Advanced Search Results

Smt. Usha Devi and Ors vs Union of India

Court : Delhi

Subject : Land Acquisition

Section 124A of the Railways Act.13. It is trite law that the provisions pertaining to compensation under theRailways Act, 1989 constitute beneficial legislation and must, therefore, receive a liberal, purposive, and pragmatic interpretation rather than a narrow or … incident was not an “untoward incident” as defined under Section18:23:15 FAO 112/2021 Page 1 of 6123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as “Act”). Subsequently, a review application was filed by the claimant which came to

Prasant Kumar Choudhury Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court : Orissa

Subject : Civil

Reported in : 2008ACJ685; AIR2007Ori33

as follows:So far as interest is concerned it is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that Railways Act, 1989 and the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 or the Rules framed thereunder do not provide for payment of … I. Mahanty, J.1. In the present appeal filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, the appellant who was the claimant before the Railway Claims … Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the following decisions: : 112(2004)DLT928 , Union of India v. Bani Lal : AIR2000Ker91 , Union of

Commissioner of Customs (Air), Chennai Vs. P. Sinnasamy and Another

Court : Chennai

Subject : Land Acquisition

of goods. Consignment of Ethyle Hexanol (EHA) was transported to bonded warehouses, after assessment to duty in October-November, 1989 and subsequently, the goods were removed from the bonded warehouse, without the permission of the proper officer. Referring … be confiscated under Section 111(d)(i)(l) and (m) of the Customs Act, 1962, and (iv) Why personal penalty under Section 112(a) of the Custom Act, 1962, should not be imposed on Shri.Paraman Sinnasamy. 5. Though the 1st respondent had

Commanding Officer Railway Protection Special Force Mumbai Vs. Bhavnab ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Land Acquisition

his employment; and the deceased being a “Railway Servant”, as per the provisions of Section 2(34) of the Railways Act, 1989 (in short, the 1989 Act), would be deemed to be a “workman” under Section 2(1)(n)(i) of Civil Appeal … with 9% interest.4. Aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner, the appellant filed a first appeal bearing number 112 of 2016 before the High Court under Section 30 of the 1923 Act. The thrust of the submissions

Twenty First Century Printers Vs. Collector of Customs

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Subject : Land Acquisition

Reported in : (1995)LC117Tri(Delhi)

Kanpur v. Krishna Carbon Paper Co., 1988 (37) E.L.T. 480 (S.C.) = 1989 (20) ECR 273 (SC), Supreme Court pointed out the circumstances when ISI … benefit of Notification No. 114/80-Cus., dated 19-6-1980 and imposition of penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- on the appellants under Section 112, the appellants have referred the above appeal.2. The appellants hold a registration dated November 30, 1987 from the … or copies per hour with DCP Platen under Clauses (d) and (m) of Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962, imposing a fine in lieu of confiscation of Rs. 60,00,000/- and determination the classification of the machine

Nkgsb Cooperative Bank Limited Vs. Subir Chakravarty

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Land Acquisition

Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988; Section 93 (“by an officer or authority subordinate to the Central Government”) of the Railways Act, 1989; Section 6 (“such other officer subordinate to the Director General”) and Section 15 (“an officer subordinate to the Director … of Money-Laundering Act, 2002; Section 30 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006; Sections 107, 108 and 112 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017; Section 8 of the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act, 2018;

Union Of India Vs. M/s Indian Oil Corporation Ltd

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Land Acquisition

ANALYSIS .............................................................................................. 22 i. Relevant Statutory Scheme and Provisions .............................................. 22 ii. Scope of Section 106 of the Railways Act, 1989 ........................................ 29 a. What is meant by an “Overcharge”?. ....................................................... 35 b. Concept of an ‘Overcharge’ and an

Rajeev Suri Vs. Union Of India

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Land Acquisition

v. Jalgaon 158 AIR1967SC295(para 10, 27, 60 and64) 159 (1969) 1 SCC325(paras 7 to 9, 11 and13) 160 1989 (2) Supp. SCC201(paras 8, 9 and13) 161 (2002) 3 SCC496(para10) 162 AIR1961SC1519163 AIR1991SC1216(paras 6 to10) 164 (supra at … Parliament commensurate with modern safety norms; and (xiv) To preserve the built heritage by not undertaking aggressive reconstruction activity on graded heritage structures on which only minimum renovation measures are permissible in law.9. Before we begin the … 229 d) Procedure during decision- 230-265 making process and Public Hearing under Section 11A e) Quasi Legislative Function 266-273 f) Post change in land use … 7 and8) 31 (1969) 3 SCC868(paras 7 and12) 32 (2019) 15 SCC401(para 112.8) 33 2009 SCCOnline Del 3836 (paras 31 and32) 34 (supra at 14,

M/S Rare Earth Overseas Vs. Container Corporation of India Ltd.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Education

petitioner further learnt that the claim had been so assessed in accordance with the provisions of The Indian Railways Act, 1989 and The Railways (Extent of Monetary Liability and Prescription of Percentage Charge), Rules, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as … the Rules aforesaid and which Rules have been framed by the Central Government in exercise of powers under Section 112 of the Railways Act but we have at the time of dictating the judgment found that the petition

Virbhadra Singh & Anr. Vs.central Bureau of Investigation & Or ...

Court : Delhi

Subject : Land Acquisition

India. On this aspect, after a detailed discussion, the Supreme Court concluded that Article 166 W.P.(CRL) 2757/2015 Page 112 of 133 was “directory” and that “substantial” compliance with the said provision was sufficient. The Supreme Court held … A-0004 registered against them and two others under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter 'the PC Act') and Section 109 IPC by the respondent No.1/CBI, and all actions taken in