Advanced Search Results

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Urmila Devi and ors.

Court : Patna

Subject : Motor Vehicles

said Dilip Kumar Yadav died. In the said claim, which was registered as Compensation Case No. 49 of 1989, the claimant-respondent No. 1 filed an application on 10.8.1990, claiming interim compensation of Rs. 25,000/- under Section 140 … the Act of 1939 was in force the petition for grant of interim compensation shall be governed by Section 92-A of the Act of 1939 and not by Section 140 of the Act of 1988. He further submitted

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Yasoda Devi and ors.

Court : Patna

Subject : Motor Vehicles

Dilip Kumar Yadav died. In the said claim case, which was registered as Compensation Case No. 49 of 1989, the claimant respondent No. 1, filed an application on 30.8.1990, claiming interim compensation of Rs. 25,000/- under Section … the Act of 1939 was in force, the petition for grant of interim compensation shall be governed by Section 92-A of the Act of 1939 and not by Section 140 of the Act of 1988. He further submitted

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kramtan Perianayagam and anr.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Subject : Motor Vehicles

Acts : Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 - Sections 92, 92A and 173

Reported in : 1992(2)ALT654

account the amount prescribed under the old Act.3. It is also to be seen that the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 was repealed as per Section 217 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. But it may be noted that … this Court, reported in T. Srinivasulu Reddy v. C. Govardhana Naidu, 1990 (1) APLJ 100 held that Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act applies to a petition for compensation as on 1-10-1982 irrespective of the fact

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kramtan Perinayagam and anr.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Subject : Motor Vehicles

Reported in : 1992ACJ142

G. Radhakrishna Rao, J.1. Pending disposal of the O.P. No. 126 of 1989 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Madanapalle, the claimant filed LA. No. 274 of 1990 under … Srinivasulu Reddy v. C. Govardhana Naidu 1990 ACJ 66 (AP), held that Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act applies to a petition for compensation as on 1.10.1982 irrespective of the fact that the accident took place

Mirza Mahboob Ali Baig Aslam Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Subject : Civil

Acts : Indian Railways Act, 1890 - Sections 13; Indian Railways (Amendment) Act, 1989 - Sections 18(9)

Reported in : 1995(1)ALT239

Matched in: Advocate K.G. Kannabhiran and ;J. Parthasarathi, Advs. S.R. Ashok, Standing Counsel for Railways

Ajay Maken & Ors. Vs.union of India & Ors.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Land Acquisition

To summarise the Railways' contentions: (i) Lands ―belonging to the Railways‖ fall exclusively within the purview of the Railways Act, 1989. Reference is made to the definition of ‗Railway‘ contained in Section 2(31) of the Railways Act, 1989. It … by the State Government for an urgent public purpose. W.P.(C) 11616/2015 Page 67 of 104 Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation 92.1 In Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Nawab Khan Gulab Khan (1997) 11 SCC121the... RESPONDENTS were pavement dwellers in occupation

Bharat Bhari Udyog Nigam Ltd. Vs. Jessop and Co. Ltd. Staff Associatio ...

Court : Kolkata

Subject : Civil

Acts : Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 - Section 18A; ;Railways Act, 1989; ;Companies Act - Section 256(4); ;Constitution of India - Articles 12, 14, 16, 226 and 311

Reported in : (2003)4CompLJ333(Cal)

rolling stock'19. He has also invited our attention to the definition given in Clause 2 (20) of the Railways Act, 1989, which reads as under :'2(20). 'Government railway' means a railway owned by the Central Government.'20. He has also … (JCL) was established in 1788 and the Government of India took over the management of this company under Section 18A of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as Act of 1951), initially, for

Rajvati & Ors. vs Union of India

Court : Delhi

Subject : Land Acquisition

22.09.2015 and, as such, the claim was not covered under Section 123(c) read with Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 (hereinafter the “Act”).5. The Tribunal dismissed the claim application, holding that theappellants had failed to establish that the … HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI% Reserved on : 11.02.2026Pronounced on : 23.02.2026Uploaded on : 23.02.2026+ FAO 92/2022RAJVATI & ORS. .....Appellants Through: Mr. Prasant Kumar Shisodia, Advocate.versusUNION OF INDIA .....Respondent Through: Mr. Srivats Kashal, SPC for

Shri Krishna and 12 ors. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Subject : Land Acquisition

Reported in : (2000)(69)ECC305

attempt to show that he was the owner.11. On ownership Ld. Counsel also referred to the provisions of Railways Act where he submitted that in terms of Section 74 the property in the consignment covered by the Railway … the goods, in such manner as may be prescribed. Ld. Counsel arguing these two provisions of the Railway Act, 1989 submitted that in terms of the Railway Receipt, Shri Srikrishna was the owner of the goods and that

Damodar Mishra Vs. the East Coast Rail

Court : Orissa

Subject : Land Acquisition

was opposed by the general public for which the same could No.materialize. Referring to Section 18 of the Railways Act, 1989, it has been urged that in case railway administration apprehends accidents and untoward incidents for the unregulated use