Advanced Search Results

K.K. Pushpakaran Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court : Kerala

Subject : Civil

Acts : Indian Railways Act, 1890 - Sections 78B; Railways Act, 1986 - Sections 108; Railways Act, 1989 - Sections 124A and 125; Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 - Sections 13(1), 13(1A), 16, 17, 17(2) and 18(3); Limitation Act, 1963 - Sections 3, 4 to 24 and 29(2); Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act; Shops and Establishments Act; Contempt of Courts Act; Bihar and Orissa Co-operative Societies Act; Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1956; Companies Act - Sections 111; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908; Railway Claims Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1989 - Rule 18

Reported in : 2008ACJ2469; AIR2008Ker107

Tribunal. Section 13(1-A) is regarding claims for compensation payable by the railway administration under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989. Section 17 provides for time of limitation for filing application before the Tribunal and Section 17(1)(c) provides that claim … to refund the excess freight paid under Section 78 -B of the Indian Railways Act, 1890 corresponding to Section 108 of the Railways Act, 1986. Section 78-B of the Act provides that a person shall not be entitled

A. Thanikachalam and Others Vs. The Union of India owning Southern Rai ...

Court : Chennai

Subject : Land Acquisition

Civil Miscellaneous Appeals under Section 23(1) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 read with Section 16 of Railways Act, 1989, against the orders dated 10.09.2008 and 29.4.2008 made in O.A.Nos.51 and 121 of 2006 respectively on the file … judgment of this Court in the case of Union of India v. G.Loganayaki and others, 2008 (1) TCJ 108 holding that the burden of proof that the deceased held a valid ticket is impossible to be discharged

Chendur Forgings (P) Ltd. Vs. Bhandari Interstate Carriers

Court : Chennai

Subject : Contract

Acts : Partnership Act, 1932 - Sections 69(2); Carriers Act - Sections 9; Contract Act, 1872 - Sections 16, 196 and 199; Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 111; Railways Act, 1890 - Sections 77; Property Act - Sections 108 and 111; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Sections 80, 99 and 432 - Order 7, Rule 11 - Order 30 - Rules 1 and 2

Reported in : AIR2008Mad218; 2008(44)CTC75; 2008(2)CTLJ169(Mad)

of this Court rendered in connection with Section 80 of the CPC or Section 77 of the Indian Railways Act, 1890 to which our attention was invited by learned Senior Counsel, Shri Nariman. We may proceed on the … V. Dhanapalan, J.1. The unsuccessful defendant in the suit in O.S. No. 1102 of 1989 has come up with this appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 08.08.1994 on the file of the … obligation of the erstwhile tenant as statutorily imposed on him under Section 108(q) read with Section 111(a) of the Property Act. The non-compliance of the

Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Ibp Co. Ltd.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Subject : Civil

Acts : Railways Act, 1989 - Sections 94

Reported in : III(2005)ACC181; 2006ACJ2807; AIR2005AP179; 2005(2)ALD66; 2005(2)ALT596

examined on behalf of the applicant. Based on certain documents, the Tribunal held that Section 94 of the Railways Act, 1989 cannot be used as a defence and there is no law that prohibits the Railway to supervise the … the Appellant-Railways being aggrieved by the order of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad in OAA No. 108 of 1998 dated 7.6.1999 in granting compensation of Rs. 68,362/- to the respondent herein.3. The respondent is the

Union of India (Uoi) Vs. I.B.P. Co. Ltd.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Subject : InsuranceMotor Vehicles

Reported in : II(2007)ACC194

examined on behalf of the applicant. Based on certain documents, the Tribunal held that Section 94 of the Railways Act, 1989 cannot be used as a defence and there is no law that prohibits the Railways to supervise the … by appellant Railways being aggrieved by the order of Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad in O.A.A. No. 108 of 1998 dated 7.6.1999 in granting compensation of Rs. 68,362 to respondent herein.3. Respondent is the applicant in

A.D. Devasia and Another Vs. Union of India, Rep. by the Secretary and ...

Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Kochi

Subject : Land Acquisition

will run away from the unit. So, the factual position is that petitioners' son is missing from 23.3.1989. Section 108 of the Evidence Act creates a presumption. Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act reads as follows: "108.

C& C Construction Ltd vs.ircon International Ltd

Court : Delhi

Subject : Arbitration

deputation are also managed by the Railways.19. RVNL is also a "railway administration" under the provisions of the Railways Act, 1989. Keeping the totality of circumstances in view, it would be very difficult to accept that RVNL should not … & Mr.Mohit D. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA Ram, Advs. NAVIN CHAWLA, J.(Oral) 1. This petition under Section 14 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) has been filed by

Manu Mohan vs 1. B.Sivaram Prasad

Court : Kerala

294(b) r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 137 and 146 of the Indian Railways Act, 1989. The first respondent is the de facto complainant.3. According to the prosecution, on 22.04.2022, the accused persons whowere … MANU MOHAN, AGED 30 YEARS S/O.THE LATE A.P. MOHANAN, KUNDALA HOUSE, THOTTAKATTUKARA P.O, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683 108 BY ADVS. S.A.ANAND NINU M.DAS RESPONDENTS/DE FACTO COMPLAINANT & STATE :- 1 B.SIVARAM PRASAD, AGED 58 YEARS S/O.B.MUTHAN

Raji Anurag, vs State of Kerala

Court : Kerala

r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 apart from Sections 137 and 146 of the Indian Railways Act,1989. Respondents 2 and 3 are the defacto complainants.3. According to the prosecution, on 22.04.2022, the accused hadtravelled … 3 MANU MOHAN AGED 30 YEARS, S/O LATE A.P.MOHANAN, KUNDALA HOUSE, THOTTAKATTUKARA P.O, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683 108 * ADDL.R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 05.01.2024 IN CRL.M.A.NO.2 OF 2023BY ADVS. D.LEEMA ROSY NINU M.DAS

Medical Council of India Vs. P.Divya

Court : Chennai

Subject : Education

to the expression accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers in Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989, this Court would be depriving a large number of railway passengers from receiving compensation in railway accidents.57. Treating … SUPPLY COMPANY OF ORISSA LIMITED (SOUTHCO) AND ANOTHER V. SRI SEETARAM RICE MILL (2012) 2 Supreme Court cases 108 in the following manner. "56. As is obvious from the bare reading of the above provision, the provision