Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 22 (0.96 seconds)
Documents citing Union Of India (Uoi) vs Firm Ram Gopal Hukum Chand And Ors. on 1 January, 1960

United Bank Of India Ltd. vs Ram Chandra Kapoor on 28 July, 1967

In suit No. 7 of 1961, United Bank oj India v. Ram Chandra Kapur of the Court of the Second Additional Civil Judge, Varanasi, a large number of documents were filed by the United Bank of India Limited (hereinafter referred to as the bank). These documents included three deeds which were marked as papers Nos. 52C, 57C and 61C, at the trial. According to the Chief Inspector of Stamps, these three documents were liable to stamp duty as provided by Article 6(2) of Schedule I-B of the Act.
Allahabad High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - R S Pathak - Full Document

Mrinal Kanti Bose vs General Manager (Claims), N.F. ... on 24 April, 2002

23. Coupled with the above, it is also worth emphasizing that no consignee has the right to refuse to take delivery on the assumption that the consignment is damaged. The remedy of the consignee lies in taking delivery of the consignment in the condition in which it is offered and, then, claim, if required, compensation from the railway administration for the damage to, or deterioration of, the consignment. This principle of law has been emphasized time and again by various courts. Reference may be made to Union of India v. Hukum Chand and Ors. (AIR 1970 M.P.)
Gauhati High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - I Ansari - Full Document

Union Of India (Uoi) vs B. Basavayya on 24 August, 1962

10. Mr. Shrivastava relying on Union of India v. Firm of Messrs. Parikh Shankarlal Jethalal, AIR 1956 Nag 255, argues that the law does not cast any burden on the railway administration to establish positively how fire occurred and prove absence of negligence on their part, but that a duty is cast on the administration to lay all the mate-trials concerned with the occurrence before the Court.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 12 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Zoolfiqar Ali Currimbhoy Ebrahim vs The Official Trustee Of Maharashtra on 27 July, 1966

102. Mr. Peerbhoy relied upon a decision of a learned single Judge of the Allahabad High Court in Union of India v. Firm Bam Gopal to urge that there can be no such distinction between a casual observation and an obiter dictum of the Supreme Court and that every statement in a decision of the Supreme Court would be of equal authority. We need not go into the reasons which impelled the decision of the learned Single Judge. Suffice it to say that we are ordinarily bound to follow the two decisions of this Court.
Bombay High Court Cites 96 - Cited by 7 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next