Bhabani Gharan Butt V Pratap - Law Dictionary Search Results
Without prejudice
on merits, and (2) that fresh proceedings according to law were not barred, Superintendent (Tech. I) Central Excise v. Pratap Rai, AIR 1978 SC 1244 (1246): (1978) 3 SCC 113: (1978) 3 SCR 729; I.D.D., Jabalpur v. Pratap
Public Order Act, 1936
have a right of access, District Insurance Officer, Kozhikode v. M.K. Moosakutty, AIR 2007 Ker 168; Hira Bai v. Pratap Singh, AIR 2007 MP 134. Public place, means a road, street, way or other place, whether a thoroughfare
Extraordinary traffic
54. See Hill v. Thomas, (1893) 2 QB 333; Barnsley, etc., Society v. Worsborough U.D.C., 1916 AC 291; Butt v. Weston-super-Mare U.D.C., 1921 AC 340.
Keep your definitions linked to case research
Neglect
care, attention, or time to. The fail through thoughtlessness or carelessness. To ignore or disregard', Laxmikant Devchand Bhojwani v. Pratap Singh Mohan Singh Pardeshi, (1994) 6 SCC 576 (579). [Bombay Rents, Hotels and Lodging House Rates Control Act,
Shall have regard to the provisions of this Act
has slightly modified or clarified the previous provisions, these modifications and clarifications should be applied', Karam Singh Sobti v. Pratap Chand, AIR 1964 SC 1305: (1964) 4 SCR 647. The expression 'shall have regard to the provisions of
Impotency
arise on account of physical defect or mental condition such as total repugnance to the sexual act, Digvijoy v. Pratap Kumari, AIR 1970 SC 87.
Impotent, Impotency
the time of the marriage and continued to be so until the institution of the proceedings, Digvijay Singhji v. Pratap Kumari, (1969) 2 SCC 279: AIR 1970 SC 137 (138). [Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, s. 12(1) (a)]
In charge of
person in overall control of the day to day business of the company or firm, State of Karnataka v. Pratap Chand, AIR 1981 SC 872: (1981) 2 SCC 335: (1981) 3 SCR 200
Kabul also kabool
a mere acknowledge, an engagement by the tenant to carry out the terms of the patta, Srinath Ray v. Pratap Udainath, 82 IC 879.
Om
but its use on a flag ('Om Dhwaj') does not symbolise religion, or anything religious, Jagdev Singh Sidhanti v. Pratap Singh Daulta, AIR 1965 SC 183: (1964) 6 SCR 750.
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »
Try the research workspace - 7 days free