Advanced Search Results

Suresh Kumar Agarwal Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court : Kolkata

Subject : Civil

Acts : Railways Act, 1989 - Sections 64, 65, 73, 93, 102 and 110

and the relevant law on the subject. 7. Mr. Chakraborty relied on Sections 93 and 110 of the Railways Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act of 1989) whereas Mr. Banerjee relied on Sections 64, 65 and … of God or war or public enemies or other unforeseen circumstances as scheduled in the said Section. 10. Section 102 exonerates the Railways from its liability when the description is incorrect or a fraud is committed by the

Pushpaben Jitendrakumar Shah and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors ...

Court : Gujarat

Subject : Civil

Acts : Indian Railways Act, 1890 - Sections 47, 63, 93, 101, 109 and 109(1); Railways Act, 1989 - Sections 47, 47(1), 66(1), 67, 67(1), 67(2), Rules 95, 96, 102, 114, 115, 115(b), 120, 121, 128, 129, 130, 131, 137, 138, 150 and 163

Reported in : II(2005)ACC185; 2005ACJ191; AIR2004Guj370; (2004)3GLR2206

was applicable in the instant case, since the accident occurred prior to the coming into force of the Railways Act, 1989), the railway administration was bound to fix and display the maximum number of passengers that may be carried … guard shall be under the orders of the Station Master. Under Rule 102, the guard is required to have equipments mentioned therein while on duty … chaos and passengers were 'fighting their best to get into the train'. The passengers were sitting on joining sections between the two compartments and some were sitting even on outer part of the windows of the compartments

M/S. Ambika Fashion Pvt. Limited Vs. Union of India

Court : Chennai

Subject : Railway

Acts : Railways Act - Sections 106, 103, 102(d)

were framed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, for determination:-1. Whether there was valid claim under Section 106 of Railways Act, 1989?2. Whether the railways are absolved of its liability for any indirect or consequential loss under Section 102(d) of

Union of India (Uoi), Secunderabad Vs. B. Koddekar and anr.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Subject : Civil

Acts : Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 - Sections 18, 23, 123(C) and 124(A); Railways Act, 1989 - Sections 2, 123 and 124A; Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Prevention Act, 1987 - Sections 3(1); Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 123 and 124; Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 140

Reported in : 2003ACJ1286; AIR2003AP23; 2002(4)ALT310

persons could be held to be an untoward incident falling within the ambit of Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989 ? 2) Whether the applicants-respondents in these appeals are entitled for compensation under Section 124A of the Railways … CMA No. 2443 of 2000: This appeal is filed against the order dated 29-12-1999 made in OAA No. 102 of 1998 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad. Applicants are the parents of Kolipaka Venkatesh (deceased). According to

Union of India (Uoi), South Central Railways Vs. Kurukundu Balakrishna ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Subject : Civil

Acts : Railways Act, 1989 - Sections 123(1), 123(2) and 124A; Constitution of India - Article 141; Evidence Act, 1872

Reported in : II(2004)ACC591; 2004ACJ529; 2004(1)ALD449; 2004(1)ALT100

was either injured or had died, was entitled to compensation from the Railways under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, (the Act) is the question that in substance arises for consideration in this reference. Incidentally whether wrongful, careless, … is said that the burden of proof lies on that person. A must prove the existence of those facts.Section 102: On whom burden of proof lies :--The burden of proof in a suit or proceeding lies on that

Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Amira Traders

Court : Delhi

Subject : Civil

Acts : I.R.A - Sections 93, 98, 102, 106 and 110

Reported in : 114(2004)DLT302; 2004(77)DRJ135

no reason to interfere with the same. 6. FAO 313/1999 is dismissed. CM 7202/2004 also stands dismissed. Railway Act, 1989 - Sections 93, 98, 102 and 110--Appeal against award of Railway Claims Tribunal--Damage to consignment booked from the … nothing to show that the damage to the goods was as a result of any default by the Railways. Counsel heavily relies upon the report of the Chief Principal Scientist of Pusa Institute. 4. I have heard … Whether the respondents are protected U/s 93(f)(g) read with Sec.98, 102 and Section 110 of I.R.A?1 Whether the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the

Binod Kumar Agarwal Vs. Union of India and Ors.

Court : Kolkata

Subject : Miscellaneous

Agarwal. The writ petitioner herein did not apply for re-weighment of the consignment under Section 79 of the Railways Act, 1989. In such circumstances, the present writ petition is not maintainable. In reply, learned Counsel for the writ petitioner … appeal. After considering the ratio laid down in Rameshwar Lal Agarwal (supra) and after considering pages 100 to 102 of the stay application, the Division Bench has remanded the writ petition for fresh hearing. It is submitted

Smt Guljari Devi Vs. Union of India Through the General Manager East C ...

Court : Jharkhand

Subject : Land Acquisition

appellant's husband does not come within the definition of “untoward incident” in terms of Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989. It is urged that it has been held by the Tribunal that the deceased- Jagnarayan Singh was a … IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI M.A. No. 102 of 2014 Smt. Guljari Devi, W/o Late Jag Narayan Singh, R/o Village-Baswaria, P.O & P.S.-Kuchila, Dist.-Kaimur, Bihar ……

Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Smt. Ahalya Prusti and anr.

Court : Orissa

Subject : Civil

Reported in : AIR2009Ori68

shall also exercise, on and from the date of commencement of the provisions of Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, all such jurisdiction, powers and authority as were exercisable immediately before that date by any civil Court in … the appellant/respondents against the award of a statutory compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- passed on 16-8-1996 in O.A. No. 102 of 1995 under Section 13(i)(a)(ii) read with Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, on the allegation

The Special Land Acquisition Officers Vs. Smt. Anibai Janardhan Patil ...

Court : Mumbai

Subject : CivilProperty

Acts : Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 4, 4(1), 6, 10, 10(3), 11, 17, 18, 19(1), 20, 20(1), 21, 23, 23A, 24 and 28; Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 - Sections 126(4); Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976 - Sections 20 and 21; Monopolies And Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1966 - Sections 49, 49(1), 102, 126 and 128; Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 - Sections 20 and 20(1); Urban Land Ceiling Rules - Rule 11A

Reported in : 2005(3)BomCR675

that the D.P. Road was asphalted as far back as in August 1989 but he admitted that he is not aware of what the condition … reserved in the development plan and consequently acquired under the provisions of section 126. Therefore reliance placed on section 102 is also misconceived.' 38. The learned counsel for the Claimants has also relied upon the Compendium of The … the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation. The said notification was issued under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 read with Section 126(4) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. The said notification was