State Of Karnataka vs G. Lakshman And Others on 23 March, 1993
State Of Karnataka vs G. Lakshman And Others on 23 March, 1993
Equivalent citations: 1993
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 4892 (1.16 seconds)Noreen R. Srikantaiah vs L. Dasarath Ramaiah And Anr. on 21 December, 1984
civil nature, excepting those whose cognisance is either expressly, or by implication, barred; while the Tribunal has and exercises "judicial power" in special
Nippani Electricity Company (Private) ... vs Bhimarao Laxman Patil And Ors. on 5 July, 1968
particular mode in which it is to be enforced, it bars by implication the jurisdiction of civil Courts.
(4) Even when the jurisdiction of civil ... boards or courts in which it has to be enforced; it bars by implication the jurisdiction of civil Court.
15. The Industrial Disputes Act provides
Syndicate Bank vs Vincent Robert Lobo on 26 February, 1971
expressly or impliedly barred.' A suit is expressly barred of a legislation in express terms says so. It is impliedly barred if a statute ... fact arising in regard to that liability, it may, by necessary implication, bar the maintainability of a civil suit in respect of the said liability
Anjanappa vs Byrappa on 5 July, 1995
Article 227 as the case may be. But that cannot by necessary implication be concluded that the rival claims have been made for tenancy rights ... questioned in a Court of Law. So there is by necessary implication bar against challenge to the finality of the order by way of Civil
Noreen R. Srikantaiah vs L. Dasarath Ramaiah, Gulbarga And Anr. on 21 December, 1984
civil nature, excepting those whose cognisance is either expressly, or by implication barred; while the Tribunal has and exercises "judicial power" in special
Mangalore Chemicals And Fertilizers ... vs Karnataka Electricity Board, ... on 20 July, 2000
Court declared that the suit against the Board is by necessary implication barred. It would be useful to refer to the observation of the Apex ... pecuniary jurisdiction, unless their cognizance is expressly or by necessary implication is barred. Such suit would not be maintainable. It is true that ordinarily
M. Narayanappa vs Hemavathi on 9 January, 1987
jurisdiction of the Civil Court cannot therefore be held to be barred in this case by virtue of the provisions of Section ... jurisdiction of the Civil Court is expressly or by necessary implication barred with regard to the question whether the defendants had become statutory owners
I.N. Mahabaleswara Madyasta vs Karnataka Electricity Board, ... on 6 October, 1993
Civil Court's jurisdiction is expressly or by necessary implication is barred, the Civil Court had the jurisdiction to entertain the suit. He placed ... suit unless its jurisdiction is expressly or by necessary implication is barred.
12. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff that
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs K.R. Shivaprakash And Ors. on 20 December, 1991
civil nature, excepting those whose cognizance is either expressly or by implication barred; while the Tribunal has and exercises 'judicial power' in special