Skip to content

Did you mean: section 2?


Section 8 - Judgment Search Results

Home > Cases Phrase: section 8 Court: mumbai Year: 1934 Page 1 of about 190 results (0.529 seconds)
Nov 26 1934 (PC)

Kamalakant Gopalji Vs. Madhavji Vaghji

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Nov-26-1934

Reported in : AIR1935Bom343; 158Ind.Cas.145

..... was therefore the holder of the notes a holder is defined in section 8 negotiable instruments act as the person entitled in his own name ..... mad 88 that the words in his own name appearing in section 8 of the act were inserted by the legislature to prevent anyone ..... scheduled caste or scheduled tribe it is not a requirement und4r section 3 of the atrocities act that the complainant should disclose the .....

Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT

Feb 13 1934 (PC)

Emperor Vs. Jalal Dhondibhai

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Feb-13-1934

Reported in : AIR1934Bom211; (1934)36BOMLR435

..... to exercise the powers conferred by section 8 sub section 1 of the reformatory schools act 1897 that section is in terms clearly permissive when ..... government to exercise the powers conferred by section 8 sub section 1 of the reformatory schools act 1897 that ..... no jurisdiction to try him having regard to the provisions of section 29b of the criminal procedure code the learned district magistrate is of .....

Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT

Feb 26 1934 (PC)

Trustees of the Sir Currimbhoy Ebrahim Baronetcy Trust Vs. the Commiss ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Feb-26-1934

Reported in : (1934)36BOMLR557

..... or lands appurtenant thereto of which he is the owner 8 provisos to section 8 relieve the assessee from income tax on certain securities ..... sums calculated on percentages of capital sums there specified by section 8 the residue of the income was to be paid to ..... iv business v professional earnings vi other sources 7 section 7 deals with salaries sections 8 and 9 deal with interest on securities and .....

Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT

Mar 07 1934 (PC)

Narayan Atmaram Patkar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Mar-07-1934

Reported in : AIR1934Bom378; [1934]2ITR486(Bom)

of the act or for quashing such complaint then sub section 3 provides that if the commissioner refuses to state a

Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT

Aug 22 1934 (PC)

Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay Vs. D. N. MehtA.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Aug-22-1934

Reported in : [1935]3ITR147(Bom)

prior to the date of the enactment of the said section viz 11th september 1933 in other words has the new

Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT

Dec 03 1934 (PC)

Jinnappa Mahadevappa Kudachi and ors. Vs. Chimmava Krishnappa Kochari

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Dec-03-1934

Reported in : AIR1935Bom324; 159Ind.Cas.207

..... to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe it is not a requirement und4r section 3 of the atrocities act that the complainant should disclose the caste ..... that cannot be a ground for either not registering the offence under section 3 of the act or for quashing such complaint the question is ..... and it is too late for the respondent to raise it now 8 undoubtedly the gift is of a small portion of the whole of .....

Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT

Jul 18 1934 (PC)

Government Pleader Vs. R. A. Pleader

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Jul-18-1934

Reported in : AIR1935Bom71

..... to have been passed pending the disposal of the case under section 498 on 7th august the district magistrate modified his earlier ..... wife the matter appears to have begun with an application under section 100 by shiva mathur on that application the district magistrate ..... respect the opponent had the deliberate intention of misleading the court 8 as regards the suppression of the alleged fact that it .....

Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT

Aug 06 1934 (PC)

Municipal Borough Vs. Mahomed Isak Abdul Karim

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Aug-06-1934

Reported in : AIR1936Bom43; 160Ind.Cas.736

..... some of them who though disqualified under section 11 sub section 2 were qualified under section 11 sub section 1 it seems to me clear from ..... oversight omitted from the electoral roll and whose qualifications under section 11 sub section 1 had not been considered at all the act of ..... he did the act in his official capacity would not suffice 8 it is contended on behalf of the respondent that the act .....

Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT

Dec 18 1934 (PC)

Babu Mahadeo Prasad Singh Vs. Karia Bharati

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Dec-18-1934

Reported in : (1935)37BOMLR333

them justified in determining the real dispute on the merits 8 the only other question raised on behalf of the appellants

Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT

Oct 19 1934 (PC)

In Re: Mahomed Haji Haroon Kadwani

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Oct-19-1934

Reported in : AIR1935Bom254; (1935)37BOMLR396

no 507 of 1921 decided by pratt j on april 8 1921 unrep declared to be a good bequest 2 in

Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //