Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 27 (0.24 seconds)The Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949
The Contempt Of Courts Act, 1971
Section 42 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 437 in The Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 [Entire Act]
Section 41 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation & Ors vs Ramanlal Govindram & Ors on 14 March, 1975
7. Mr.B.P.Tanna appearing on behalf of the Municipal Corporation of Vadodara has submitted that the rights of the appellants claimed as tenants in view of the ground rent or in respect of the licence were there for a period of one year only; the same were terminable and in fact terminated by the Municipal Corporation under Sec. 437(A). The challenge to the validity of the said provision did succeed before this Court but in the case of Ramanlal Govindram v. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and ors., reported in 70 (11) GLR p.1, the decision of the High Court was reversed by the Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Corporation, Ahmedabad v. Ramanlal Govindlal, reported in 1975 (16) GLR 693. He has then referred to the concluding part of the said judgment as contained in para 19 at page 697 and Para 23 and 27 thereof.
Suresh Lohiya vs State Of Maharashtra And Another on 23 August, 1996
In the case of Suresh Lohiya v. State of Maharashtra and anr., reported in (1996) SCC 397, the Supreme Court was concerned with the question as to when forest produce under the provisions of the Forest Act, 1927 and speaking on the interpretation of Statutes, it was held that judicial legislation is not permissible.
Supreme Court Employees' Welfare ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 24 July, 1989
In the case of Supreme Court Employees Welfare Association v. Union of India and ors., reported in AIR 1990 SC 334, all that has been held was that when the Special Leave Petition is dismissed Simpliciter, it cannot be said that there has been a declaration of law by the Supreme Court under Article 141 of the Constitution.
Lucknow Development Authority vs M.K. Gupta on 5 November, 1993
Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K.Gupta AIR 1994 SC 787 was a case under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and while dealing with the liability in the case of misconduct by a public officer, it was held that in cases where the Commission is satisfied that a complainant is entitled to compensation for harassment or mental agony or oppression, it should further direct the Department to pay the amount to the complainant from the public fund immediately, but to recover the same from those who have been found responsible for unpardonable behaviour by dividing proportionately where there are more than one functionaries.