Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.24 seconds)Section 21 in Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 [Entire Act]
Consolidated Coffee Ltd. And Anr. Etc vs Coffee Board, Bangalore Etc. Etc on 15 April, 1980
(a)STATE OF BOMBAY vs
PANDURANG VINAYAK AND
OTHERS (AIR 1953 SC 244)
(b) CONSOLIDATED COFFEE
LTD vs COFFEE BOARD (AIR
1980 SC 1468)
Then it means that the
permission is to be deemed to
have been granted on the expiry
Manish Trivedi vs State Of Rajasthan on 29 October, 2013
19. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while
considering the effect of deemed provision in the
case of MANISH TRIVEDI vs. STATE OF
RAJASTHAN reported in (2014) 14 SCC 420,
has held at paragraph-14 as under:
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The State Of Bombay vs Pandurang Vinayak Chaphalkar And ... on 13 March, 1953
(a)STATE OF BOMBAY vs
PANDURANG VINAYAK AND
OTHERS (AIR 1953 SC 244)
(b) CONSOLIDATED COFFEE
LTD vs COFFEE BOARD (AIR
1980 SC 1468)
Then it means that the
permission is to be deemed to
have been granted on the expiry
Section 87 in Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 [Entire Act]
Rudraswamy vs Deputy Commissioner on 26 July, 1994
18. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in
the case of Rudraswamy vs. Deputy Commissioner
reported in ILR 1994 Kar. 2958 while considering
the effect of deemedprovision under Section 95(5)
of the Act held at paragraph- 8 as under:
1