Filter precedents
1
Reset allBench: Mehr Chand Mahajan
Case: KAPORE CHAND versus KADAR UNNISA BEGUM AND OTHERS [[1950] 1 S.C.R. 747] (1950) Section: BODY that the Registrar can stay the proceedings. It seems to us that the act of the Registrar in asking the civil d' d' b f . cour t to s ay execu t t 10n [. ]procee ings pen mg e ore …
Bench: Mehr Chand Mahajan
Case: CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY OF DEBTS versus NANDLAL [[1950] 1 S.C.R. 741] (1950) Section: BODY -·· S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 741 I, therefore, agree with my Lord the Chief Justice that this appeal should be allowed and the judgments and orders of the Courts below should be set …
Bench: Harilal Jekisundas Kania
Case: PROVINCE OF BOMBAY versus KUSALDAS S. ADVANI AND OTHERS [[1950] 1 S.C.R. 621] (1950) Section: CONCLUSION 621 S.c.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS PROVINCE OF BOMBAY ti. KUSALDAS S. ADV ANI AND OTI;IERS [SHRI fuRILAL KANIA c. J., SAIYID FAZL ALI, PATANJALI SASTRI, MEHR CHAND …
Bench: Sugato Majumdar11 of 2023
OD 14 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE IA NO. GA/11/2023 In CS/2727/1950 SMT SMRITI DAS AND ORS Vs SWAPAN KUMAR DAS & ORS BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SUGATO MAJUMDAR Date :20[th] September, 2023. APPEARANCE: Mr. Debasish Ghose,Adv. …
Bench: Harilal Jekisundas Kania
Case: CHIEF CONTROLLING REVENUE AUTHORITY versus SUPERINTENDENT OF STAMPS AND MAHARASHTRA SUGAR MILLS LTD. [[1950] 1 S.C.R. 536] (1950) Section: SECTION 1950 Dr.N.B. Khare v. The Stale of Delhi Mukhnjea]. 1950 536 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [19501 force, and consequently the order …
Bench: Harilal Jekisundas Kania
Case: THE BHARAT BANK LTD., DELHI versus EMPLOYEES OF THE BHARAT BANK LTD., DELHI [[1950] 1 S.C.R. 459] (1950) Section: SECTION 459 ~.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS a sound basis for invoking the discretion of this Court in granting special leave. Generally speaking, this Court will …
Bench: Harilal Jekisundas Kania
Case: BRIJ BHUSHAN AND ANOTHER versus THE STATE OF DELHI. [[1950] 1 S.C.R. 605] (1950) Section: BODY undermine the security of the State, but to this line of argument there is a two-fold answer :-( 1) The Act, as its preamble shows, is not intended for petty disorders but for …
Bench: M. Patanjali Sastri
Case: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, U.P. versus GAPPUMAL KANHALYA LAL [[1950] 1 S.C.R. 563] (1950) Section: SECTION in Gappumal Kanhaiya Lal v. Commissioner of Jncome-tax ( [1 ]) (the connected appeal took a correct view of this matter and the reasoning given therein has our …
Bench: Harilal Jekisundas Kania
Case: DR. N. B. KHARE versus THE STATE OF DELHI [[1950] 1 S.C.R. 519] (1950) Section: SECTION Even assuming for argument's sake that we have got jurisdiction under article 136, the exercise of which would ,depend upon the circumstances of each case, in view of the reasons which …
Bench: M. Patanjali Sastri
Case: THE NEW PIECEGOODS BAZAR CO., LTD., BOMBAY versus THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BOMBAY [[1950] 1 S.C.R. 553] (1950) Section: BODY , 553 $.c.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS deposited with the respondents did not require regis-tration and was properly admitted in evidence to …
View Full Judgment
Save to My Vault