Shri Chander Sekhar: "18 We however do not deem it necessary to adjudicate on the proviso after Section 8(1) (j) of the Act and leave the same to be adjudicated in an appropriate proceedings We may however notice that a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Surupsingh Hrya Naik Vs Maharashtra
|
AIR 2007 Bom 121
|
|
India - Maharashtra
|
circa 2007
|
|
|
10
|
District Registrar and Collector v Canara Bank,(2005)
|
1 SCC 496
|
|
|
circa 2005
|
|
|
14
|
R Rajagopal v TN
|
(1994) 6 SCC 632
|
|
|
circa 1994
|
|
|
35
|
Govind v Madhya Pradesh & Anr
|
[1975] INSC 75; (1975) 2 SCC 148; [1975] 3 SCR 946; AIR 1975 SC 1378; [1975] SCC (Cri) 468
|
Supreme Court of India
|
India
|
18 Mar 1975
|
LIIofIndia
|
|
39
|
Kharak Singh v UP
|
(1964) 1 SCR 332; [1963] SC 1295
|
|
United Kingdom - Scotland
|
circa 1963
|
|
|
42
|
O K Ghosh & Anr v E X Joseph
|
[1962] INSC 298; 1963 1 SCR Supl 789; AIR 1963 SC 812
|
Supreme Court of India
|
India
|
30 Oct 1962
|
LIIofIndia
|
|
19
|
Olmstead v United States
|
277 US 438; 48 SCt 564; 72 L Ed 944; 72 L Ed 2d 944; 293 USApp DC 105
|
United States Supreme Court
|
United States
|
4 Jun 1928
|
WorldLII
|
|
574
|