Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.32 seconds)The State Of Bombay vs Purushottam Jog Naik on 26 May, 1952
In the case of State of Bombay Vs.
Purushottam Jog Naik AIR 1952 SC 317 a
Constitution Bench considering the
importance of verification of an affidavit
observed (at p.319 of AIR) :
Section 138 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Premraj Mundra vs Md. Maneck Gazi And Ors. on 29 January, 1951
4. In the present case, there is no
averment in the application that the defendant is
removing or disposing of his assets. It has merely
been stated that the plaintiff has an apprehension
that the defendant may dispose of the property
owned by him which is not sufficient to attract the
provisions of Order 38 Rule 5 of CPC as laid down
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Padmabati Dasi vs Rasik Lal Dhar on 21 December, 1909
(17) In Padmabati Dasi v. Rasik Lal
Dhar, (1910) ILR 37 Cal 259, Jenkins
C.J. and Wood Roffe J. observed:-
Durga Das Das vs Nalin Chandra Nandan And Ors. on 9 March, 1934
There is a
catena of decided cases supporting
this proposition and among others,
reference may be made to Durga Das
v. Nalin Chandra Nandan, AIR 1934 Cal
694, Bisakha Rani Ghose v. Satish
Chandra Roy, AIR 1956 Cal 496 and
Dipendra Nath Sarkar v. State of Bihar,
AIR 1962 Pat 101."
Bisakha Rani Ghose vs Satish Chandra Roy Singha And Ors. on 10 March, 1955
There is a
catena of decided cases supporting
this proposition and among others,
reference may be made to Durga Das
v. Nalin Chandra Nandan, AIR 1934 Cal
694, Bisakha Rani Ghose v. Satish
Chandra Roy, AIR 1956 Cal 496 and
Dipendra Nath Sarkar v. State of Bihar,
AIR 1962 Pat 101."
M/S Century Metal Recycling Pvt. Ltd. & ... vs Union Of India And Others on 31 October, 2008
6. Allahabad High Court took a similar
view in M/S Zasha Electrowaste Recycling Private
Limited vs. Union of India (2022) 3 CivCC 680
wherein it was observed:
Bharat Singh & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 13 September, 1988
The
relevant portion of the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Bharat Singh(supra) is reproduced below:-