Advanced Search Results

Shahank Jain vs.the Registrar Cooperative Societies and Ors

Court : Delhi

Subject : Right to Information

complaints dated 03.10.2016, 25.10.2016, 16.01.2017 and 17.01.2017 as also a petition filed by him under Section 41 of the DCS Act, 2003 (Annexure V), praying inter alia for restraining Shri Vinod Jain from holding the office of a Director on

H.K. Madhia Vs. Financial Commissioner and Others

Court : Delhi

Subject : Land Acquisition

manner. One of the main contention of the petitioner is that RCS had no power u/s 41 of the DCS Act, 2003 and Rule 19 and 25 of the DCS Rules, 2007 to cease his membership. Further, that RCS has … This was, complains the petitioner, totally overlooked by the lower authorities. The proceedings conducted by the Registrar under Section 41 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 2003 read with Rule 19 and 25 of Delhi Cooperative Societies Rules,

Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle, Bangalore Vs. McDowell and ...

Court : Karnataka

Subject : Land Acquisition

of income should have been offered for tax as a part of total income for the assessment year 2003-04. The assessee did not offer the same for the assessment year 2003-04. The stand of the assessee was … appeal against the order passed by the Tribunal holding that the deferred tax can be taxed neither under Section 41(1) nor. under Section 28(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. The

Venkateshwara Alloys (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Goa and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Electricity

Acts : Companies Act, 1956; Indian Electricity Act, 1910 - Sections 2(1), 21, 22, 22A, 22B, 23, 24, 24(1), 51A and 53; Electricity Act, 2003 - Sections 56, 56(1) and 185(2); Electricity Rules - Rules 29 and 31; Constitution of India - Article 226

Reported in : AIR2009Bom106

and such position of law continues to exist in the analogus provisions under Section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003; and as such under both the laws old as well as new there is no provision for permanent … stated above. Rule discharged. No order as to costs. - CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 [C.A. No. 2/1974]. Section 41: [ Swatanter Kumar, CJ, Smt Ranjana Desai & D.B. Bhosale, JJ] Arrest of accused - Held, A Police

T.D. Yogitha Vs. University of Agricultural Sciences

Court : Karnataka

Subject : Constitution

Acts : University of Agricultural Sciences Act, 1963 - Sections 5 and 41; University of Agricultural Science Regulations - Regulations 3.2 and 3.4

Reported in : 2005(1)KarLJ1000

appears to have placed the matter before the Academic Council in its 137th Meeting held on 25th June 2003 and 26th June 2003. Records also show that they have secured legal opinion. The Learned Advocate who has … their enrolment and continuance as such. The Authorities of the University are empowered to make regulations as per Section 41 of the Act. The University has framed regulations governing under Graduate Degree Programme under Semester System. Regulation 3.2

Susme Builders Private Limited Vs. Om Namo Sujlam Suflam Co-operative ...

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Land Acquisition

notice of motion has been taken out by the plaintiffs praying for an order, restraining the defendants from acting upon the termination of the aforesaid agreements and/or creating any third party rights in respect of the suit … and, therefore, the contention in that regard is without substance. The learned Counsel relying on the provisions of Section 202 of the Indian Contract Act submits that since the plaintiff has an interest in the property i.e. … plaintiff's interest. The learned Counsel further relying on the provisions of Section 41(e) read with Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 submits that

Bombay Environmental Action Group, a Society Registered Under the Soci ... Overruled

Court : Mumbai

Subject : CivilProperty

Acts : Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 - Sections 2, 2(7), 2(9A), 2(12), 22, 22A, 29, 31, 31(5), 33, 37, 37(1), 37(1A), 37(1AA), 37(2), 38, 50, 58(1), 125, 126, 126(1), 127, 128 and 149; Bombay Town Planning Act, 1915 - Sections 3; Bombay Town Planning (Amendment) Act, 1954 - Sections 7; Bombay Town Planning (Amendment) Act, 1955; Mysore Town and Country Planning Act, 1961; Constitution of India (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976 - Article 48A; Constitution of India - Articles 14, 21, 31, 47, 48A, 51A, 141, 142, 226 and 368; Conciliation and Arbitration Act, 1904-1952;Greater Bombay Development Control Regulations, 1991 - Regulations 1, 52, 52(4), 53(1), 56, 57, 58, 58(1), 58(2), 58(3), 58(4), 58(5), 58(6), 58(7), 58(8), 59(9) and 62(3); Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearan

Reported in : 2005(6)BomCR574; (2005)107BOMLR337; (2006)4CompLJ117(Bom)

as amended in 2001.b) Assuming that the Petitioners interpretation is accepted, then whether the clarification dated 28th March, 2003 effects an amendment to amended DCR 58, which is not permissible under DCR 62(3)?c) Assuming the Respondents interpretation … cope up and for almost a week the entire city was completely crippled.2. The first Petitioner Bombay Environmental Action Group is a public charitable trust duly registered and also a registered society. Its aims and objects are, … 58 means, then whether the amendment to DCR 58 is permissible under Section 37 of the MRTP Act?d) Assuming the amendment to DCR 58 was … Belle Terre v. Bruce Boraas (974) 39 Law Ed 2d 787 : 416 US 1:'... The police power is not confined to elimination of filth,

Avinash Gaikwad and ors Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Land Acquisition

Acts : Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Act, 1976, 1988 - Section 41; Development Control Regulations No. 33(7)(9), 35 (2)(K),38(22),33(7),33(10),33(9)

The said property consisting of several Chawls, Godowns and Sheds was acquired by the State of Maharashtra under section 41 of the Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Act, 1976 in the year 1988. Thereafter, the State Government delivered

Citizens United Vs. Federal Election Comm'n

Court : US Supreme Court

Subject : MRTP

in the three-judge District Court. McConnell v. Federal Election Comm’n , 251 F. Supp. 2d 176, 209 (DC 2003) (per curiam) (McConnell I) . It is not the case, then, that the Court today is premature in … March 24, 2009-Reargued September 9, 2009--Decided January 21, 2010 As amended by §203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), federal law prohibits corporations and unions from using their general treasury funds to make independent … name shortly before a primary and contained pejorative references to her candidacy. Section 311 disclaimers provide information to the electorate, McConnell, supra, at 196, and … of political speech, see, e.g., NAACP v. Button , 371 U. S. 415 , 428-429. Addressing challenges to the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971,

Kerala Roadways (P) Ltd., vs the Dy. Commissioner of Income

Court : Chennai

show that advance tax was paid in respect of the total income declared at Rs.1,68,90,172/- for the A.Y.2002- 2003 after taking in to account the TDS deducted. The appellant’s case is directly covered by the Hon’ble High … (3), Chennai 600 034. .. Respondent/Respondent Tax Case Appeal has been filed under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order dated 30.01.2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai in I.T.(SS)A.No.87/MDS/2007 for the … return of undisclosed income, the assessee filed return declaring loss of Rs 41,82,600/- for the AY 2002-2003. Accordingly assessment order was passed on 25/02/2005 forthe