Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (0.22 seconds)The General Clauses Act, 1897
Section 3 in Bihar Shops & Establishments Act, 1953 [Entire Act]
Bhawoo Jivaji vs Mulji Dayal on 22 March, 1888
v. Rainayya', 13 Mad 148 (J); -- 'Queen-Empress v. Pukotkotu', 19 Mad 349 (K); -- 'Bhawoo v. Mulji', 12 Bom 377 (A); -- 'R. v. Janki Prasad'. 8 All 293 (L.M.)
Abdul Gafur And Ors. vs Queen-Empress on 22 May, 1896
-- 'Moinuddin v. Emperor', AIR 1921 Pat 415 (T) ; -- 'Abdul Gafur v. Empress'.
Queen-Empress vs Dalip And Ors. on 18 February, 1896
23 Cal 896 (U) -- 'Raman Singh v. Empress', 28 Cal 411 (v): -- 'Empress v. Dalip', 18 All 246 (W): -- 'Birbal v. Emperor', 30 Cal 97 (X); -- 'Puna Mahtan v. Emperor', AIR 1932 Pat 315 (Y); --'Ramji v. Emperor', AIR 1938 All 120 (Z); -- 'Emperor v. Kisanlal', 1939 Nag LJ 397 (Z) ; -- 'Ramaswami Chetti v. King', AIR 1949 Mad 434 (Z2).
Hari Ramji Pavar vs Emperor on 11 January, 1918
23 Cal 896 (U) -- 'Raman Singh v. Empress', 28 Cal 411 (v): -- 'Empress v. Dalip', 18 All 246 (W): -- 'Birbal v. Emperor', 30 Cal 97 (X); -- 'Puna Mahtan v. Emperor', AIR 1932 Pat 315 (Y); --'Ramji v. Emperor', AIR 1938 All 120 (Z); -- 'Emperor v. Kisanlal', 1939 Nag LJ 397 (Z) ; -- 'Ramaswami Chetti v. King', AIR 1949 Mad 434 (Z2).
Ramaswami Gounden vs King Emperor on 17 November, 1903
23 Cal 896 (U) -- 'Raman Singh v. Empress', 28 Cal 411 (v): -- 'Empress v. Dalip', 18 All 246 (W): -- 'Birbal v. Emperor', 30 Cal 97 (X); -- 'Puna Mahtan v. Emperor', AIR 1932 Pat 315 (Y); --'Ramji v. Emperor', AIR 1938 All 120 (Z); -- 'Emperor v. Kisanlal', 1939 Nag LJ 397 (Z) ; -- 'Ramaswami Chetti v. King', AIR 1949 Mad 434 (Z2).
Emperor vs Tohfa And Ors. on 1 August, 1933
Where threats combined with an attitude of an aggressive character, or where there is an exhibition of dangerous weapons by the accused, or where the threat is likely to be carried out immediately, the offence of obstruction may be held to be made out: -- 'Nafur Sardar v. Emperor', AIR 1932 Cal 871 (211); -- 'Emperor v. Tohfa', AIR 1933 All 759 (212); -- 'Natihua v. Emperor', AIR, 1933 All 118 (Z13) and -- 'Dukhan Sahu v. Emperor', AIR 1937 Pat 633 (214). To constitute obstruction actual physical force is not necessary. If there is sufficient indication that force would be used if the officer persists in executing the work he is commissioned to do, it would be sufficient to constitute obstruction.
Superintendent And Remembrancer Of ... vs H.E. Watson on 4 July, 1934
See also -- 'Superintendent and Remembrancer Of Legal Affairs, Bengal v. H. E. Watson', AIR 1934 Cal. 730 (Z 20) (Per Mcnair J.).