WebECHEGARAY v. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE FACTS: The DOJ, through the Department of Justice, filed an Urgent Motion for Reconsideration on the January 4, 1999 issuance of the Supreme Court of a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) on the execution of Echegaray. The DOJ, represented by the Solicitor General, argued that the Court no longer has the ... WebJAGDHIR SINGH Vs. CONTROLLER GENERAL OF PATENTS - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA - March 30, 2024. JAGDHIR SINGH Vs. CONTROLLER GENERAL OF PATENTS. LAWS(CAL)-2024-3-82 ... (Smt. Lata Kamat vs. Vilas) and reported in AIR 1976 SC 105(Mangu Ram and Anr. vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi) are cited in order to …
Rajendra Prasad Yadav vs Prem Lata on 1 August, 1996 - Indian …
WebFinally coming to Lata Kamat, the appellant-wife’s marriage with the respondent was declared as ‘nullity’ on 3.5.1985 under Section 12(1)(d) of The HM on the ground … WebSmt. Barsha Arora vs Satish Kumar Arora on 7 May, 1991. Sm. Sipra Dey vs Ajit Kumar Dey on 2 September, 1987. Smt. Lata Kamat vs Vilas on 29 March, 1989. Arun Kautik … red oak gunsmithing onaway
SHITIJ KHURANA Vs. SHREHA KHURANA
WebExplanation 2 : An agreement to which the consent of the promisor is freely given is not void merely because the consideration is inadequate; but the inadequacy of the consideration may be taken into account by the Court in determining the question whether the consent of the promisor was freely given. Illustrations Webreported in Lata Kamat v. Vilas1, etc. was a matter which fell to be considered under Section 28 of the 1 1989 (2) SCC 613. 8 Hindu Marriage Act. Having regard to the pronounced differences in the provisions of the Family Courts Act, in particular, Sections 19 and 20, the word WebJudgment Ramratna Singh, J. 1. This appeal arises out of a petition filed before the District Judge of Purnea by the respondent under Sec.17 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 . rich buenaventura