m s moreshwar and other job workers amount to to an article in the financial express dated 14 06 2001 where mr srikand gupta chief executive officer ceo nature care chapter note 1 e to chapter 15 note 2 to section vi will not at all be relevant in this regard place in the amended section note 2 to section vi 73 a having regard to the manner in which they are
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTCommissioner of Central Excise Vs. M/S. Madhan Agro Industries (I) Pvt ...
Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Apr-13-2018
to the central excise tariff act 1985 by the amendment act of 2004 5 of 2005 which came into force on a kind sold by retail for such use the case laws which were reported in kothari products ltd v cce2002 139 the central excise tariff as it existed prior to the amendment the said circular clarified that for classification of coconut oil that in interpreting provisions of a statute like the excise act the popular meaning as understood by the users should be to an article in the financial express dated 14 06 2001 where mr srikand gupta chief executive officer ceo nature care oil edible as well as non edible chapter 15 of section iii of the schedule to ceta 1985 covers animal or 30 3305 90 40 3305 90 50 3305 90 90 7 we may now take note of the arguments advanced on
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTMohit Kumar and Ors. Vs.union of India and Ors.
Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-11-2018
the mci requesting for approval under section 33 of the act thereupon the amended regulations were notified in the official gazette that is why the question about the validity of the laws covered by the amendment is no longer left to be mci additional director general in his opinion on the proposed amendments to the regulations did not specifically refer to and examine government of india ministry of human resource development and would act as a certifying authority for such courses and programs and section 33 was enacted and introduced vide act 34 of 2001 and clause mb to section 33 and section 10d were examination which is conducted in terms of power conferred under section 10d of the act read with clauses ma and mb c no 1813 2018 connected page 79 of 81 conclusions 75 in view of the aforesaid discussion our findings and conclusions
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTRitinath Shukla vs.union of India & Ors
Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-11-2018
an expert body which has been given primacy under the act and the question w p c no 1813 2018 connected and examine their combined concord and erase and strike down laws which destroy equal opportunity to higher w p c no under the disabilities act 2016 has been prescribed by the amendment notification proviso to clause 4 2 a has been added of clause 6 the effect of the provisions of the act w p c no 1813 2018 connected page 29 of section 33 was enacted and introduced vide act 34 of 2001 and clause mb to section 33 and section 10d were introduced vide act 34 of 2001 and clause mb to section 33 and section 10d were enacted and made applicable with is not w p c no 1813 2018 connected page 71 of 81 the primary ground to allow the writs and
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTJasna Shayla K vs.union of India and Ors.
Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-11-2018
recognised by cbse isce and other state boards these schools act as study centres and had laboratories libraries etc in science would observe uphold the right of the state to enact laws insofar as they relate to professional or technical qualifications for family welfare on the question of sanction to the draft amendments to the regulations with reference to open school candidates it family welfare the opening words of section 33 of the act while empowering the mci to make regulations requires that these section 33 was enacted and introduced vide act 34 of 2001 and clause mb to section 33 and section 10d were previous sanction of the central government the relevant portion of section 33 reads as under 33 power to make regulation the view thereof w p c no 1813 2018 connected page 75 of 81 no fruitful purpose would be served by permitting
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT