Advanced Search Results

Vanrajsinh Prabhatsinh Gohil Vs. State of Gujarat

Court : Gujarat

Subject : PropertyConstitution

Acts : Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879; Bombay Land Revenue Code and Land Tenure Abolition (Amendment) Act, 1982 - Sections 69, 69A(1) and 69A(4); ;Constitution of India - Articles 14, 31, 245 and 246; Saurashtra Estates Acquisition Act, 1952; ;Mines and Minerais (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957

Reported in : AIR1984Guj157

other prayers are pertaining to the requisitions by the Revenue Officers calling upon these petitioners to hand-over the mines and minerals in question or stop conducting mining operations therein, etc.2. In order to understand the confror versies, … by striking, golden halance. Various pieces of laws made and one of them was 'the Saurashtra Estates Acquisition Act, 1952, being Saurashtra State Act No. 3 of 1952. Section 3 of ihe said Act provides State Government from … essentially raise a common question of law regarding the vires of S. 69A(1) of the Land Revenue Code which had come to be introduced into

State Vs. Ardeshir Hormusji Bhiwandiwala

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Labour and Industrial

Acts : Factories Act, 1948 - Sections 2, 6, 7, 17, 34, 35, 44, 51, 52, 53, 54, 59, 67, 69, 79, 92, 106 and 112; Bombay Factories Act, 1947; Bombay Factories Rules, 1950 - Rules 3 and 4; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908; Factories Act, 1911 - Sections 2 and 2(3); Factories (Amendment) Act, 1954; Mines Act, 1952; Public Health Act, 1875 - Sections 4; Workmen's Compensation Act, 1925

Reported in : AIR1956Bom219; (1956)58BOMLR66; 1956CriLJ488; ILR1956Bom321; (1956)IILLJ26Bom

or is ordinarily so carried on, but does not include a mine subject to the operation of the Mines Act, 1952, or a railway running shed'. It is thus clear that in the Factories Act of 1948 the words … deny these advantages to the workers on Salt pans? Section 67 which prohibits the employment of young children, Section 69 which refers to certificates of fitness and Section 79 which makes a provision for the grant of annual

The India Cements Limited Represented by Its Managing Director Vs. Dir ...

Court : Chennai

Subject : Company

Reported in : (2001)3MLJ484

of the mines attached to the respective cement manufacturing units for the purpose of Section 76 of the Mines Act 1952. the brief facts leading to the writ petition may be summarized as follows.2. The petitioner namely The India … hundred and fifty persons are ordinarily employed, of a canteen or canteens for the use of such persons;Section 69 : Failure to appoint manager : Whoever, in contravention of the provisions of Section 17, fails to appoint

Vijay Krishna Kumbhar Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Tenancy Property

Acts : Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 - Sections 22, 23(1), 26, 28, 29, 31, 37, 38, 44, 45, 47, 49, 51, 58, 59 to 112, 125, 126, 127, 128 to 151, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157 and 158; Constitution of India - Articles 13-010, 19(1), 19-045, 133, 141, 166(3) and 226; Development Control Rules, 1982 - Rules 1.3, 5, 6.1.1 and 13.5; Bombay Town Planning Act, 1931; Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 12-A, 18 and 54; Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 - Sections 22; Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 37-I and 269(UA); Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 - Sections 3 to 20, 21 to 58, 159, 253, 254, 255 and 481; Bombay Town Planning Act, 1951 - Sections 1 to 7; Bombay Village Panchayat Act, Sections 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 40, 41, 42, 43, 46, 51 and 52;

Reported in : 2000(2)BomCR293

made under section 29 of the Mines Act, 1923 which was repealed and re-enacted with modifications as the Mines Act, 1952. The question posed for the consideration of the Supreme Court was whether subordinate legislation like Regulations or Rules … resolve the problem posed.170. Mr. Tulzapurkar strongly relied upon the provision of 'mutatis mutandis' in sub-section (6) of section 69 to get over the difficulties posed by the provisions of Chapter-IV. He contends that sub-section (6) clearly indicates

The Workmen of Taroda Opencast Mine of Western Coalfields Limited Vs. ...

Court : Mumbai Nagpur

Subject : Labour and Industrial

of contractor was in violation of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1947, and also all provisions of Mines Act, 1952 and Mines Rules, 1955, framed thereunder. They also pointed out various provisions of bipartite agreement between employees of … 2 functioned as its Chairman. The said constitution is contrary to Rule 69 of Mines Rules 1965. Earlier, award in identical circumstances delivered by CGIT, … said events have taken place during the pendency of reference proceedings and hence are hit by provisions of Section 33 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Those developments are, therefore, stated to be irrelevant and insignificant insofar as

Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. Vs. Mb Power (madhya Pradesh) Limited

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Electricity

question as to whether the phrase “any one of the Directors” as found in Section 76 of the Mines Act, 1952 could mean “only one of the Directors” or could it be construed to mean “every one of the … order or direction in the nature of declaration or certiorari or any other writ or direction declaring Rule 69(2)(b) of the RTPP Rules as ultra vires Article 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India as

Jaipur Mineral Development Syndicate (Pr.) Ltd. and ors. Vs. the Regio ...

Court : Rajasthan

Subject : Constitution

Acts : Constitution of India - Articles 20 and 20(1); Mines Creche Rules, 1946 - Rule 3; Mines Act, 1923; General Clauses Act - Sections 24

Reported in : AIR1961Raj189; 1961CriLJ286

Judge, Jaipur City recommending that the proceedings in prosecution for an offence under Section 73 of the Indian Mines Act, 1952 (hereinafter to be referred as the new Act) against the accused M/s. JaipurMineral Development Syndicate (Private) Limited and. … various cases cited at the Bar preferred the viewtaken in Ram Rattan Seth v. State, AIR 1959 Punj 69 and refused to follow the view taken is Linga-reddy Venkatareddy In re, AIR 1956 Andhra 24. The learned

Balaji Paper Boards (P) Ltd. and Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Subject : Excise

Reported in : (1998)(62)ECC631

effect as if enacted in the Act. The Mines Act 1923 was repealed by Section 88 of the Mines Act 1952. The question for consideration was whether the Mines Regulations 1926 framed under Section 29 of the Mines Act … omissus and cited the rule of construction of statutes from the craies on Statute Law 6th Edition pages 69-70. It was observed as under: The Legislature in its wisdom has chosen to make special provisions for the

Insolvency And Bankruptcy Board Of India Vs. Satyanarayan Bankatlal Ma ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : MRTP

the Indian Mines Act, 1923”. The Indian 31 Mines Act, 1923, had been repealed and substituted by the Mines Act, 1952 (Act 35 of 1952). In the latter Act the word “owner” had been defined in clause (1) of … to the same effect. Brett, L.J.in that case had said at p. 69: “… there is a rule of construction that, where a statute is … a Complaint filed by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Appellant-Board’) under Section 236 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”) read with Sections 190,

Anita Chadha Vs. Registrar of Companies

Court : Delhi

Subject : CompanyCriminal

Acts : Companies Act, 1956 - Sections 5, 159, 162 and 220; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 468 and 472

Reported in : [1999]96CompCas265(Delhi); 1999CriLJ2433; 74(1998)DLT537; 1998(46)DRJ506

of the period and is not a continuing offence. This was a case under Section 66 of the Mines Act, 1952, which provides for filing of an annual return before the appropriate authority by owner, manager, etc., of the … a continuing offence.10. The Calcutta High Court in Luxmi Printing Works Ltd. v. Assistant Registrar of Companies [1990] 69 Comp Cas 442 questioned its earlier decision in National Cotton Mills v. Assistant Registrar of Companies [1984] 56