Advanced Search Results

Villianur Iyarkkai Padukappu Maiyam Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : CivilCommercial

Acts : Major Ports Trust Act; Government of Union Territories Act, 1963 - Sections 18, 46 and 50; Business of the Government of Pondicherry Rules, 1963 - Rule 5 and 5(2); Indian Major Ports Act, 1908; Indian Ports Act, 1908 - Sections 3(9); Pondicherry (Administration) Act, 1962 - Sections 5; Pondicherry Administration Regulations Act, 1963 - Sections 3; Pondicherry (Laws) Regulation, 1963 - Regulations 2 and 6; Pondicherry (Alteration of name) Act, 2006 - Sections 4; Environment Protection Act; General Financial Rules, 1963; Supreme Court Orders, 1960 - Order 16; Supreme Court Rules, 1960 - Rule 4(1); Delegation of Financial Rules - Rule 21; Constitution of India - Articles 162, 239, 239A and 240

Reported in : JT2009(8)SC339; (2009)7SCC561; 2009(8)LC3627(SC); [2009] 9 SCR 225

minor ports can be undertaken by the respective State Government after formulating its own guidelines and modalities. The Indian Ports Act, 1908 permits the State Government to develop the minor ports. By virtue of power vested in the Parliament by … personal selection, is rejected.22.The contention that a conjoint reading of Article 239 and 239A of the Constitution and Sections 46, 50 of the Government of Union Territories Act read with Rule 5 of the Rules of Business

Sampath Kumar Vs. Ayyakannu and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : CivilProperty

Acts : Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 6, Rule 17

Reported in : AIR2002SC3369; 2002(6)ALD63(SC); 2002(4)ALLMR(SC)866; 2003(1)AWC18(SC); 2002(51)BLJR93; [2003(1)JCR283(SC)]; JT2002(7)SC182; (2002)3MLJ160(SC); RLW2003(1)SC49; 2002(6)SCALE; (2002) 7 SCC 559

to be undertaken while developing a port cannot be stopped by merely naming them as real estate business. INDIAN PORTS ACT, 1908 Sections 4(1), 6(1) & 3(9) & (8): Minor ports - Jurisdiction to undertake development and privatization of Pondicherry … the CRZ. However, the project in question being a project exceeding Rs 50 crores necessary environment clearance has to be obtained from MOEF, Government of … had acted arbitrarily or that the letter of intent was issued to favour Respondent 11 with oblique motives. Section 11:Res judicata Concession made before High Court Effect - Government of Pondicherry selecting S as developer for development

Commissioner of Income-tax (Central-ii), Calcutta Vs. M/S. Duncan Brot ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Direct Taxation

Acts : Super Profits Tax Act, 1963 - Rule 1; Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 - Rule 1; Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 256(1); Companies Act, 1956

Reported in : 1996IIAD(SC)395; AIR1996SC3094; (1996)133CTR(SC)76; [1996]219ITR121(SC); JT1996(2)SC316; 1996(2)SCALE132; (1996)8SCC31; [1996]2SCR492

to be undertaken while developing a port cannot be stopped by merely naming them as real estate business. INDIAN PORTS ACT, 1908 Sections 4(1), 6(1) & 3(9) & (8): Minor ports - Jurisdiction to undertake development and privatization of Pondicherry … the CRZ. However, the project in question being a project exceeding Rs 50 crores necessary environment clearance has to be obtained from MOEF, Government of … is an appeal from a decision of the Calcutta High Court in a Reference made to it under Section 256(1) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961.2. The assessee is a company and the accounting years involved are the

Haryana Urban Development Authority Vs. Raj Rani

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : ConsumerProperty

Reported in : IV(2004)CPJ27(SC); 2004(8)SCALE214; (2005)9SCC536

to be undertaken while developing a port cannot be stopped by merely naming them as real estate business. INDIAN PORTS ACT, 1908 Sections 4(1), 6(1) & 3(9) & (8): Minor ports - Jurisdiction to undertake development and privatization of Pondicherry … the CRZ. However, the project in question being a project exceeding Rs 50 crores necessary environment clearance has to be obtained from MOEF, Government of … had acted arbitrarily or that the letter of intent was issued to favour Respondent 11 with oblique motives. Section 11:Res judicata Concession made before High Court Effect - Government of Pondicherry selecting S as developer for development

Sun Export Corporation and anr. Vs. Board of Trustees of the Port of B ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Customs

Acts : Customs Act, 1962 - Sections 111 and 125; Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 - Sections 3(2); Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 - Sections 2, 63; Bombay Port Trust Act, - Sections 3(5)

Reported in : AIR1997SC4044; 1997(96)ELT3(SC); JT1997(8)SC530; 1997(6)SCALE553; (1998)1SCC142; [1997]Supp4SCR682; 1997(2)LC786(SC)

to be undertaken while developing a port cannot be stopped by merely naming them as real estate business. INDIAN PORTS ACT, 1908 Sections 4(1), 6(1) & 3(9) & (8): Minor ports - Jurisdiction to undertake development and privatization of Pondicherry … the CRZ. However, the project in question being a project exceeding Rs 50 crores necessary environment clearance has to be obtained from MOEF, Government of … vide his order dated 28-2-1976 found that the goods covered by the consignment were liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 for various reasons detailed in the order. Option to redeem the goods

Debaraj Padhi and ors. Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Service

Reported in : JT1995(9)SC521; (1996)ILLJ11SC; 1995(5)SCALE290; (1995)6SCC41; 1995(2)LC625(SC)

to be undertaken while developing a port cannot be stopped by merely naming them as real estate business. INDIAN PORTS ACT, 1908 Sections 4(1), 6(1) & 3(9) & (8): Minor ports - Jurisdiction to undertake development and privatization of Pondicherry … the CRZ. However, the project in question being a project exceeding Rs 50 crores necessary environment clearance has to be obtained from MOEF, Government of … had acted arbitrarily or that the letter of intent was issued to favour Respondent 11 with oblique motives. Section 11:Res judicata Concession made before High Court Effect - Government of Pondicherry selecting S as developer for development

Harish Sehgal Vs. State of U.P. and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Criminal

Acts : Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 145, 146 and 482

Reported in : 2000(8)SCALE381

to be undertaken while developing a port cannot be stopped by merely naming them as real estate business. INDIAN PORTS ACT, 1908 Sections 4(1), 6(1) & 3(9) & (8): Minor ports - Jurisdiction to undertake development and privatization of Pondicherry … the CRZ. However, the project in question being a project exceeding Rs 50 crores necessary environment clearance has to be obtained from MOEF, Government of … 1) and Ms. Lata Gupta (referred to as Party No. 2). The local police intervened and proceedings under Section 145 Cr. PC were initiated before the City Magistrate, Dehradun. The property was attached under Section 146 Cr.

Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. Vs. Raghunath Balmiki and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Labour and Industrial

Acts : Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 340; Supreme Court Rules, 1966 - Order 47

Reported in : JT1998(6)SC268; 1998(5)SCALE190; (1999)1SCC177; (1998)3UPLBEC2206

to be undertaken while developing a port cannot be stopped by merely naming them as real estate business. INDIAN PORTS ACT, 1908 Sections 4(1), 6(1) & 3(9) & (8): Minor ports - Jurisdiction to undertake development and privatization of Pondicherry … the CRZ. However, the project in question being a project exceeding Rs 50 crores necessary environment clearance has to be obtained from MOEF, Government of … Certificates filed by Sanjay Kumar and others, the respondent-workmen in the Civil Appeal filed I.A. No. 7/97 under Section 340, Cr.P.C. read with Order 47 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966 for a directing to order an

Haryana Tourism Corporation Ltd. Vs. Fakir Chand, Etc. Etc.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Labour and Industrial

Acts : Companies Act; Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

Reported in : AIR2003SC4465; JT2003(Suppl2)SC424; (2004)ILLJ195SC; 2003(8)SCALE582; (2003)8SCC248; (2004)1UPLBEC160

to be undertaken while developing a port cannot be stopped by merely naming them as real estate business. INDIAN PORTS ACT, 1908 Sections 4(1), 6(1) & 3(9) & (8): Minor ports - Jurisdiction to undertake development and privatization of Pondicherry … the CRZ. However, the project in question being a project exceeding Rs 50 crores necessary environment clearance has to be obtained from MOEF, Government of … had acted arbitrarily or that the letter of intent was issued to favour Respondent 11 with oblique motives. Section 11:Res judicata Concession made before High Court Effect - Government of Pondicherry selecting S as developer for development

Smt. Dhan Mal Devi JaIn Vs. Gordhan Dass and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Tenancy

Acts : Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973; Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 - Sections 2(1)

Reported in : JT1987(1)SC623; 1987Supp(1)SCC632

to be undertaken while developing a port cannot be stopped by merely naming them as real estate business. INDIAN PORTS ACT, 1908 Sections 4(1), 6(1) & 3(9) & (8): Minor ports - Jurisdiction to undertake development and privatization of Pondicherry … the CRZ. However, the project in question being a project exceeding Rs 50 crores necessary environment clearance has to be obtained from MOEF, Government of … Ors. (1976) Supp.SCR 645 taking a view upon the construction of the definition of the term 'tenant' under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 as including a statutory tenant and also holding that