Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 25 (0.23 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
Thakur Jugal Kishore Sinha vs Sitamarhi Central Co-Operative Bank ... on 13 March, 1967
"In Thakur Jugal Kishore Sinha v. Sitamarhi Central Coop. Bank Ltd. This Court, while considering the question under the Contempt of Courts Act, held that the Registrar under the Bihar and Orissa Cooperative Societies Act was a Court. It was held that the Registrar had not merely the trappings of a court but in many respects he was given the same power as was given to an ordinary civil court by the Code of Civil Procedure including the powers to summon and examine witnesses on oath, the power to order inspection of documents and to hear the-parties.
The Bharat Bank Ltd., Delhi vs Employees Of The Bharat Bank ... on 26 May, 1950
The court referred to the earlier decision in Bharat Bank Ltd. v. Employees, Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay and Brajanandan Sinha v. Jyoti Narain. The Court approved the rule laid down in these cases that in order to constitute a court in the strict sense of the term, an essential condition is that the court should have, apart from having some of the trappings of a judicial tribunal, power to given a decision or a definite judgment which has FINALITY and AUTHORITATIVENESS which are the essential tests of a judicial, pronouncement.
Maqbool Hussain vs The State Of Bombay.Jagjit Singhv.The ... on 17 April, 1953
The court referred to the earlier decision in Bharat Bank Ltd. v. Employees, Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay and Brajanandan Sinha v. Jyoti Narain. The Court approved the rule laid down in these cases that in order to constitute a court in the strict sense of the term, an essential condition is that the court should have, apart from having some of the trappings of a judicial tribunal, power to given a decision or a definite judgment which has FINALITY and AUTHORITATIVENESS which are the essential tests of a judicial, pronouncement.
Brajnandan Sinha vs Jyoti Narain on 8 November, 1955
The court referred to the earlier decision in Bharat Bank Ltd. v. Employees, Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay and Brajanandan Sinha v. Jyoti Narain. The Court approved the rule laid down in these cases that in order to constitute a court in the strict sense of the term, an essential condition is that the court should have, apart from having some of the trappings of a judicial tribunal, power to given a decision or a definite judgment which has FINALITY and AUTHORITATIVENESS which are the essential tests of a judicial, pronouncement.
Pritam Kaur vs Sher Singh on 17 May, 1983
In Pritam Kaur v. Sher Singh the proceedings before the Collector under the Redemption of Mortgages (Punjab) Act (2 of 1913) were held to be civil proceeding, it was held that the 'court', contemplated under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, does not necessarily mean the 'civil court' under the Code of Civil Procedure. It was further held that any tribunal or authority, deciding of right of parties, will be treated to be a 'court'. Consequently, benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act was allowed in that case.