Governor General In Council And Ors. vs Mahabir Ram And Anr. on 14 May, 1952
In Secy. of State v. Firm Jiwan, 45 ALL. 380 it was held :
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (2.44 seconds)Documents citing
The Secretary Of State For India In ... vs Firm Jiwan And Abdullah on 5 February, 1923
The East India Railway Company vs Jagpat Singh on 1 February, 1924
14. The view which I have expressed as to the meaning of the term " lose " in the Risk Note and in Section 72 is supported by three recent decisions of the Allahabad High Court Secretary of State for India v. Jiwan 71 Ind. Cas.
East Indian Railway Co. vs Jogpat Singh on 1 February, 1924
14. The view which I have expressed as to the meaning of the term "loss" in the risk note, and in Section 72 is supported by three recent decisions of the Allahabad High Court: Secretary of State v. Jiwan (1923) I.L.R. 45 All.
Province Of Bengal vs P.L. Nun, K.C. Pal, Receivers Appointed ... on 22 December, 1944
9. The reference was held to be a good one notwithstanding the fact that the claimant did not value his claim in the reference petition at any amount. That is also the decision in Secretary of State v. Jiwan Baksh (16) 3 A.I.R. 1916 Lah. 37, where the petition of the claimant was in the following terms "I object to the award of the Collector and wish a reference to be made to Court" on the ground "that the compensation given ... is too low." We accordingly hold that the Court hearing a reference made under Section 18 of the Act has the power to allow an amendment of the nature that has been allowed in this case. A contrary view would lead to irrational results and would work injustice, for, in that case, the Court would be powerless to direct amendment, even when the mistake in the petition of reference was due to an accidental slip. A concrete illustration would make the thing clear. A piece of land is acquired. The owner claims Rs. 100,000 in the statement of his claim before the Collector filed in pursuance of the notice issued under Section 9. Thereafter the Collector makes an award for Rs. 60,000. In his petition of reference under Section 18, the owner intended to claim Rs. 80,000 as compensation for his land, but owing to the mistake of the typist the last zero was dropped, with the result that the figure Rs. 8000 appeared in his petition which was referred to the Court. A petition of reference claiming only Rs. 8000 as compensation for the land in such a case would be a meaningless one, for the Collector's award was for a greater sum. It would be going to unreasonable limits if it be held that the Court had in such a case no power to allow an amendment of that figure by the addition of the omitted zero.
Udit Narayan Singh @ Tulsi @ Tufan vs The Union Of India (N.I.A.) on 6 September, 2016
124. The decision, in Abdullah (supra), R. Paul
Swamy (supra) and Kishan Lal (supra), furnish glaring examples
of the High Court's power being subject to the limitations, which
may be imposed on the power to grant bail by a Special Act even
when Section 439 of the Code, otherwise, applies; whereas the
case at hand is one, where Section 439 of the Code does not apply,
when the High Court considers, in an appeal, the correctness of the
order of the Special Court, constituted under the NIA Act, granting
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.431 of 2016 dt. 06-09-2016
95/108
or refusing to grant bail.
Akhilesh Kumar Singh @ Manoj Kumar Singh ... vs The Union Of India (Nia) on 6 September, 2016
124. The decision, in Abdullah (supra), R. Paul
Swamy (supra) and Kishan Lal (supra), furnish glaring examples
of the High Court's power being subject to the limitations, which
may be imposed on the power to grant bail by a Special Act even
when Section 439 of the Code, otherwise, applies; whereas the
case at hand is one, where Section 439 of the Code does not apply,
when the High Court considers, in an appeal, the correctness of the
order of the Special Court, constituted under the NIA Act, granting
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.431 of 2016 dt. 06-09-2016
95/108
or refusing to grant bail.
State vs . Md Abdullah on 5 December, 2019
6. PW2 ASI Hari Bhushan is the investigating officer. He has
deposed that on receipt of DD No. 50A regarding apprehension of
thief, he alongwith Ct Rohit went to the spot i.e. HÂ33 West Patel
Nagar where complainant Gaurav Sharma met and handed over
custody of one person and motor. He recorded statement of the
complainant and made endorsement on the same for registration of
FIR No. 147/2019 State Vs. Md Abdullah
PS Patel Nagar Page No. 3 of 8
FIR.
Bhajani Lal And Ors. vs Secy. Of State on 28 June, 1932
With due deference we cannot agree to this view and we note that the learned Judges relied upon the cases Secy. of State v. Jiwan Baksh [1916] 67 P.R. 1916 and T.K. Parmeshwara v. Land Acquisition Collector, Palghat [1919] 42 Mad. 231. Apparently, it was not brought to their notice that both these cases had been overruled by subsequent decisions of the same High Courts. It is objected that if the Collector's order refusing to make the reference is not open to revision by the High Court then the applicant has no remedy. It would no doubt be open to the applicant to petition the Commissioner or the Local Government to direct the Collector to make a reference. If any further remedy is considered necessary, then we think it is for the legislature to provide some appropriate remedy.
Leath Elies Joseph Solomon vs H. C. Stork on 28 May, 1934
37 Secretary of State v. Jiwan Bukgh, 1916 Lah.
B.B. And C.I. Railway vs Ganu Daji Mirmahamad on 28 January, 1929
15. I need not, therefore, refer to the two decisions of Secretary of State for India in Council v. Jiwan and Abdullah (1923) I.L.R. 45 All.