Advanced Search Results

New Delhi Municipal Council vs Bharat Hotels Ltd & Anr.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Land Acquisition

no bye-laws made under clause (a) or clause (b) by the committee of a municipality in which the Hackney Carriage Act, 1879, is in force shall apply to any vehicle to which that Act applies: Provided also that operations of … as the “NDMC Act”) to form a municipal council for New Delhi, which came into force w.e.f. 25.05.1994.6.3. Section 3 of the NDMC Act provides that there shall be a Council charged with municipal government of New … provided that increase in licence fee at each time shall not exceed 100% of the licence fee immediately before enhancement is due. Clause 48 also

New Delhi Municipal Council vs Bharat Hotels Ltd & Anr.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Land Acquisition

no bye-laws made under clause (a) or clause (b) by the committee of a municipality in which the Hackney Carriage Act, 1879, is in force shall apply to any vehicle to which that Act applies: Provided also that operations of … as the “NDMC Act”) to form a municipal council for New Delhi, which came into force w.e.f. 25.05.1994.6.3. Section 3 of the NDMC Act provides that there shall be a Council charged with municipal government of New … provided that increase in licence fee at each time shall not exceed 100% of the licence fee immediately before enhancement is due. Clause 48 also

Mewa Ram Vs. Municipal Board

Court : Allahabad

Subject : Motor Vehicles

Reported in : AIR1939All466

irresistible when one compared the provisions of Section 298(2)II(b) of the Act with the provisions of Section 3, Hackney Carriage Act (14 of 1879) which provides about 'rules for the regulation and control of hackney carriages.' The words 'regulation … camel cart ... 0-0-6 0-12-03. After having framed these bye-laws the Municipal Board sold by public auction on 10th June 1931, the right of collecting charges from public vehicles occupying Municipal stands at various places, and the

Sardar Iqbal Singh and ors. Vs. the Municipal Board, Lucknow

Court : Allahabad

Subject : Constitution

Acts : Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1916 - Sections 298(1), 298(2) and 301; Constitution of India - Articles 19, 19(1), 19(6) and 226

Reported in : AIR1959All186

in Calcutta in excess of the number of 6000. It appears that under Section 71 of the Calcutta Hackney Carriage Act, 1919, the Provincial Government was empowered to make bye-laws for carrying out the provisions and intentions of the … Board under bye-law No. 9 of the bye-laws published in the U. P. Gazette dated 4-1-1958 (Pausa 14, 1879 Saka Era) through notification No. 403 XXXII-10 (1) (1)-56-57 dated 27-12-1957, the Municipal Board, Lucknow, with a view

Ghulam MohiuddIn Vs. Munsiff of Etah and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Subject : Constitution

Acts : Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1916 - Sections 1(2) and 87A; Uttar Pradesh Town Areas Act, 1914 - Sections 38(1), 38(3) and 38(4)

Reported in : AIR1961All200

Boards and Committees.There may be similar transfer of power to the Board under other cognate Acts like the Hackney Carriage Act (Act XIV of 1879) or the Vaccination Act (Act XIII of 1880) and so on. The purpose of … which lead me to take a different view. The learned Judge was of opinion that the provisions of Sections 47-A and 87-A of the U. P. Municipalities Act, 1916, could not be extended to town areas substantially … been called a board. I think, with respect, that AIR 1858 All 109 was rightly decided.Beg, J.7. I have had the advantage of going through

Little Vs. Hackett

Court : US Supreme Court

Subject : Land Acquisition

was a member. While there, he dined at the West End Hotel, and after dinner hired a public hackney coach from a stand near the hotel and, taking a companion with him, was driven along the beach … was injured by the collision of a train of the Central Railroad Company of New Jersey with the carriage in which he was riding, and this action was brought to recover Page 116 U. S. 367 damages … Thorogood v. Bryan, 8 C.B. 115, disapproved. On the 28th of June, 1879, the plaintiff below, defendant in error here, was injured by the collision … Armstrong v. Lancashire & Yorkshire Railroad Co., L.R. 10 Exch. 47, 52. Assuming this to be the … control over the conduct of the driver, is not responsible for his acts or negligence, or prevented from recovering against a railroad company for injuries