Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 143 (2.84 seconds)
Documents citing Rajput Ruda Maha And Ors vs State Of Gujarat on 5 December, 1979

State Of Goa, Rep. By The Executive ... vs U.P. State Bridge Corporation Limited on 26 September, 2002

However, as rightly contended by Shri Usgaonkar, the same would not amount to a binding precedent inasmuch as, as per tests laid down in the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Rqjpur Ruda Meha and Ors. v. State of Gujarat there is no discussion or consideration on the issue in depth whether Section 14 of the Limitation Act stood excluded or not in view of Section 34(3) proviso of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Bombay High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 0 - S Radhakrishnan - Full Document

Sohan Prasad Choudhary vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 2 January, 2020

Regarding Rajput Ruda Meha (supra), petitioner's contention of sufficient notice of case had by State is accepted. Letters have been acted upon as writ petitions! For reasons aforesaid, the writ petition succeeds. Impugned notice dated 30th December, 2019 is set aside and quashed. Needless to say any action taken pursuant thereto is of no consequence.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - A Sinha - Full Document

State Of West Bengal vs Ustab Ali on 6 March, 2020

[See Rajput Ruda Meha and Others vs. State of Gujarat16] In State of Rajasthan vs. Kheraj Ram17, the accused was convicted of murder of his wife as he suspected her fidelity. He had made an extrajudicial confession which was believed by the Court. Other circumstances also established his guilt. The Apex Court stated that the appellant acted in a pre-planned manner and had executed the murder. He had no remorse and was seen smoking 'chilam' calmly. Accordingly, the Court imposed death sentence. In the present case, no evidence is forthcoming that the appellant had committed the crime in a pre- planned manner. Prosecution has not led evidence relating to appellant procuring kerosene oil to commit the crime. No forensic report with regard to presence of kerosene in the seized jar has been produced in court. In the face of the aforesaid facts, I am of the view that the instant case does not portray similar state of facts to justify imposition of death sentence.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 28 - Cited by 1 - J Bagchi - Full Document

M/S. Ex-Servicemen Chotanagpur ... vs Central Coalfield Limited on 25 November, 2020

21. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also repeatedly observed that a decision on a question which has not been argued cannot be treated as a precedent. Relevant observation to this effect have been made by the Apex Court in the case of Rajpur Ruda Meha v. The State of Gujarat reported in (1980) 1 SCC 677:AIR 1980 SC page 1707 (paragraph -6).
Jharkhand High Court Cites 105 - Cited by 0 - A K Choudhary - Full Document

Dealing With Cases vs Unknown on 1 December, 2022

20. As the Court of Sessions is empowered to take cognizance and try scheduled offences as per section 22(3) of NIA Act until the 5 Rajput Ruda Meha and Ors. vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 1980 SC 1707; Mittal Engineering Works (P) Ltd. vs. Collector of Central Excise, Meerut, (1997) 1 SCC 203 [para 8] 8 Special Court is notified, it becomes the competent court to remand the accused as well as extend the period of remand in terms of proviso to Section 43D(2) of the Act as a surrogate of the Special Court.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 46 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Virendra Singh vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 7 February, 2022

13. Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Rajput Ruda Maha and others vs. State of Gujarat 1980 SCR (2) 353 after hearing the learned counsel and examining the petition of appeal and after going through the relevant parts of the judgment of the High Court, after recording that there are no sufficient grounds of interference dismissed the appeal summarily under Section 384 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Allahabad High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - V K Birla - Full Document

Trustees Of Heh The Nizams Jewellery ... vs Assistant Commissioner Of Wealth-Tax. on 30 August, 1993

In this context, the learned counsel of the assessee, relying on the decisions of the Supreme Court in 73 CC 490, [1989] SCC 38, [1980] SCC 2181 para 93, Raipur Ruda Meha v. State of Gujarat AIR [1980] SC 1707 at 1708 and Additional District Magistrate v. Shivakant Shukla AIR 1976 SC 1207 at 1278, submitted that what is binding is the question of law decided by the Supreme Court and not the mere observations here and there. Though we might have no quarrel with this proposition, but in a case of valuation of beneficial interest, actuarial valuation is the most scientific method well recognised in law and accounting principles.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad Cites 16 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next