LawMirror.com

Results of possession test

Andriod Application iphone Application

Showing : 21-30 of 45 Results

BOMBAY HIGH COURT

Year of decision: 2013
Details

Evidence Act, 1872, Section 112 -- DNA test - Suit for partition and separate possession - Petitioner No.1 and respondent No.7 claim to be children of respondent No.1 & Petitioner No.2 - Respondent No.1 father denied the factum of his wedlock with petitioner No.2 mother - Whether there was any legal marriage performed between respondent No.1 and petitioner No.2 would not..........

HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT

Year of decision: 2013
Details

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 304A -- Rash and negligent driving - No proof that accused was driving offending vehicle - Sole eye witness not supporting case of prosecution - No one saw accused driving offending vehicle - Local residents who took deceased to hospital after accident not associated - Vehicle intercepted at 2.30 pm. and statement of eye witnesses recorded..........

BOMBAY HIGH COURT

Year of decision: 2013
Details

Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 6, Rule 17 -- Plaint - Amendment - Suit for specific performance - Proposed amendment to incorporate prayer for possession - Due diligence test not required to be satisfied when prayer for possession is sought to be introduced by way of amendment in a suit for specific performance - Such relief can be asked even at the stage of execution -..........

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

Year of decision: 2011
Details

Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Section 105, Easements Act, 1882, Section 52 -- Lease or license - (a) substance of the document must be preferred to the form; (b) the real test is the intention of the parties-whether they intended to create a lease or a license; (c) if the document creates an interest in the property, it is a lease; but, if it only permits another to make..........

DELHI HIGH COURT

Year of decision: 2011
Details

Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Section 105, Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Section 105 -- Lease or licence - Test of exclusive possession of suit property is a relevant criterion for determining as to whether the document has created a lease or a license - However, it is not the sole factor...........

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

Year of decision: 2011
Details

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 489B, 489C -- Possession of counterfeit currency notes - Proof - Material witnesses PW2 nowhere says in his evidence that notes were sealed after they were seized from accused nor he speaks about identification of seal or identifies signature seizing notes - PW1 does not speak regarding bundle of notes having been covered with any paper or..........

ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT

Year of decision: 2010
Details

Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Section 105 -- Lease or licence - Distinguishing test - Exclusive nature of possession of property enjoyed by a lessee as opposed to that of licensee - Not the decisive test - Real test is the intention of the parties as to whether parties intended to create a lease or licence...........

HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT

Year of decision: 2009
Details

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Section 2(iii)(a), 2(iii(c), 20 -- Charas - Percentage of tetrahydrocannabinol in the sample not indicated - No test conducted to ascertain as to whether stuff was Charas that is to say resin, or some other preparation of cannabis - It cannot be said that stuff was in fact `Charas' - As regards cystolithic hair, these..........

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Year of decision: 2009
Details

Easement Act, 1882, Section 52, Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Section 105 -- Lease or licence - Test to determine - (1) To ascertain whether a document creates a licence or lease, the substance of the document must be preferred to the form; (2) the real test is the intention of the parties - whether they intended to create a lease or a licence; (3) if the document..........

DELHI HIGH COURT

Year of decision: 2009
Details

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 7, 13 -- Illegal gratification - Legal position in a trap case summarized viz. (i) To succeed in such a case, the prosecution is obliged to prove the previous demand of bribe, its acceptance and the recovery of tainted money; (ii) The demand can be proved by the testimony of the complainant as well from the complaint made by him..........

Showing : 21-30 of 45 Results