Advanced Search Results

Koppu Satyanarayana Vs. Cantonment Board

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Subject : Property

Acts : Cantonment Act, 2006 - Sections 122, 250 and 340; Cantonment Act, 1924 - Sections 179 and 181; Constitution of India - Article 14

Reported in : 2008(3)ALD443

period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag.

P.A. Mangalam Vs. the Chief Executive Officer, Chennai and Another

Court : Chennai

Subject : Land Acquisition

Limited. The petitioner submitted an application to erect, re-erect and alter a building under Section 235 of the Cantonments Act, 2006 (Form A) on 28.12.2011 in respect of the property situated at No.9, GST Road, St.Thomas Mount, Chennai 600

Rohit Gera Vs. Pune Cantonment Board Golibar Maidan and Others

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Land Acquisition

dated 21st May, 2009 issued by respondent No.1 Pune Cantonment Board issued under Section 248 (1) of the Cantonments Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act” for short), order dated 30th November, 2013 passed in Appeal preferred

K. Vijay Bhaskar Vs. the Revenue Development Officer and anr.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Subject : Constitution

Acts : Constitution of India - Articles 14, 16, 16(1) and 16(4)

Reported in : 2002(6)ALD207

GO providing for reservation of all posts not justified under stated circumstances and liable to be quashed. - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. … consequential notifications issued.The Division Bench also gave certain directions and one of the directions is that more than 50% of the vacancies shall not be reserved for filling up those vacancies by the candidates belongs to the

Chinta Ranga Prasad and Others Vs. Asst. Director of Mines and Geology ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Subject : Property

Acts : Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 - Rule 9-L

Reported in : 1998(6)ALD565

powers under Rule 9-L cannot be exercised arbitrarily - held, applications for permits to be considered afresh. - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag.

C.N. Setty Vs. Hillock Hotels (P.) Ltd. and ors.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Subject : Company

Acts : Companies Act, 1956 - Sections 397, 398 and 402

Reported in : [2000]37CLA263(AP); [2001]104CompCas722(AP); (2000)1CompLJ181(AP)

and respondents No. 2 to 6 directed to pay Rs. 4 lakhs and acquire his 50 shares. - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag.

E. Krishna Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Subject : Civil

Reported in : I(2004)ACC792; 2004ACJ847; 2004(1)ALD594; 2004(4)ALT56

- in view of matter Order of Tribunal set aside and petitioner permitted to withdraw Rs. 50,000. - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag.

Sree Radhakrishna Vegetable, Oil Products Co. Vs. the Collector of Cen ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Subject : Excise

Reported in : 1998(62)ECC23

the credit and raised the demand of Rs. 2.03,486.50 allowing the deduction only from the accumulated balance. - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag.

Depot Manager, Apsrtc Vs. Syed Khaja and anr.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Subject : Labour and Industrial

Acts : Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 11A; Constitution of India - Article 226

Reported in : (2002)IIILLJ717AP

to take different view from one taken by Industrial Court as confirmed by Single Judge of Court. - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. … The Industrial Court by the impugned award granted the relief of reinstatement with continuity of service while denying 50% of back wages. The learned single Judge did not find any substantive ground to upset the factual findings

Clement Robson and Company Vs. Sital Prasad and

Court : Allahabad

Subject : Civil

Reported in : (1921)ILR43All394

partner in the firm--Transfer of order to another court for execution--Such court competent to determine the question. - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. … the matter.5. The question, which is the proper Court, depends on the combined operation of Order XXI, Rule 50, and Section 42 of the Code. The appellant, Sital Prasad, is a person described in Sub-clause (2) of