Advanced Search Results

A.Arunagiri Vs. Egmore Benefit Society Ltd.

Court : Chennai

Subject : Land Acquisition

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN C.S.Nos.339 of 1999, 995 of 1999 and 551 of 2001 and Tr.C.S.Nos.2 and 3 of 2003 A.Arunagiri .. Plaintiff in CS 339/1999 M/s.Ramu & Co., Represented by its Partner, B.Sudha, 91, C.P.Ramasamy Road, Alwarpet, … as Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act and the provisions of Order XXIII, Rule 3, CPC and Section 69 of the Transfer of Property Act. (q) The property brought to sale is worth more than Rs.50 crores

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

S.Kajamohideen Vs. Tenkasi Municipality

Court : Chennai

Subject : Municipalities

Acts : Tamil Nadu Municipality Act - Section 69; Transfer of Property Act - Section 111

been accepted by the Respondent/Plaintiff (Municipality). Therefore, the auction of the Appellant/Defendant is not legally valid. As per Section 69 of the Tamil Nadu Municipality Act, there is no agreement between the parties. The suit filed by the

Sri.n.p.amrutesh Vs. The Union Of India

Court : Karnataka

Subject : Land Acquisition

the total population of the State.3. Litigational trend. District Subordinate Courts: As on at the end of February, 2003, the following were the pendencies in the subordinate Courts in the State of Karnataka. Karnataka North Karnataka (27 … State as the Chief Justice may, with the approval of the Governor, appoint. It is further contended that Section 69 of the said Act contemplates 'Savings', that nothing in this Part shall affect the application to 10 the

Central Organisation for Railway Electrification versus M/S Eci Spic S ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Arbitration

Reported in : [2024]11S.C.R.2173; (2025) 4 SCC 641

S Nayak and Sons v. State of Goa [2003] Supp. (1) SCR 69 : (2003) 6 SCC 56; Kamatchi Amman Constructions v. Railways [2010] 10 … and Conciliation Act, 1996; Indian Contract Act, 1872; UNCITRAL Model Law; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Spanish Arbitration Act, 2003. In the Judgment of Hrishikesh Roy, J. Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996; UNCITRAL Model Law; Arbitration Act, 1996. List … appointment of arbitrators. [Para 75] - [Per Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J. (concurring)] The text and the context of Section 18 as is evident from the scheme of the Act eschews application of Section 18 at the time

Madhya Pradesh Power Generation Company Ltd Vs. Madhya Pradesh Electri ...

Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL

Subject : Land Acquisition

found impossible for the appellant, a generating company within the meaning of Section 2 (28) of the Electricity Act,2003 to reach the benchmarks or the yardstick fixed by the Commission in its said Regulations, 2009, by virtue … 2010 (4) SCC 603 3) Premium Granites and Anr. V. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. (1994) 2SCC 691 4) Hindustan Paper Corporation Ltd. V. Government of Kerala (1986) 3 SCC 398 5) Hindustan Steels Ltd. V.

The State Of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Radheshyam

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Land Acquisition

are as under:1. 3.1. A Notification dated 27.02.2004 u/s 4(1) read with Section 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the act”) was published in the official gazette for acquisition of land admeasuring … towards development to 35% on the market value of Rs.1,04,64,000/- per hectare for the irrigated land and Rs. 69,76,000/- per hectare for the un-irrigated land.3. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals are as under:1.

M/s.Progen Renewables Ltd Vs The Power Grid corporation

Court : Chennai

against the 6 th respondent’s Load Flow Study dated 27.11.2025 and without following the provisions of the Electricity act, 2003 and the Indian Telegraphic Act, 1885.For Petitioner : Mr.V.C.Janarthanan for Mr.R.S.Pandiyaraj For Respondents : Mr.A.R.L.Sundaresan, ASGI 1 to … to remove the solar panels which is arbitrary and without the authority.8. The petitioner would submit that under Section 16 of theIndian Telegraph Act, 1885 as and when a landowner raises objections, the District Collector is required … foundation work is in progress. In respect of Tower Nos.66/0, 67/0, 68/0, 69/0 which are in the Power Line crossing, the statutory joint inspection of

Assistant Commissioner of Income Vs. Dr. (Mrs.) Sharda Adhalkha

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Amritsar

Subject : Direct Taxation

Reported in : (2005)95TTJ(Asr.)643

31st July, 2001, disclosing therein undisclosed income of Rs. 7,48,000. The AO completed block assessment on 28th Feb., 2003, determining the undisclosed income at Rs. 21,37,302 by making certain additions. These were subject-matter of appeal before the … the books and as determined by the DVO at Rs. 13,80,358 and made addition of the same under Section 69 of the IT Act.9.1 Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). It was

Shakuntala Jaiswal Vs. Acit, Range-ii

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad

Subject : Direct Taxation

money from bank.4. As a result, the A.O. treated Rs. 90,600/- as unexplained and added the same Under Section 69. In addition to this, the A.O. rioted that the assessee has further made investment of Rs. 88,000/- on … the grounds. The gist of revised grounds is as under: (1) Notice Under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. (2) Investment in free-hold charges of stamp duty in investment in. free