Search Results Page
Search Results
51 - 60 of 86 (0.23 seconds)The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993
The Maintenance And Welfare Of Parents And Senior Citizens Act, 2007
Section 18 in The Trade Unions Act, 1926 [Entire Act]
The Hindu Adoptions And Maintenance Act, 1956
Delhi Domestic Working Women'S Forum vs Union Of India And Others on 19 October, 1994
Mr. Trivedi, learned advocate for the State, placed before the Court the
written instructions furnished to him by the Inspector-in-Charge, Bishnupur
Police Station. It appears therefrom that the petitioner is the father of four sons
and four daughters. As a result of differences that cropped up between the
114
petitioner on the one hand and the family members on the other, the petitioner
has now been living in the house of a fellow villager. Several sittings were held in
the police station to bring about an amicable settlement but no fruitful result
yielded. A prosecution under Section 107, Cr.P.C. has been submitted against
the two sons of the petitioner vide Bishnupur P.S. PR Case No.88 dated
23.3.2010.
Bombay Police Act, 1951
Commissioner Of Police And Ors vs Smt. C. Anita on 23 August, 2004
It has been stated in the petition that the respondent no.4 lodged a false,
baseless and biased complaint against both the petitioners before the Officer-in-
Charge, Sankrail Police Station on 26.5.2009. Pursuant thereto, Sankrail Police
Station Case No.279 of 2009 dated 26.5.2009 under Sections 498A/323 of the
IPC has been registered against the petitioners and their daughter and son-in-
law. However, all the accused persons were released on anticipatory bail.
The State Of Punjab vs Barkat Ram on 30 August, 1961
In State of Punjab v. Barkat Ram, AIR 1962 SC 276, the Supreme Court,
inter alia, held as follows :
Haryana Financial Corporation & Anr vs M/S Jagdamba Oil Mills & Anr on 28 January, 2002
Having regard to the law
declared in Haryana Financial Corporation v. Jagdamba Oil Mills, AIR 2002 SC
63
834, to the effect that Courts should not place reliance on decisions without
discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the
decision on which reliance is placed, that observations of Courts are not to be
read as Euclid's theorems nor as provisions of the statute, and that the
observations must be read in the context in which they appear, I do not consider
it proper on facts and in the circumstances to hold that in view of the decision in
Aleque Padamsee (supra), the writ petitions should not at all be entertained.