Advanced Search Results

Alluri Narayana Murthy Raju Vs. Dist. Collector and ors.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Subject : Contract

Acts : Contract Act, 1872 - Sections 32 and 56; Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Rivers Conservancy Act, 1884; Interest Act, 1978 - Sections 3 and 3(1); Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 144; Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Auction of Sand in the Water Courses Vesting in Gram Panchayat) Rules, 2000 - Rules 5, 7, 8, 11 to 18, 19 and 26

Reported in : AIR2008AP264; 2008(6)ALD103

respondent No. 2 on 23.12.2000 calling for tenders for auctioning the right to quarry the sand in Gostani river in Maddi Gram Panchayat, Padmanabham Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, the petitioner made his application by paying necessary E.M.D. Respondent … of the auction or is lifting the sand against the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Rivers Conservancy Act, 1884.18. Sections 32 and 56 of the Act, which are very material for the present purpose, read as … Inspector of Police, Bheemunipatnam, respondent No. 5 initiated proceedings dated 24.12.2001 under Section 144, Cr.P.C. Despite the said measures, the villagers did not permit the … permit the petitioner to lift the sand. He then filed O.S. No. 192 of 2000 for permanent injunction against the villagers of Maddi village and

State of Tamil Nadu and anr. Vs. P. Krishnamurthy and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : EnvironmentCivil

Acts : Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 - Sections 4, 4A, 4A(1), 4A(2), 4A(3), 15, 17, 17A and 24A; Madras River Conservancy Act, 1884; Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) (Amendment) Act, 1986; Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 - Rules 1(3), 2(6), 8, 8A, 8C, 8(8), 8(11), 15, 36(1), 36(5) and 38A; Constitution of India

Reported in : AIR2006SC1622; JT2006(4)SC167; (2006)3MLJ313(SC); 2006(3)SCALE460; (2006)4SCC517

15 provides for absolute prohibition or regulation of quarrying or removal of sand from riverbeds to which Madras River Conservancy Act, 1884 has been extended and for regulating the quarrying or removal of sand from beds of river in charge … minor minerals by making appropriate rules, in view of the power delegated to it by the Parliament under Section 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short the 'Act'). The power to … scope of Rule 38A of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 (for short 'the Rules') which reads as under:38-A. Quarrying of sand by

The Secretary of State for India in Council Vs. Sri Rajah Bommadevara ...

Court : Chennai

Subject : Civil

Reported in : 58Ind.Cas.689

year, the villages have been held on ordinary ryotwary, tenure.19. In 1894 operations were begun under the Rivers Conservancy Act (Mad. Act VI of 1884) with the object of confining the course of the river Kistna within defined … land really belonged to B is removed. (The Limitation Act relieves against ignorance only in case s under sections 5, 14 and 18). It has been held that even ignorance of his dispossession will not save the

Antoine Vs. Washington

Court : US Supreme Court

Subject : Land Acquisition

] The original reservation was over 3 million acres "bounded on the east and south by the Columbia River, on the west by the Okanagan River, and on the north by the British possessions." Exec.Order of July … of commercial fishing [and hunting], and the like may be regulated by the State in the interest of conservation, provided the regulation meets appropriate standards and does not discriminate against the Indians." The "appropriate standards" requirement means … State in 1889, 26 Stat. 1552, and, the next year, by the Act of Aug.19, 1890, 26 Stat. 355, Congress created the Commission that negotiated … "Any person who hunts . . . deer in violation of this section is guilty of a gross misdemeanor. . . ." Section 77.16.030 provides

Annakumaru Pillai Vs. Muthupayal and ors.

Court : Chennai

Subject : Criminal

Reported in : (1904)14MLJ248

in the bed from which the prisoner had removed them and which was situated in a tidal navigable river.14. Apart from any statute, in State v. Taylor 72 Am. Deo. 347 referred to above, dishonest removal of … have always been taken to be the exclusive property of the sovereign, by whom, consequently, they have been conserved; and the fishery operations connected therewith have always been carried on under state control and have formed a … for determination in the present case are.1. (a). Whether live chanks not actually seized but remaining free in their natural habitat in the bed of … average revenue during the 25 years from 1876-77 to 1902-03 (not reckoning 1884-85 in which for some reason not apparent there was no fishery) derived … property? (c). Is 'possession' within the meaning of Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code predicablc in … revenue during the 25 years from 1876-77 to 1902-03 (not reckoning 1884-85 in which for some reason

Hynes Vs. Grimes Packing Co.

Court : US Supreme Court

Subject : Land Acquisition

337 U. S. 94 spoken of in Order No. 128, establishing the reservation is situated on the Karluk River, long recognized as one of the most important salmon spawning streams of Alaska. The natives live at its … Indians or Eskimos by section 8 of the Act of May 17, 1884 (23 Stat. 26), or by section 14 or section 15 of the … Secretary's letter: "Indian tribes do not exist in Alaska in the same sense as in continental United States. Section 19 of the Indian Reorganization Act defines the word 'tribe' as referring to 'Any Indian tribe, organized band, pueblo, … (b) The White Act, the purpose of which was to protect and conserve the fisheries of Alaska on a nonmonopolistic basis, Page 337 U. S.

Liverpool and London S.P. and I Asson. Ltd. Vs. M.V. Sea Success I and ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Civil

Acts : Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Sections 44A, 104 and 117 - Order 7, Rules 11, 11A and 14 - Order 37 - Order 43, Rule 1 - Order 49, Rule 3; Admiralty Courts Act, 1861 - Sections 1, 1(4), 5 and 6 ;Admiralty Courts Act, 1840; Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925 - Sections 22 and 22(1); Administration of Justice Act, 1956 - Sections 20(2) and 47(2); Inland Vessels Act, 1917; Merchant Shipping Act, 1956; Multimodal Transportation of Goods Act, 1993 - Sections 7 and 7(1); Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act, 1890 - Sections 2; Colonial Courts of Admiralty (India) Act, 1891 - Sections 2; Merchant Shipping Acts, 1894 to 1923; Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1873; Administration of Justice Act, 1920; Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act, 1983; Merchant Shipping (Oil) Polluti

Reported in : JT2003(9)SC218; 2003(10)SCALE1; (2004)9SCC512; MANU/SC/0951/2003

8 P.D. 151, The Andre Theodore 10 Aspinall 94, Stokes v. The Conference 1887 (8) NSWR 10, The River Rima 1988 2 L Rep 193, a South African Court decision in The Emerald Transporter 1985 2 SALR … and cargo vessels. Barges are excluded, as are public vessels unless 'engaged in commerce'.The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) have proposed draft regulations to implement the financial responsibility requirements. ADEC predicts that their regulations will not … ground that the averments contained therein do not disclose a cause of action as the claim of unpaid insurance premium was not a 'necessary' within … of unpaid insurance premium was not a 'necessary' within the meaning of Section 5 of the Admiralty Courts Act, 1861. A learned Single Judge of … contract with the appellant's association for the years 1998-1999 and 1999-2000 but they have not paid the

iowa Mut. Ins. Co. Vs. Laplante

Court : US Supreme Court

Subject : Land Acquisition

as a jurisdictional prerequisite. In this respect, the rule is analogous to principles of abstention articulated in Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U. S. 800 (1976): even where there is concurrent jurisdiction in … jurisdictional prerequisite. In this respect, the rule is analogous to principles of abstention articulated in Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U. S. 800 (1976): even where there is concurrent jurisdiction in both the … Without seeking review by the Tribal Court of Appeals, petitioner brought an action in Federal District Court, alleging diversity of citizenship as the basis for … (1987) Iowa Mutual Insurance Co. v. LaPlante No. 85-1589 Argued Dec. 1, 1986 Decided Feb. 24, 1987 480 U.S. 9 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES

Mckesson Corp. Vs. Div. of Ab and T

Court : US Supreme Court

Subject : Land Acquisition

v. Crain, 209 U. S. 211 , 209 U. S. 233 (1908) (Harlan, J., concurring); See also Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge, 11 Pet. 420, 36 U. S. 585 (1837) (Story, J., dissenting). Our consistent practice … and uniformly endorsed in its cases, including cases involving state tax refund actions brought in state court, for almost 170 years. See, e.g., 19 U. … Footnote 35 ]). Cf. Mathews, supra at 424 U. S. 348 ("[T]he Government's interest . . . in conserving scarce fiscal and administrative resources is a factor that must be weighed" when determining precise contours of process