Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.25 seconds)
Documents citing Badruddin Abdul Rahim vs Sitaram Vinayak Apte on 2 April, 1928

Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. vs Wazir Singh on 25 February, 1980

In this connection, he has placed reliance on Badruddin Abdul Rahim v. Sitarara Vinayak Apte, AIR 1928 Bom 371 and Ma. Than v. Mg. Ba Gyaw, AIR 1928 Rang 1 (FB). On the other hand, it has been pressed by Mr. Bhandari learned counsel for the respondent, that the words "no such application" refer to the words "application for such declaration" occurring in the preceding sentence, and therefore, argues Mr. Bhandari, that an application for grant of certificate at a subsequent stage after the judgment is delivered, is barred.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 2 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Mathurbhai Garbadbhai Patel vs The Nadian City Municipality on 29 January, 1929

5. But whether that is the correct view or not, I think the proper course in the present case, having regard to those new Letters Patent, is to give leave to the present applicant to appeal. That will remove his difficulties, If he is entitled to appeal without leave, then the appeal will lie. If on the other hand leave is necessary, it might result in some further argument despite Badruddin v. Sitaram if I did not grant leave to-day. Accordingly, I think, it will be proper for me to grant leave under these circumstances of doubt as to what is the true legal situation under the various Letters Patent to-day.
Bombay High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Balu Harshet Shetye vs Shrikishna Govind Kulkarni on 2 December, 1929

3. There are three reported cases on the point. The first is a decision of this Court reported in Badruddin v. Sitaram , and made on April 2, 1928. This case was decided by Fawcett and Mirza JJ. after the first amendment of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent on December 9, 1927, coming into effect on February 2, 1928. The view taken1 by these learned Judges was that the amendment had retrospective effect. Two other High Courts, however, took a different view.
Bombay High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1