Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: powers of attorney act 1882 amending act i powers of attorney amendment act 1982 Year: 1982 Page 1 of about 11 results (0.066 seconds)

Feb 05 1982 (HC)

Parikh Amratlal Ramanlal and ors. Vs. Rami Mafatlal Girdharlal and ors ...

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Feb-05-1982

Reported in : (1982)2GLR337

..... clause (a), which is material for our purpose, has been completely substituted for original order 3, rule 2(a) by gujarat amendment of 1961 which reads as under:(a) persons holding on behalf of such parties either:(i) a general power of attorney, or(ii) in the case of proceedings in the high court of gujarat an advocate, and in the case of proceedings ..... (a) of rule 2 of order 3 has stood repealed by section 97 of the code of civil procedure (amendment) act, 1976.the aforesaid grounds pressed in service by the learned member of the tribunal to base his conclusion that a power of attorney holder of a party in judicial proceedings before the mamlatdar has no right to depose on oath on behalf of ..... consider the question as to whether the facts about the bona fide requirement of the landlord, in the light of section 13(1)(g) of the bombay rents, hotel & lodging house rates control act, could be deposed to by his power of attorney holder. in this case the landlord in order to prove his case for bona fide requirement did not examine himself before ..... said amendment act, in view of section 97(1) of the code of civil procedure (amendment) act, 1976. it was contended that the aforesaid reasoning of the tribunal is patently erroneous.5. the contentions raised by mr. s.r. shah, learned advocate for the petitioner are well sustained. the learned member of the tribunal has based his conclusion to the effect that a power of attorney holder .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 30 1982 (HC)

Nadirsha Hirji Baria and ors. Vs. Niranjankumar @ Nireshkumar Dharamch ...

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Nov-30-1982

Reported in : (1983)1GLR774

..... is competent to enter into an agreement. such a person may enter into an agreement either himself or through his power of attorney or through his recognised agent. if a power of attorney holder duly constituted enters into a lawful agreement, it cannot be said that as the agreement is not signed by the ..... be noted that rule 3 of order 23 of c.p. code did not contain words 'in writing and signed by parties' prior to its amendment by act no. 104 of 1976. the necessity to introduce the words 'in writing and signed by parties' arose with a view to avoid setting up ..... the decree. the trial court after hearing the parties rejected the objections and allowed the execution application by its judgment and order dated january 30 1982. the petitioners-original defendants have preferred this revision application against the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the trial court.3. it is undisputed that ..... mr. n.a. desai has put his signature separately also describing him as advocate for the defendants. it may be mentioned that defendants nos. 1 and 4 were personally present in the court and they personally admitted their signatures as well as the terms of the compromise. the advocate for the ..... with the result that the light vehicles could not be brought in. therefore, the plaintiffs filed an execution application no. 38 of 1980 on september 1, 1980 and prayed that the construction be removed and the defendants be restrained from obstructing the plaintiffs in enjoying the fruits of the decree. the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 04 1982 (HC)

Brijlal and anr. Vs. hotel Neelam-lodging and Boarding and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Oct-04-1982

Reported in : AIR1983Bom432; 1983MhLJ300

..... totally wrong in rejecting the application for amendment.12. mr. deshmukh then contended that the powers of this court in interfering with such an order under the provisions of section 115 of civil procedure code are very limited. i am aware of this fact but the facts of the present case clearly disclose that the trial court has acted in its jurisdiction illegally or with material ..... 5, 6 and 7 in this court, are the financiers of defendant no. 1 business and they have advanced various loans to defendant no. 1 and necessary documents in that respect have been executed by all the ..... the plaint contending that the partnership is now duly dissolved by notice by two partners i. e. the plaintiffs on 29-4-1982 and therefore, they sought for amendment in the plaint consistent with the notice of dissolution and they also prayed for amendment to be in consonance with the reliefs for dissolution of partnership and they also prayed for the relief that the ..... under the name and style of 'hotel neelam-lodging and boarding' (respondent no. 1) was started by the plaintiffs and by defendant nos. 3 and 4. these were the only four partners in the partnership. defendant no. 2 was appointed by all the partners as a general power of attorney on 30-5-1972. defendant nos. 5, 6 and 7. who are respondents .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 16 1982 (HC)

Sree Rama Mandira Trust, Bangalore Vs. T. Manisharappa

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Feb-16-1982

Reported in : AIR1983Kant6; ILR1982KAR837; 1982(1)KarLJ417

..... 30' in property no.147 is being included in the acquisition proceedings for formation of link road.sri t. muniswamappa, the notified khatedar has produced general power of attorney made on 7-7-1980 between him and sri.venkataraju and the same has been registered as no.94/80-81 dated 9-7-1980 book no.234 ..... 2. of 1981 is a reference made to the court below under section 30 of the land acquisition act, 1894, as amended by the karnataka act 17 of 1961 (the 'act').3. during the pendency of that reference, this petitioner filed an application before the court to permit it to come on record ..... for the reasons stated above, this revision has to be allowed. hence, the petition is allowed. the impugned order of the court below is set aside. filed by the trust in the court below is allowed. the court below is directed to issue notice of hearing to the petitioner-trust, permit it to ..... issued notice only to muniswamappa referred therein. since the petitioner had not received any notice, was filed on its behalf under order 1, rule 10 read with section 151, c.p.c ..... vol 8.under the circumstances explained above, i hold that the property is under dispute and order to deposit the entire amount of compensation in the civil court under ss. 30 and 31 of the l.a.act for adjudication.5. after receiving the reference the court appears to have .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 22 1982 (HC)

Ranjit Kumar JaIn Vs. Kamal Kumar Chowdhury and anr.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Feb-22-1982

Reported in : AIR1982Cal493

..... the defendants that the signature on the said deed of trust was fraudulently procured by shew karan jain, after making her believe that she was executing a power of attorney in favour of shew karan jain who made her to put her signature on the said deed of trust, which never came into effect. under those ..... it had been further contended in the written statement that the defendants came to know from radha rani debi during her lifetime that apart from executing a power of attorney in favour of shew karan jain, in order to enable him to manage her properties and affairs and also to look after and conduct litigations on her ..... radha rani debi during her lifetime under those two wills. however, it was the case of the plaintiff that the settlor, radha rani debi had no power or authority to revoke the said trust and dispose of the property under the will inasmuch as the said deed of trust and/or settlement was executed by ..... in paras. 2 and 3 of the plaint?3. (a) was the will dated 15th july, 1974 probated, as alleged in para 6 of the amended written statement?(b) if so, what was the effect thereof?4. to what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled?8. so far as issue no ..... sale sukhthankar has, therefore, urged that the certified copies are not admissible in evidence as no notice was given to defendant 1 as required by clause (a) of section 65, evidence act. the proviso to section 66, however, enables the court to dispense with such notice in any case, in which the court so .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 06 1982 (HC)

Om Prakash Berlia and Another Vs. Unit Trust of India and Others (No. ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Aug-06-1982

Reported in : [1983]54CompCas469(Bom)

..... which the document was executed and they gave to four directors the power, inter alia, to amend the draft.176. on may 29, 1979, the attorneys wrote to the institutions, the company and the debenture trustee setting out the programme for completion. i have already referred to the note in some detail. suffice it ..... , fourth edn., vol. 7, para. 713, puts it thus :'the court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the internal management of a company acting within its powers. to redress a wrong done to the company or to recover money or damages due to it the action must prima facie be brought by the ..... light of certain surrounding circumstances commencing with the date, july 11, 1977, when the company law board, in exercise of the powers under s. 408 of the companies act, appointed 8 persons to hold office as directors of the company from the date of the order in order to prevent the affairs ..... hindle v. john cotton ltd. [1919] 56 lr 625 :here the question is one of the abuse of powers, the state of mind of those who acted, and the motive on which they acted, are all important, and you may go into the question of what their intention was, collecting from the surrounding ..... laches and ratification. it was submitted that, having regard to the knowledge of the plaintiffs as shareholders or their means of knowledge, and the plaintiffs' acts of positive assent, the plaintiffs were not entitled to the equitable relief of rectification. it was submitted that by reason of the plaintiff's acquiescence at .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 13 1982 (FN)

City of Port Arthur Vs. United States

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Dec-13-1982

..... doctrine. it is a view congress has never embraced, and indeed one that the 1982 extension of the voting rights act fairly can be viewed as rejecting. [ footnote 2/4 ] moreover, although i do not question the power of a district court to disagree with the attorney general's construction of the act, it does not follow that the district court was "sitting as a court ..... -1966, p. 346 (1968) ("by the middle of the 1960's . . . negroes provided balance-of-power ballots [in virginia and] elsewhere in the south . . ."). [ footnote 2/4 ] section 3 of the voting rights act amendments of 1982, pub.l. 97-205, 96 stat. 131, 42 u.s.c. 1973b (1982 ed.), states that a violation has been established if it is shown, "based on the ..... . s. 169 . justice white delivered the opinion of the court. section 5 of the voting rights act of 1965, 79 stat. 439, as amended, 42 u.s.c. 1973c, requires that, when a state or page 459 u. s. 161 political subdivision covered by the act [ footnote 1 ] adopts or seeks to administer any change in its standards, practices, or procedures with respect to ..... 4 ] that plan, like the previous plans, required a majority vote to elect each council member. the city then moved to amend its complaint so as to seek a declaratory judgment as to the legality of the 4-4-1 plan. the district court concluded that, because there were legitimate purposes behind the annexation and the consolidations, those actions, under city of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 01 1982 (FN)

Florida Dept. of State Vs. Treasure Salvors, Inc.

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jul-01-1982

..... states, and therefore bound by the earlier decision of the court of appeals. id. at 1344, n. 17. [ footnote 17 ] the eleventh amendment provides: "the judicial power of the united states shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the united states by ..... state official in attempting by the use of the name of the state to enforce a legislative enactment which is void because unconstitutional. if the act which the state attorney general seeks to enforce is a violation of the federal constitution, the officer, in proceeding under such enactment, comes into conflict with the ..... the understanding of earlier cases such as tindal v. wesley, 167 u. s. 204 (1897), and united states v. lee, 106 u. s. 196 (1882). dicta in both tindal and lee are cited by the court to suggest that a federal court may adjudicate the validity of a title in order to determine ..... culminating in ex parte young, 209 u. s. 123 (1908), are not to the contrary. in both united states v. lee, 106 u. s. 196 (1882), and tindal v. wesley, 167 u. s. 204 (1897), the suits were against individual agents, and did not purport to conclude the rights of the government. ..... .s. supreme court florida dept. of state v. treasure salvors, inc., 458 u.s. 670 (1982) florida department of state v. treasure salvors, inc. no. 80-1348 argued january 20, 1982 decided july 1, 1982 458 u.s. 670 certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the fifth circuit syllabus after respondents had .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 01 1982 (FN)

Ferc Vs. Mississippi

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jun-01-1982

..... the commerce clause and constitute an invasion of state sovereignty in violation of the tenth amendment. the district court so held and pronounced the challenged provisions void. held: 1. the challenged provisions are within congress' power under the commerce clause. pp. 456 u. s. 753 -758. (a) to assert that purpa is facially unconstitutional because it does not regulate "commerce," ..... see to it that such things do not happen." ibid. [ footnote 3/17 ] in 1975, then attorney general edward h. levi responded to a similar argument that the "greater" power of preemption includes the "lesser" power of demanding affirmative action from state governments. attorney general levi remarked that "it is an insidious point to say that there is more federalism by compelling ..... .s. supreme court ferc v. mississippi, 456 u.s. 742 (1982) ferc v. mississippi no. 80-1749 argued january 19, 1982 decided june 1, 1982 456 u.s. 742 appeal from the united states district court for the southern district of mississippi syllabus the public utility regulatory policies act of 1978 (purpa) was enacted as part of a legislative package designed to ..... s] relating to [electric utility] rates or rate design," 2632(c); and, under some circumstances, mandates compensation for reasonable attorney's fees, expert witness fees, and other costs to consumers who contribute substantially to the adoption of a title i standard, 2632 (a), (b). these requirements, as well as the ones described by the court, may impose special burdens .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 24 1982 (FN)

New England Power Co. Vs. New Hampshire

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Feb-24-1982

..... -- are located within the state of new hampshire. the units are licensed by the federal energy page 455 u. s. 334 regulatory commission pursuant to part i of the federal power act, 41 stat. 1063, as amended, 16 u.s.c. 791a-823 (1976 ed. and supp. iv). since hydroelectric facilities operate without significant fuel consumption, these units can produce electricity at ..... at special rates adjusted to reflect the entire savings attributable to the low-cost hydroelectric generation. [ footnote 3 ] page 455 u. s. 337 new england power, the commonwealth of massachusetts, and dennis j. roberts ii, attorney general of rhode island, appealed the commission's order to the supreme court of new hampshire. they contended that the order was preempted by parts ..... . new hampshire - 455 u.s. 331 (1982) u.s. supreme court new england power co. v. new hampshire, 455 u.s. 331 (1982) new england power co. v. new hampshire no. 80-1208 argued december 7, 1981 decided february 24, 1982 * 455 u.s. 331 appeal from the supreme court of new hampshire syllabus appellant new england power co., a public utility generating and transmitting ..... electricity at wholesale, sells most of its power in massachusetts and rhode island; its wholesale customers service less than 6% of new hampshire' .....

Tag this Judgment!

Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //