Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.68 seconds)
Documents citing V.A. Shabeer vs P.A. Niamathulla on 10 April, 2008

Ysr Congress Party vs Election Commission Of India on 1 June, 2024

-til) V.A.Shabeer Vs. P.A.NiamathuIIa5 -til) Rajesekhar Gogoi Vs. State ofAssam6 'IV) Sharif-ud-Din Vs.AbduI Gani Lone7 v) Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation vs. subhash sindhi cooperative Housing Society, Jaipur and others8 v-I) Digvijay MoteVs. Union of India and others9 13. Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, appearing for the implead respondent
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shri Udaya S/O Narayan Naik vs The State Of Karnataka on 27 May, 2024

In support of his submissions learned AAG relied on decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in V.A. Shabeer v. P.A. Niamathulla, reported in (2008) 10 SCC 295; Gopalji Khanna v. Allahabad Bank, reported in (1996) 3 SCC 538 for proposition that when an officer is in-charge and capable of exercising as Assistant Returning Officer, requirement of seeking permission is not necessary.
Karnataka High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - R V Hosmani - Full Document

The Telangana State Southern Power ... vs Vidyut Ombudsman For The State Of ... on 10 December, 2024

v) V.A. Shabeer vs. P.A. Niamathula 13 In Kedar Shashikant Deshpande's case, the issue was totally different for the reason that though the contention that Additional Collector is not having jurisdiction to entertain and decide disqualification petition, was raised from the record, it got divulged that Section 13(3) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 contemplates statutory delegation in favour of Additional Collector. Therefore, the facts of this case are not applicable to the present case as in the instant case, the Ombudsman could not satisfy the very categories mentioned in Clause 3.6 which is a pre-condition to become an Ombudsman.
Telangana High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - N Bheemapaka - Full Document

The Superintending Engineer vs Vidhyuth Ombudsman For The State Of ... on 10 December, 2024

v) V.A. Shabeer vs. P.A. Niamathula 13 In Kedar Shashikant Deshpande's case, the issue was totally different for the reason that though the contention that Additional Collector is not having jurisdiction to entertain and decide disqualification petition, was raised from the record, it got divulged that Section 13(3) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 contemplates statutory delegation in favour of Additional Collector. Therefore, the facts of this case are not applicable to the present case as in the instant case, the Ombudsman could not satisfy the very categories mentioned in Clause 3.6 which is a pre-condition to become an Ombudsman.
Telangana High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - N Bheemapaka - Full Document

Sivananda vs State Of Karnataka By Talagattapura Ps on 2 July, 2008

PWs.9 and 14, though are the adjoining land enemity against the accused and the_re»vis_ no Vt ' faisely impiicate the accused, as ivwhes deceased and also threatenedthent with We find that the evidence of 'v§fitnessesv'_AAis_fi§unbiased, consistent and trust { _The etc:-'_ the appellant was not able to show. to discard the evidence of fl 2 V V. A upon the evidence of the eye idoes not play an important role, we feel_ thet" quarrel between Channagiri '~ and {P'W.3) for giving the food grains, the " have felt that it is the deceased, who was Iespcjiisihle quarrei amongst the family members. Apart ' Ufimn this",z:_itV is most relevant to note that even the Doctor states in his evidence about the lacerated injuries on of the deceased at two places. Both these injuries " a place in the postmortem report (Ex.P.5).
Karnataka High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - K S Rao - Full Document

H J Manmatharajaiah vs H J Padmarajaiah on 10 July, 2008

-V V. A a;%e§:ss*';§§§§ie;*'e $3 rm %%"':%§f:i.%£1.....%.?:v '§§":$ =:';§?"§"i§§":§§G%'? :5' fize éeaifiéé fiaamsei 5%? §°%3§%G§§§§?§§:%'%--..f§fié 3$£9%'§§§'§§§¥ £2 §$ r&:§e:§a°é. ifiawevef, '$33': ¥%.?%%§ A ?w%:.T~%°'§%é':a-.. &fwf;a§= :€;';:§=?ss:;*fi@:'*2 £2? 32% a§§e§§.a?"si €52 gmzsa fie %:€€££i'i§G%"§ G'? 2&9 ¥"§§§§ é¢w§fia2':::e wéiiw §&w. Tim asggeéiazzi ms faiied 3&2 §§'§%.!% §'3§';*§}iéCi;%%§£% ea' iéze Ef§'§§é Er: asazfiéfanaa wE:§"2 fiaw as nose 9? :?:é°ai%e3%érsg '-*¢%'§§E'%%$$$$ image beer: smmérgeéa "?%sere~?$§"ei m my ':;=§:*%'s§A:%e:e§ igéew, '§?%$? gxaazgéiazé sf fisa %§%s'é%% ms mi @995: fiéwzéci. 5/ '$3? '$29 yam? qmesiéész E3, §*a§5s'éé:*:§ €323 §§*;"§'am2..'VV'§;::?;~__j' 7&3: aiiaiéeé ii: 25% gggaeéfagzé am iéze fespeirédersis. ':%ée:~ wage??? €233 %e%:°2 §§%;,:§fQ§?"e27§§§ iazézsiéy §§%1;§C=i.%?_§f{.§£§?'%'€§i?S':." ;.__.:E'§2g:=§;e7%é§e:,"' eaaia 6% them are eféiéfiafi fag. £53??? é.;--%7a§'z-e, %::,.'i%§3é"3?
Karnataka High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

National Insurance Co Ltd vs Christine John Gonsalves on 30 September, 2008

employment on the way, he met sustained injuries. In 5135; it_i;~fi~iig_;'1t1y held * that the injuries sustained tize 'accident cannot be attributed employment. (cl) 2()O£;é;0J £373 (i§E\V:'§NDiA:.§ASSURANCE co. LTD. A; ?$}1A;1j§IEfAVb_iBIVI AND OTHERS)- This is the case where a dI*ivei*Ainrae'pi'oceedi11g on his cycle to meet _ his. eonoployer an accident and died due to the »ii'1j--uI'i~e$ case is also similar to the earlier two ._ Court held that the said accident is g notééagieing out of and in the course of employment V' V. A plain reading of four cases clearly disc-Ioses that each of those cases, neither the accident nor the "7 13 injuries sufiered by the victim could atuibuted to their employment, henm, tlf;¢:_ K of the said case is rightly «£1353 the facts and crimumstanoes *' Admittediy, at the time of Nixon Gonsalves :4 toe loaded tanker/lorry in the I and his stay at part of his employen:1€e;1tf§_4_"ff! vaocident which was to stopped his vehicle to procoed to necessarily be construed as U be connected to the job he was the relevant point of time and the caused to him could be attributabie to his emiiioymcnt. Therefore, the Labour Ofiicer and the "_Cooigmissioner for Worlmcns' Compensation has rightly " gfllowod the claim made by his lgal representatives. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the judgment and W7 é' ya 14 award passed by the Labour Commissioner for Workznensf-V V' ' Kannada, Karwar in WCA:SR:215;fV2(§{(_)4; 1 A' I In the msult, the £51' insurance Company is disnaissVe§ci._;':%'-- _ 1 W' §Sdfi-
Karnataka High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Saravanan S/O P Pandurangam vs The State Of Karnataka on 27 January, 2009

7. The learned Govemment-Adv*ecat£: {3p.§3os§ed ' the case: that these pet.itim1ers i>1".i__%)'£}1v6I.f iike nature and thereibre V-;rjigui<2_;t'i}j»"vvréjectedV V the bail appiicatiml refigrénce miade by the petitioners Counsel deflects in the izlvestigation c;.-;g31:1_ot 'Jstagc: to consicier the bail fifififlonem are persons beloriging it is likely that they may absco11'£i'=ag11d these reasons, bail be rejected to, 1316 pctitio:1a;£$V.V' V. , 'A ., thus httani both sides and going through the H };éxper:§VV'V.pr0duc€d by the learned Cotmsei for tha taking into account the Law laid down by the V 'fipgx Court with régard to grant of baii, in the instafit case, 7.35 "far as the patitioners involvement in ether cases of like " nai:1.:r3 is csncernaéi, no material is piaced to show that the pfititieners have been convicted of any efiénces of the said %' nature in the past and with regard to other cases 'to by the prosecution, there is no material p}.ace:1":'toV these pefitioners have ideiitified by the no A .
Karnataka High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - V Jagannathan - Full Document
1   2 Next