Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.20 seconds)The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
Om Prakash Srivastava vs Union Of India And Anr on 24 July, 2006
In view of the averments made in the plaint, facts of the
case and discussion made above and relying upon judgment tilled as
Om Prakash Shrivastava Vs. Union of India (supra), I am of the
view that plaint shows cause of action to file the present suit and on
the other hand defendants have to establish that no cause of action
arose in favour of the plaintiff to file the present suit. Counsel for the
defendants has not even advanced any argument in this regard at the
time of final arguments.
Rafiq Ahmed @ Rafi vs State Of U.P on 4 August, 2011
In another case Rafiq Vs. State 1990 SCC 946, it was
observed as under:
Section 182 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Rajinder Pershad (Dead) By Lrs vs Smt. Darshana Devi on 10 August, 2001
20. Ld. Counsel for the defendant has relied upon judgment
titled, Rajinder Pershad vs. Darshana Devi, AIR 2001 SC 3207
and Brij Kishore & Anr. Vs. State, decided on 10.05.10, Crl.
A.927/08.
Section 12 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Gordon Woodroffe & Co vs Sheikh M. A. Majid & Co on 22 March, 1966
46. Hon'ble Supreme Court in judgment titled as "Gordon
Woodruffee & Co. Vs. Shaik M.A. Majid & Co. AIR 1967 SC 181",
has observed that a "procurement agent" has been held to be not an
agent, as he is only a person directed to do an act on a commission
basis and not to represent another.
?·?Pÿ?0?@?YSs}Ø??Â???F>??²???J\Vÿ?,?@?YyEð ... vs E?È?Ûÿÿ ÀugM?Gþë ... on 12 April, 2012
In
P.S. Rao Vs. State J.T. 2002 (3) Supreme Court 1 has held as
under:
1