Supreme Court of India — latest judgments

41. Supreme Court of India 27 February 1961 1961 INSC 66 [1961] 3 S.C.R. 986 Followed in 2

    M. V. JOSHI versus M. U. SHIMP! AND ANOTHER

    Bench: K. Subba Rao, Raghubar Dayal

    Case: M. V. JOSHI versus M. U. SHIMP! AND ANOTHER [[1961] 3 S.C.R. 986] (1961) Section: BODY February 27. 986 SUPRE:'.JE COURT REPORTS ll961] M. V. JOSHI v. M. U. SHIMP! AND ANOTHER. (K. SuBBA RAO and RAGHUBAR DAYAL, JJ.) Food A'dulteration-Ritlter-If includes butter mode from …

    View Full Judgment Copy citation Save to My Vault

    13 Pages
42. Supreme Court of India 24 November 1960 1960 INSC 219 [1961] 2 S.C.R. 664

    M/S. MADAN MOHAN DAMMA MAL LTD. AND ANR. versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR.

    Bench: Syed Jaffer Imam, A.K. Sarkar, Raghubar Dayal

    Case: M/S. MADAN MOHAN DAMMA MAL LTD. AND ANR. versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR. [[1961] 2 S.C.R. 664] (1961) Section: SECTION 664 •96o that a penalty paid for an infraction of the law, even though it may involve no personal liability in the Haji Aziz f fi £ v. sense o a …

    View Full Judgment Copy citation Save to My Vault

    9 Pages
43. Supreme Court of India 18 November 1960 1960 INSC 208 [1961] 2 S.C.R. 509 • Cited by 1

    PRATAP SINGH versus THE STATE OF VINDHYA PRADESH (NOW MADHYA PRADESH)

    Bench: Syed Jaffer Imam, J.L. Kapur, K.C. Das Gupta, Raghubar Dayal and others

    Case: PRATAP SINGH versus THE STATE OF VINDHYA PRADESH (NOW MADHYA PRADESH) [[1961] 2 S.C.R. 509] (1961) Section: BODY PRATAP SINGH v. THE STATE OF VINDHYA PRADESH (NOW MADHYA PRADESH) JAFER IMAM, J. L. KAPUR, K. c. DAS GUPTA, RAGHUBAR DAYAL and N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, JJ. …

    View Full Judgment Copy citation Save to My Vault

    7 Pages
44. Supreme Court of India 18 November 1960 1960 INSC 209 [1961] 2 S.C.R. 515

    KEKI BEJONJI AND ANOTHER versus THE STATE OF BOMBAY

    Bench: Syed Jaffer Imam, K. Subba Rao, Raghubar Dayal

    Case: KEKI BEJONJI AND ANOTHER versus THE STATE OF BOMBAY [[1961] 2 S.C.R. 515] (1961) Section: BODY 2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 515 heard. From that point of view the provisions of r96o s. 421 had not been complied with. It is sufficient to Pratap Singh say that if the order …

    View Full Judgment Copy citation Save to My Vault

    8 Pages