Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.03 seconds)Section 32 in The Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968 [Entire Act]
Section 17 in The Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968 [Entire Act]
Eknath Kira Akhadkar And Ors. Etc. vs Administrative Tribunal And Ors. Etc. on 27 January, 1983
6 to 11 and 15 of 1983, affirmed the view taken in Eknath's case by judgment dated 12th October, 1984.
Rafiquennessa vs Lal Bahadur Chetri (Dead) Through His ... on 24 February, 1964
Refiquennessa's case in the case of Guin, the latter case does not in any manner, affect the above decision of the Division Bench.
Shah Bhojraj Kuverji Oil Mills And ... vs Subbash Chandra Yograj Sinha on 21 April, 1961
Refiquennessa v. Lal Bahadur Chetri, , Shah Bhojraj Kuverji Oil Mills v. Subhash Chandra Yograj Sinha, ; Mohanlal Chunilal Kothari v. Tribhovan Haribhai Tamboli, ; Smt. Safali Roy Chowdhary v. A.K. Dutta, ; Ganesh Flour Mills Company Ltd. v. Ramesh Chand, 1979(2) R.C.J. 418 (Delhi) and A. Krishnaswami v. S. Rasheeda, 1981(1) R.C.J. 320 (Madras), and after going through the relevant facts and the Statement of Objects and Reasons for the amendment, held the view that the said amendment to sub-section (2)(a) of section 22 of the Act was merely prospective in nature and not retrospective. The said decision of the Single Judge of this Court was appealed from the Division Bench has, in Letters Patent Appeals Nos.
Mohanlal Chunilal Kothari vs Tribhovan Haribhai Tamboli on 2 May, 1962
Refiquennessa v. Lal Bahadur Chetri, , Shah Bhojraj Kuverji Oil Mills v. Subhash Chandra Yograj Sinha, ; Mohanlal Chunilal Kothari v. Tribhovan Haribhai Tamboli, ; Smt. Safali Roy Chowdhary v. A.K. Dutta, ; Ganesh Flour Mills Company Ltd. v. Ramesh Chand, 1979(2) R.C.J. 418 (Delhi) and A. Krishnaswami v. S. Rasheeda, 1981(1) R.C.J. 320 (Madras), and after going through the relevant facts and the Statement of Objects and Reasons for the amendment, held the view that the said amendment to sub-section (2)(a) of section 22 of the Act was merely prospective in nature and not retrospective. The said decision of the Single Judge of this Court was appealed from the Division Bench has, in Letters Patent Appeals Nos.
Smt. Sefali Roy Chowdhary And Ors. vs A.K. Dutta on 6 May, 1976
Refiquennessa v. Lal Bahadur Chetri, , Shah Bhojraj Kuverji Oil Mills v. Subhash Chandra Yograj Sinha, ; Mohanlal Chunilal Kothari v. Tribhovan Haribhai Tamboli, ; Smt. Safali Roy Chowdhary v. A.K. Dutta, ; Ganesh Flour Mills Company Ltd. v. Ramesh Chand, 1979(2) R.C.J. 418 (Delhi) and A. Krishnaswami v. S. Rasheeda, 1981(1) R.C.J. 320 (Madras), and after going through the relevant facts and the Statement of Objects and Reasons for the amendment, held the view that the said amendment to sub-section (2)(a) of section 22 of the Act was merely prospective in nature and not retrospective. The said decision of the Single Judge of this Court was appealed from the Division Bench has, in Letters Patent Appeals Nos.
A. Krishnaswami vs S. Rasheeda on 30 January, 1980
Refiquennessa v. Lal Bahadur Chetri, , Shah Bhojraj Kuverji Oil Mills v. Subhash Chandra Yograj Sinha, ; Mohanlal Chunilal Kothari v. Tribhovan Haribhai Tamboli, ; Smt. Safali Roy Chowdhary v. A.K. Dutta, ; Ganesh Flour Mills Company Ltd. v. Ramesh Chand, 1979(2) R.C.J. 418 (Delhi) and A. Krishnaswami v. S. Rasheeda, 1981(1) R.C.J. 320 (Madras), and after going through the relevant facts and the Statement of Objects and Reasons for the amendment, held the view that the said amendment to sub-section (2)(a) of section 22 of the Act was merely prospective in nature and not retrospective. The said decision of the Single Judge of this Court was appealed from the Division Bench has, in Letters Patent Appeals Nos.
Ram Sarup vs Munshi And Others(And Connected ... on 30 August, 1962
The Court further observed that a change in the law during the pendency of an appeal has to be taken into account and will govern the rights of the parties as has been laid down in Ram Sarup v. Munshi and others, ; Mula and others v. Godhu and others, and quoted the observations made in Dayawati and another v. Inderjit and others, to the effect that "if the new law speaks in language, which, expressly or by clear intendment, takes in even pending matters, the Court of trial as well as the Court of appeal must have regard to an intention so expressed, and the Court of appeal may give effect to such a law even after the judgment of the Court of first instance."