Advanced Search Results

Danish Infratech Private Limited Vs. Delhi Cantonment Board

Court : Delhi

Subject : Land Acquisition

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, besides seeking declaration that Section 248(1) of the Cantonments Act, 2006 is unconstitutional and ultra vires the scheme of the Constitution of India, also seeks quashing of the notices … building in a cantonment area, to the General Officer Commanding- in- Chief, the Command of the respondent Board. Section 342 provides that on the admission of an appeal inter alia from a notice under Section 248 all proceedings

Danish Infratech Private Limited Vs. Delhi Cantonment Board

Court : Delhi

Subject : Land Acquisition

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, besides seeking declaration that Section 248(1) of the Cantonments Act, 2006 is unconstitutional and ultra vires the scheme of the Constitution of India, also seeks quashing of the notices … building in a cantonment area, to the General Officer Commanding- in- Chief, the Command of the respondent Board. Section 342 provides that on the admission of an appeal inter alia from a notice under Section 248 all proceedings

Danish Infratech Private Limited Vs. Delhi Cantonment Board

Court : Delhi

Subject : Land Acquisition

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, besides seeking declaration that Section 248(1) of the Cantonments Act, 2006 is unconstitutional and ultra vires the scheme of the Constitution of India, also seeks quashing of the notices … building in a cantonment area, to the General Officer Commanding- in- Chief, the Command of the respondent Board. Section 342 provides that on the admission of an appeal inter alia from a notice under Section 248 all proceedings

K. Rajaiah Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Subject : Labour and Industrial

Acts : Constitution of India - Articles 341, 341(1), 342 and 342(2); Schedules Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act, 1976

Reported in : 1998(6)ALD500; 1998(6)ALT494

certificate - held, authorities to cancel only promotion obtained on basis of certificate and not initial appointment. - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. … the ScheduledCastes and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act, 1976 (Act No. 108 of 1976), as required under Article 342 of the Constitution of India, notified 33 categories of tribes or tribal communities or parts of or groups

Palaparthi Vijayakumar Vs. the State of A.P. Rep. by Public Prosecutor

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Subject : Criminal

Acts : Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 162, 342, 366, 375, 376, 506(2)

Reported in : 2003CriLJ1670

explanation to relevant questions - held, accused entitled to benefit of doubt and liable to be acquitted. - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. … sentenced the accused as aforesaid. However, the trial Court found the accused not guilty of the offence under Section 342 I.P.C., and thus acquitted him of the said charge.6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid conviction and sentence, the accused

In Re: Barkat

Court : Allahabad

Subject : Criminal

Reported in : (1897)ILR19All200

an affidavit in support of an application for revision of the order under which he was convicted. - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. … which render the person so to be charged incompetent to be put upon his oath at all. 1. Section 342.--For the purpose of enabling the accused to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him, the Court

Dr. Rajesh Kapoor vs.delhi Cantonment Board and Anr.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Land Acquisition

that addition / alternation / modifications are being carried out unauthorisedly in contravention to the provisions of the Cantonments Act, 2006 (“Act of 2006” in short).3. It was the submission of Mr. Vikas Dhawan, learned counsel for the petitioner … action of the Board under Section 340 read with Schedule 5 of the Act, and in view of Section 342 during the pendency of the appeal no action of demolition is taken. If that be so, that whether

Shyama Charan Sri Ram Saran Vs. the State

Court : Allahabad

Subject : Criminal

Acts : Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 300 and 302; Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 54 and 105; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1898 - Sections 342

Reported in : AIR1969All61; 1969CriLJ129

character in criminal proceeding - held, not relevant unless evidence has been given for his good character. - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. … accused - held, accused cannot furnish any defence against the charge of murder. (ii) Character of accused - Section 342 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 - relevancy of bad character in criminal proceeding - held, not relevant unless

Riley Vs. Kennedy

Court : US Supreme Court

Subject : Land Acquisition

Kennedy decisions. A three-judge District Court granted the requested declaration in August 2006. It determined that the “baseline” against which any change should be measured … , 400 U. S. 379 , the question was what practice had been “in force or effect” in Canton, Mississippi, on that State’s 1964 coverage date. A 1962 state law required at-large elections for city aldermen, but … district of alabama No. 07-77. Argued March 24, 2008-Decided May 27, 2008 Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA) requires “covered jurisdictions” to obtain preclearance from the District Court for the District of Columbia … these provisions fell most heavily on African-American voters. See id ., at 342-343 (demonstrating that between 1897 and 1900 in Louisiana registered white voters dropped

Secunderabad Cantonment Board.... Vs. Narinder Kumar Dhingra and Othe

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Subject : Land Acquisition

the Cantonment Board had issued a notice dated 19.01.2011 to the respondents/writ petitioners under Section 248(1) of the Cantonments Act, 2006 (for short the Act) directing respondents to stop erection/re-erection of the building and remove unauthorized structures shown in … filed by the respondents before the Division Bench, which was allowed by order under review in terms of Section 342 of the Act. On an interpretation of the said provision, it was held by the Division Bench that