Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.25 seconds)Section 110 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 165 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Shyam Sunder Prasad Singh & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 22 July, 1980
In Deokian Prasad v. State of Bihar , the Supreme Court held that the right of an individual to receive pension, was property and that denial of the same would be an infringement of his right under Articles 31(1) and 19(1)(f) of the Constitution of India.
The Controller Of Estate Duty, Delhi vs Suresh Chandra on 3 May, 1972
In the said context, in Controller of Estate v. Mrudla Naresh Chandra 1986 SCC (Supp) 357, the Supreme Court held that the interest in the goodwill of a firm will be an asset or a property of the partnership and will be includable in the estate.
Workmen Of American Express ... vs Management Of American Express ... on 28 August, 1985
In Workman of American Express International Banking Corporation v. Management of American Express International Banking Corporation , the Apex Court held that the principles of statutory construction, required that social welfare legislation and human rights legislation should be construed and interpreted in a liberal manner and that imposture of literal construction should be avoided. It was further stated that the Judges ought to be more concerned with the colour, the content and the context of such statute.
Raj Kumar vs Mahendra Singh And Ors. on 12 July, 1984
27. A Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Raj Kumar v. Mahendra Singh 1985 ACJ 103 (MP), also has adopted the same view, namely, no claim can be made before the Tribunal on account of loss of business income. In that judgment also, one of the reasons given for arriving at the said conclusion was that the party aggrieved on this account was free to file a civil suit and that Section 110-F of the Act was not a bar to the jurisdiction of the civil court.