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 … 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

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 … from joint family property Limitation Partition of joint family property took place 50 years back Father of plaintiff remained excluded from said partition - No … 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

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

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

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

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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

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

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

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.