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

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 … a Legislative Assembly. The extent of the legislative power of the State Legislative Assembly is laid down in Section 18 of the Act of 1963, which, inter alia, provides that the Legislative Assembly is empowered to make laws

Dy. Cit Vs. Abg Heavy Industries Ltd.

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Subject : Land Acquisition

Reported in : (2008)303ITR328(Mum.)

80-1A. The assessee supported its submission by referring to the definition of "port" as given in the Indian Ports Act, 1908 according to which a "port" would include any part of the river or channel in which the said … the reply submitted by JNPT, vide its letter dated 3-8-1999, at page 18 of the assessment order. In the said letter, the JNPT confirmed that … has erred in: 1. directing the assessing officer to deduct a sum of Rs. 13,15,01,864 being deduction under Section 80-IA by holding that the assessee has carried on the business of developing, maintaining and operating any infrastructure

G.C. Nagaraju Vs. the Executive Engineer, P.W.D., Mysore Division, Mys ...

Court : Karnataka

Subject : ContractLimitation

Acts : Limitation Act, 1963 - Sections 3- Schedule - Articles 18 and 55; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Sections 80, Order 41, Rule 27; Madras Port Trust Act - Sections 110; Constitution of India - Article 136, 141; Limitation (Amendment) Act, 1908 - Schedule - Article 115, 120; Contract Act, 1872 - Sections 73

Reported in : ILR2000KAR5033; 2001(1)KarLJ71

v Sirajuddin) in similar set of circumstances held that word 'compensation' used in Article 115 of the Limitation Act, 1908 has the same meaning as it has under Section 73 of the Contract Act and that, where the … cautious to institute the suit well in time as contemplated under Article 18 of the Act, if at all he had a genuine claim to … defeat just claim of citizen came to be deprecated by the Supreme Court in a decision in Madras Port Trust v Hymanshu International by its Proprietor V. Venkatadri (dead) by L.Rs. 15. While taking me through the

M/S. Shreeji Shipping Vs. C.C.E. and S.T. Rajkot

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad

Subject : Service Tax

are concerned in this case is being rendered in a minor port to which the provisions of Indian Ports Act, 1908 and Gujarat Maritime Board Act, 1981 are applicable is also a distinction which is untenable as grant of … to act on sign on behalf of the Gujarat Maritime Board is also an incorrect proposition as the Section 18 of the Gujarat Maritime Board Act, 1981 has been deleted from 1996 onwards, and in the case in

M/S. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and Another Vs. Kishore L. To ...

Court : Mumbai Goa

Subject : Miscellaneous

the port area and that there was navigational hazard. It is submitted that Chapter III of the Indian Ports Act, 1908 (the Act, for short) deals with the appointment of the Conservator and his powers. He submitted that in … to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 26,30,174.88 along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realisation. … for short) deals with the appointment of the Conservator and his powers. He submitted that in terms of Section 10 of the said Act the Conservator can cause obstruction to be removed within the limits of port

State of Gujarat and ors. Vs. the Board of Trustees of Port of Kandla ...

Court : Gujarat

Subject : ConstitutionOther Taxation

Reported in : (1979)1GLR732

Government in exercise of powers conferred by Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Indian Ports Act, 1908 (1908 Act) extended the provisions of the said Act to the Port of Kandla with effect from 1st … of the remaining 1/3rd the paramountcy of the British Crown was undisputed. By the Government of India Act, 1858, the territories in the possession or under the Government of East India Company and the properties and rights

Mr. Allan S.F. Falerio Vs. State of Goa Through the Chief Secretary, S ...

Court : Mumbai

Subject : CivilRight to information

Acts : Right of Information Act; Indian Port Act, 1908 - Sections 30; Inland Vessels Act - Sections 20(4); Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 - Sections 75, 76 and 78; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Sections 80; STCW Code - Sections A-1/11; Merchant Shipping (Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers) Rules, 1998 - Rule 10 and 10(2); Recruitment Rules, 1973; Merchant Shipping (Medical Examination) Rules, 1986

Reported in : 2010(112)BomLR7

Writ Petition has been filed, seeking a writ of Quo Warranto against Respondent No. 2, the Captain of Ports, who has been appointed by Respondent No. 1, Government of Goa, upon the recommendations of the Goa Public … has stated that the Petitioner had applied for grant of N.O.C./permission under Section 30 of the Indian Port Act, 1908 for setting up a SSI Unit for steel fabrication/repair of vessels at the bank of river Zuari at … petition having been filed only on 21-6-2009 after a gap of almost 18 years, and, the second is that the petition has been filed with

Muthukrishnan Vs. 1. the Union of India,

Court : Chennai

Subject : Land Acquisition

10 (2), no person shall import or export explosives except in accordance with license and only through notified ports by the Central Government. As per Rule 10(4), no person shall deliver or despatch explosives without license. Hence … 9(B)(1)(a), 9(B)(1)(b), Explosive Act r/w 10(2) Explosive Rules 2008 and Section 4(b) 5 and 6 of Explosive Substances Act 1908 was filed by the police authorities.13. Mr.K.Chellapandian, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State would submit that … registered regarding Chinese fire works. It is reported in the media on 18.09.2014, DRI seized Chinese fire crackers worth about Rs.3.61 Crores in Navi Mumbai.

Awaaz Foundation, Public Charitable Trust, Mumbai and Another Vs. Stat ...

Court : National Green Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi

Subject : Environment

coastal areas at 48 places in the State of Maharashtra with demarcation/identification of the limits under the Indian Ports Act, 1908, have been notified. Obviously, beyond the limits of the areas covered by the Indian Ports Act, the creeks, … Application is accordingly disposed of. No costs. National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 - Section 14, Section 15 and Section 18 -

Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board and anr. Vs. V.N.V. Constru ...

Court : Chennai

Subject : Arbitration

Acts : Arbitration Act, 1940 - Sections 8(2), 14(2), 17, 20, 28, 30, 31, 33, 37 and 37(3); Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board Act, 1970 - Sections 17 and 56; Limitation Act, 1908; Limitation Act (Amendment), 1963 - Sections 18; O.S. Rules - Order 43 Rules 1, 2, 6 and 7

Reported in : 2008(4)ARBLR604(Madras)

(3) of Section 37 of the 1940 Act, for the purposes of Section 37 and of Indian Limitation Act, 1908, 'an arbitration shall be deemed to be commenced when one party to the arbitration agreement serves on the … if the arbitration clause was not invoked. The first respondent nominated their arbitrator on 13.02.1995.25. In terms of Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the cause of action arose when the petitioners failed to comply with the … applying the decision in Panchu Gopal Bose v. Board of Trustees for Port of Calcutta : [1993]3SCR361 , there could be no valid award in