Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.61 seconds)Section 15 in The Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Dr. Vijay Laxmi Sadho vs Jagdish on 5 January, 2001
In Dr. Vijay Laxmi Sadho versus Jagdish 2001 (2) S.C.C. it
has been observed as follows:
Pradip Chandra Parija And Ors vs Pramod Chandra Patanaik And Ors on 4 December, 2001
In Pradip Chandra Parija and others Vs. Pramod Chandra
Patnaik and others 2002 (1) S.C.C. 1, it has been held that where a
Bench consisting of two Judges does not agree with the Judgment
rendered by a Bench of three Judges, the only appropriate course
available is to place the matter before another Bench of three Judge
and in case three Judge Bench also concludes that the judgment
concerned is incorrect then the matter can be referred to a larger
Bench of five Judges.
London Investment And Mortgage Co. Ltd. vs Inland Revenue Commissioners. London ... on 6 December, 1956
See
also Lancaster Motor Co. (London Ltd. vs. Bremith Ltd. (1941) 1 KB 675 For a Divisional Court
decision disregarded by that court as being per incuriam, See Nicholas vs. Penny (1950) 2KB 466, 1950 2
All ER 89.
Govt. Of Andhra Pradesh And Amr vs B. Satyanarayana Rao (Dead) By Lrs. And ... on 5 April, 2000
According to the above decision, a decision of the coordinate
Bench may be said to be ceased to be good law only if it is shown that
it is due to any subsequent change in law.