Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 28 (0.33 seconds)The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
Prema Veeraraghavan vs State By The Inspector Of Police, K-10 ... on 22 January, 2002
(25) In R.K. Jaiswal (supra), a learned Judge of the
Allahabad High Court has simply observed : "To
me, it does not appear to be so. The order finally
disposed of the application for custody of the
truck."
Anisa Begum vs Masoom Ali And Ors. on 8 November, 1985
Public Prosecutor. At the very Outset I may observe that the
revision petitions impugn the orders passed by the Ld. Trial Court
dismissing the applications for release of animals / vehicle
carrying the animals on Superdari. When a similar issue came up
for consideration before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the year
1985 in the case of Anisa Begum Vs. Masoom Ali & Ors. (Supra)
it was observed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.D. Jain that the order
dismissing the Superdari application did not decide the rights of
the parties and was an interlocutory order against which no
revision petition would lie.
Section 29 in The Prevention Of Cruelty To Animals Act, 1960 [Entire Act]
Section 38 in The Prevention Of Cruelty To Animals Act, 1960 [Entire Act]
Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited vs The Micro And Small Enterprises ... on 18 September, 2017
On a parity of reasoning I am unable to subscribe
to the following observations of a learned Single
Judge of Andhra Pradesh in Bharat Heavy
Electricals Ltd. (supra): "The order in question
substantially affects the rights of the parties. If so, it
cannot be considered to be an interlocutory order."
Shree Bajrang Jute Mills Ltd vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 6 February, 1964
That the Ld. Trial Court has erred to overlook the
legal system of hierarchy of laws and moreover,
Kelsen's (The pure Theory of law) discussed by
this Court in the case of "Bajrang Vs. State".
That the Ld. Trial Court has erred in not
appreciating that since there is inconsistency
between the 'Rules' and 'Act', it is debatable issue
rather a question of law so it must have been
referred to the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi as
reference for clarification before depriving the
revisionist for the interim custody of the animals.
That the Ld. Trial Court has erred in dismissing the
application of revisionist without confirming
whether the Central Motor Vehicle (Eleventh
Amendment) Rules, 2016 have been notified in
Delhi/NCR or not.
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Vikram vs Y.Fogullah Shariff on 11 June, 2015
5. Vikram vs Y.Fogullah Shariff, Criminal Revision Case
No. 1408 of 2013 and M.P.No. 1 of 2013, decided on
Mohd. Sadiq Vs. State (Crl. Revision No. 29/2018) Page No. 21 of 44
11.06.2015 (Madras High Court).