Section 252 - Judgment Search Results
Home > Cases Phrase: section 252 Year: 1985 Page 1 of about 5,413 results (0.091 seconds)Smt. Mani Vs. State of Kerala
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jul-01-1985
Reported in: 1985CriLJ1882
..... a matter of course even in such a case the magistrate has the discretion under section 252 of the code the court has a duty to consider whether the plea of guilty ..... case the plea has been recorded only in malayalam in this connection the provisions of section 252 cr p c has been violated it cannot be taken that the provisions of .....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTState of Sikkim Vs. M.K.O. Nair and anr.
Court: Sikkim
Decided on: Aug-12-1985
Reported in: 1986CriLJ415
..... in support of the prosecution is in contrast with sub section 2 section 252 applicable to a warrant case instituted otherwise than on a ..... clear distinction in the language of the procedure prescribed in section 251a and section 252 the court has no duty or obligation to summon ..... the code by the amendment act of 1955 the provisions of section 252 were applicable even to a case instituted on a police .....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTT.K. Bose Vs. Sree Venkatesha Electrical Industries (P) Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-15-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR3189; 1985(2)KarLJ333
..... have convened a board meeting on 24 10 1980 under section 252 read with section 287 of the act one director cannot constitute a board ..... interested where a general notice is given under sub section 3 of section 299 sub section 3 stipulates that the names of the firms and ..... interested where a general notice is given under sub section 3 of section 299 sub section 3 stipulates that the names of the firms .....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTOregon Vs. Elstad
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Mar-04-1985
2 23 see e g state v medeiros supra at 252 253 665 p 2d at 184 185 in re r
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTWinston Vs. Lee
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Mar-20-1985
bar consideration of the 1983 claim 551 f supp at 252 n 4 footnote 2 respondent had moved to reopen the
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTNew Jersey Vs. T.L.O.
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jan-15-1985
e g d r c v state 646 p 2d 252 alaska app 1982 in re g 11 cal app 3d
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTUnited States Vs. Boyle
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jan-09-1985
..... neglect will be accepted as reasonable id 1122 2 3 footnote 2 section 6081 a of the internal revenue code authorizes the irs to grant ..... marshall powell and o connor jj joined post p 469 u s 252 chief justice burger delivered the opinion of the court we granted ..... to engage a professional to prepare and file page 469 u s 252 an estate tax return a person experienced in business matters can perform .....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTMountaIn States Tel. Vs. Santana Ana
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jun-10-1985
..... intend to authorize alienation of all pueblo lands footnote 2 30 section 17 was drafted by francis wilson an attorney representing the pueblos in ..... length in the committee reports footnote 24 page 472 u s 252 v there is another reading of the statute that better harmonizes ..... that no one has ever followed ante at 472 u s 252 253 the court s principle of deference to a prior administrative construction .....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTMitsubishi Vs. Soler Chrysler-plymouth
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jul-02-1985
..... proceed to arbitration in accordance with the terms of the agreement section 201 provides the convention on the recognition and enforcement of foreign ..... explained in blumenstock brothers advertising agency v curtis publishing co 252 u s 436 252 u s 440 1920 an antitrust treble damages case ..... in blumenstock bros adv agency v curtis pub co 252 u s 436 252 u s 440 41 1920 that federal antitrust suits .....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTCleburne Vs. Cleburne Living Ctr.
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jul-01-1985
..... a desire to discriminate against blacks on account of race and the section continues to this day to have that effect as such it violates ..... assn specifically held that the ordinance did not discriminate against the retarded 252 ga at 487 314 s e 2d at 221 footnote 9 mentally ..... protection under arlington heights v metropolitan housing development corp 429 u s 252 1977 471 u s at 471 u s 233 if a .....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT- << Prev.
- Next >>
Sign-up to get more results
Unlock complete result pages and premium legal research features.
Start Free Trial