G.T. Venkataswami Reddy vs Regional Transport Authority, ... on 26 March, 1965
decision of the Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Mohammad Nooh , AIR 1958 SC 86 wherein the learned Chief Justice, speaking
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 64 (0.03 seconds)The Divisional Controller, Karnataka ... vs G.M.D. Murthy on 12 December, 2001
that.--
"The distinction adopted in State of Uttar Pradesh v Mohammad Nooh , AIR 1958 SC 86, between a Court and a Tribunal being
Umesh S. Naik vs Karnataka Food And Civil Supplies ... on 25 March, 1992
Authorities. In the case of State of U.P. v. Mohammed Nooh (AIR) 1958 SC 86 it is observed thus :-
"There is no rule
M/S Pepsico Restaurants International ... vs Corporation Of The City Of Bangalore And ... on 17 November, 1995
reference to the alternate remedy. In U.P. State v. Mohammad Nooh , AIR 1958 SC 86 the Supreme Court has observed thus
The Official Receiver, Bangalore vs Sellamma And Ors. on 15 October, 1971
with by the Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Mohammed Nooh , AIR 1958 SC 86 at P. 95 :--
"In the next place
M. Basha And Anr. vs C. Sultan Beig And Ors. on 6 June, 1958
recent decision of the Supreme Court: State of U.P. v. Md. Nooh , 1958 SCJ 242: (AIR 1958 SC 86) (B)
"orders made
Nagar Mohan Rao And Anr. vs The Collector Of Central Excise, ... on 4 April, 1960
Supreme Court reported in State of U. P. v. Mohammad Nooh , AIR 1958 SC 86; Union of India v. T. R. Vaima , (S) & Phul
M/S. Bpl Sanyo Utilities And Appliances ... vs Union Of India And Others on 17 March, 1999
judgment given in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v Mohammad Nooh , wherein, it was observed that,
"If an inferior Court or Tribunal
T.R. Ramaiah And Ors. vs Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga ... on 19 April, 1974
Court of summary jurisdiction, vide, State of U. P. v. Mohammad Nooh, AIR 1998 SC 66 and A. V. Venkateswaran v. Ramchand Sobhraj Wadhwani
H.S. Vasantasenaiah vs Divisional Controller, Ksrtc on 14 June, 1994
leading case of STATE OF U.P. v. MOHAMMED NOOH AIR 1958 SC 86, their Lordships of the Supreme Court had been pleased to first