Old Dominion - Judgment Search Results
Dominion of India Vs. the Delhi Registered Stock Holders (iron and Ste ...
Court: Punjab and Haryana
Decided on: Jan-08-1958
Reported in: AIR1958P& H270
Full Bench of this Court in Babu Lal v. The Dominion of India, 54 Pun LR 398: (AIR 1953 Punj 184)
The Dominion of India and anr. Vs. Shrinbai A. Irani and anr.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Decided on: May-14-1954
Reported in: AIR1954SC596; [1955]1SCR206
the property was not by the appropriate Government, viz., the Dominion of India, but was by the State Government. She also
The Dominion of India and ors. Vs. Premchand Siremal and Co.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-02-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Kant43; AIR1959Mys43; ILR1958KAR245; (1958)36MysLJ455
question came up for consideration in the case reported in Dominion of India v. Eversharp Agency, (S) AIR 1955 Bom 98.
Dominion of India Vs. Mathura Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-10-1957
Reported in: AIR1958All148
ORDERSahai, J. 1. Both these revisions may be conveniently disposed of by one judgment, as the points involved are common...
Dominion of India Vs. Purshottam Das Brijnandan Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-02-1959
Reported in: AIR1961All176
8-8-1948. It was addressed to the Governor-General in Council, Indian Dominion, New Delhi and the General Manager, O. T. Railway, Gorakhpur.
The Dominion of India, Ministry of Railway, New Delhi and ors. Vs. Amr ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-31-1961
Reported in: AIR1963All134
connection with the disturbances that followed the creation of two dominions in the country. The defendants therefore pleaded that the loss
Dominion of India Vs. Central Aerating Gas Company
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-16-1962
Reported in: AIR1964All243
S.N. Dwivedi, J. 1. In this appeal against a decree awarding Rs. 3,300/- to the plaintiff as damages for causing...
Dominion of India Vs. L. Badu Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-12-1960
Reported in: AIR1962All461
the Union of India (the suit originally was against the Dominion of India but later the necessary amendment appears to have
Dominion of India Vs. Kaniz Fatma and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-17-1961
Reported in: (1961)IILLJ197All
governed by the provisions as they stood prior to amendment. Old Clause (d) of Section 3 was as follows:3. Where personal
Dominion of India Vs. Eversharp Agency
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-24-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Bom98a; (1954)56BOMLR532
from Bombay to Lahore. The damages are sought from the Dominion of India representing the Railway authority.The facts briefly are that
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »