cites: 5192

11 - 20 of 22 (0.12 seconds)

Manohar Lal Chopra vs Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal on 16 November, 1961 cites

Section 10 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]

Union of India - Section Cites 0 - Cited by 5296

Section 165A in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]

Union of India - Section Cites 0 - Cited by 448

Section 3 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]

Union of India - Section Cites 0 - Cited by 665

Section 34 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]

Union of India - Section Cites 0 - Cited by 4267

Section 9 in National Charter For Children, 2003 [Entire Act]

Union of India - Section Cites 0 - Cited by 24

Vadapalli Varadacharlu vs Khandavilli Narasimha Charlu on 2 October, 1925

Varadacharlu v. Narsimha Charlu (1), Govindarajulu v. Imperial Bank of India (2), Karuppayya v. Ponnuswami (3), Murugesa Mudali v. Angamuthu Mudali (4) and Subramanian v. Seetarama (5). The other view is that a Court can issue an interin injunction under circumstances which are not covered by Order XXXIX of the Code, if the Court is of opinion that the interests of justice require the issue of such interin injunction:

Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 16 - Full Document

The Limitation Act, 1963

Union of India - Act Cites 0 - Cited by 47361

N. Govindarajulu Nayudu vs Imperial Bank Of India on 20 October, 1931

Varadacharlu v. Narsimha Charlu (1), Govindarajulu v. Imperial Bank of India (2), Karuppayya v. Ponnuswami (3), Murugesa Mudali v. Angamuthu Mudali (4) and Subramanian v. Seetarama (5). The other view is that a Court can issue an interin injunction under circumstances which are not covered by Order XXXIX of the Code, if the Court is of opinion that the interests of justice require the issue of such interin injunction:

Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 29 - Full Document

Karuppayya Nadar Through His ... vs Ponnuswami Nadar And Anr. on 19 October, 1932

Varadacharlu v. Narsimha Charlu (1), Govindarajulu v. Imperial Bank of India (2), Karuppayya v. Ponnuswami (3), Murugesa Mudali v. Angamuthu Mudali (4) and Subramanian v. Seetarama (5). The other view is that a Court can issue an interin injunction under circumstances which are not covered by Order XXXIX of the Code, if the Court is of opinion that the interests of justice require the issue of such interin injunction:

Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 16 - Full Document

Murugesa Mudali vs Angamuthu Mudali on 8 October, 1937

Varadacharlu v. Narsimha Charlu (1), Govindarajulu v. Imperial Bank of India (2), Karuppayya v. Ponnuswami (3), Murugesa Mudali v. Angamuthu Mudali (4) and Subramanian v. Seetarama (5). The other view is that a Court can issue an interin injunction under circumstances which are not covered by Order XXXIX of the Code, if the Court is of opinion that the interests of justice require the issue of such interin injunction:

Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 17 - Full Document

Previous 1 2 3 Next