Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.23 seconds)Section 4 in The Amending Act, 1897 [Entire Act]
Section 2 in The Amending Act, 1897 [Entire Act]
Vithalrao Udhaorao Uttarwar And Ors. vs The State Of Maharashtra on 13 August, 1976
It is thus clear that the view taken by Puranik, J. in Vithalrao's case cited supra is contrary to the view taken by the Division Bench in the aforesaid case.
Section 3 in The Amending Act, 1897 [Entire Act]
Narayanibai vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 29 October, 1969
In fact, Puranik, J. has also heavily relied upon the decision in Narayanibai's case which, as held by the Division Bench in the aforesaid case, is not applicable to a case in which the family unit existed on the commencement date i.e. 2-10-1975.
Preventive Detention Act, 1950
The State Of Bombay vs Pandurang Vinayak Chaphalkar And ... on 13 March, 1953
15. It is well settled that full effect must be given to the statutory fiction and it should be carried to its logical conclusion (see State of Bombay v. Pandurng Vinayak, ).
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Delhi vs S.Teja Singh on 5 November, 1958
It is also necessary for giving full effect to the legal fiction to assume all those facts on which alone the fiction can operate (see CIT, Delhi v. S. Teja Singh, ).
Section 1 in The Amending Act, 1897 [Entire Act]
1