Advanced Search Results

Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority Vs. Reliance Energy L ...

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Land Acquisition

through a concession on public private partnership format and approved the said project under the provisions of Indian Tramways Act 1886. 3. On 21st August 2004, MMRDA invited proposals for selection of a bidder for development and operation of … been extended to the metropolitan area of Mumbai vide notifications dated 16/10/2009. 17. MMRDA by letter dated 28/08/2013 to the said company, recorded that MMRDA … 1. By this petition filed under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the petitioner seeks that the effect, implementation and/or operation of

Zakirunnissa W/O Late Nawab Jan, Vs. State of Karnataka Rep. by Its Se ...

Court : Karnataka

Subject : Property

Acts : Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 - Sections 2(7), 3(1), 28(4) and 28(6); Mysore Tramways Act, 1906 - Sections 3(5), 4, 5, 7(2), 7(3) and 47A; Land Acquisition Act; Indian Tramways Act, 1886 - Sections 3(5); Constitution of India -Article 372

Reported in : ILR2009KAR3392:2009(4)KCCR2895:2009(6)AIRKarR252.

and Saharanpur and Anr. reported in : AIR 1967 SC 1747). According to Section 3(5) of the Indian Tramways Act, 1886, 'tramways' means a tramway having one, two or more rails and includes any part of tramway or any … ORDERMohan Shantanagoudar, J.1. Petitioners have questioned the Notification vide Annexure-'F' dated 17.1.2006 issued by the 3rd respondent- The Special Land Acquisition Officer under Section 3(1) of the Karnataka industrial Areas

Dehra Dun Mussorie Electric Tramway Co. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Jagmandar Da ...

Court : Allahabad

Subject : Property

Reported in : AIR1932All141

for determination. The first question is whether the company was a 'promoter' within the meaning of the Indian Tramways Act 1886, and the Tramway order of 1921 made under Sub-section (3), Section 6 of that Act by the Local … This report purports to be signed by four of the directors of the company at a meeting dated 17th September 1923 and it has not been argued that this meeting was not properly convened. We take it

M/S Evershine Monuments Vs. The State of Karnataka

Court : Karnataka

Subject : Land Acquisition

Atomic Energy Act, 1962 (33 of 1962).3. The Damodar Valley Corporation Act, 1948 (14 of 1948).4. The Indian Tramways Act, 1886 (11 of 1886).5. The Land Acquisition (Mines) Act, 1885 (18 of 1885).6. The Metro Railways (Construction of Works) … and have decided the matters.3. These writ petitions arise pursuant to issuance of Preliminary Notification dated 19.09.1977 under Section 17(1) of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, - 13 - 1976, (hereinafter, referred to as ‘the BDA Act’, for

Sri. L. Ramareddy Vs. The State Of Karnataka

Court : Karnataka

Subject : Land Acquisition

1962 (33 of 1962).-. :77. :- 3. The Damodar Valley Corporation Act, 1948 (14 of 1948).4. The Indian Tramways Act, 1886 (11 of 1886).5. The Land Acquisition (Mines) Act, 1885 (18 of 1885).6. The Metro Railways (Construction of Works) … the petitioner. The respondent/Bangalore Development Authority (‘BDA’ for the sake of convenience) issued preliminary notification dated 15.12.1984 under Section 17(1) of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as - :4. :- ‘the BDA Act’ for

Shiji vs the Project Director

Court : Kerala

Atomic Energy Act, 1962 (33 of 1962).3. The Damodar Valley Corporation Act, 1948 (14 of 1948).4. The Indian Tramways Act, 1886 (11 of 1886).5. The Land Acquisition (Mines) Act, 1885 (18 of 1885).6. The Metro Railways (Construction of Works) … a bye- pass to avoid the Kazhakkuttam-Karode stretch of the NH 47 in Thiruvananthapuram city.3. Declaration under Sub Section 1 of Section 3D of the National Highways Act was approved and published in the official Gazette of

Revajeetu Builders and Developers Vs. Narayanaswamy and Sons and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : PropertyCivil

Acts : Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 - Sections 20(1); Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999; Contract Act - Sections 65; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) (Amendment) Act, 1999; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Order 6, Rule 17 - Order 12, Rule 6 - Order 21 Rule 8; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1882 - Sections 53; Constitution of India - Article 227

Reported in : 2009(4)AWC4002(SC); JT2009(13)SC366; (2009)8MLJ907(SC); 2009(II)OLR(SC)815; RLW2010(1)SC322; (2009)10SCC84; 2009(10)LC4850(SC):2009AIRSCW6644; [2009] 15 SCR 103; MANU/SC/1724/2009

393; Arundhati Mishra v. Sri Ram Charitra Pandey : (1994) 2 SCC 2939. In Steward v. North Metropolitan Tramways Co. (1886) 16 QB 178, the plaintiff filed a suit for damages against the tramways Company for negligence … has been repealed, the appellant filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short `CPC') seeking leave … after obtaining permission from the State of Karnataka under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976.5. A petition in public interest was filed by one S. Vasudeva which ultimately came up before this … the first defendant firm applied to the State Government for exemption, under Section 20(1) of the said Act, and sought permission to hold excess vacant

Roshan Lal and ors. Vs. Emperor

Court : Allahabad

Subject : Criminal

Reported in : AIR1946All161

'prohibit' the movement of or transport. The Court of appeal in England in Reg. v. Croydon and Norwood Tramways Co. (1886) 18 Q.B.D. 39, has also affirmed this principle. In that case Lindley, L.J., observed : 'If … Federal Court in Bohla Prasad v. Emperor ('42) 29 A.I.R. 1942 F.C. 17 at p. 20 where their Lordships were considering the scope of the … arhar were despatched from Bhitaura railway station. Of these four wagons, it is in evidence, two of them actually arrived at their destination and delivery was actually taken by the consignees. The other two wagons also arrived … vires the powers of the Governor in view of the provisions of Section 297, Constitution Act. The learned Counsel has in the next place contended

The Madras Port Trust Vs. A.M. Safiulla and Company, a Partnership Fir ...

Court : Chennai

Subject : Trusts and Societies

Reported in : (1962)2MLJ29

of the Harbour, Madras v. Best & Co. I.L.R.(1899) Mad. 524 which arose under the Madras Harbour Trust Act, 1886 (Act II of 1886). The suit in that case was to recover a balance of coal alleged to … demur to the maintainability of the suit and contend that the suit claim is barred by limitation under Section 110 of the Madras Port Trust Act, 1905.4. The learned City Civil Court Judge overruled the plea of … the plea of limitation observing as follows:Exhibit A-9 (the suit notice, dated 17th January, 1956) seems to have been sent by the plaintiff's within six

The Madras Port Trust Vs. A.M. Safiulla and Co. and anr.

Court : Chennai

Subject : Commercial

Acts : Indian Companies Act; Madras Port Trust Act, 1905 - Sections 6, 39(2), 41-A(1), 110 and 111; Madras Harbour Trust Act, 1885 - Sections 87; Madras Harbour Trust (Amendment) Act, 1886; Madras Harbour Dues Act, 1882; Indian Railways Act, 1890; Public Authorities Protection Ordinance - Sections 2; Calcutta Port Trust Act - Sections 142; Madras General Clauses Act - Sections 3(22)

Reported in : AIR1965Mad133

the Harbour, Madras v. Best and Co. ILR 22 Mad 524 which arose under the Madras Harbour Trust Act, 1886 (Act II of 1886). The suit in that case was to recover a balance of coal alleged to … finding of the learned Judge is extremely unsatisfactory and we must observe that the failed to read the section properly observe that he failed to read the section properly and of course completely misunderstood its scope and … of limitation observing as follows: "Ex. A. 9 (the suit notice dated 17-1-1956) seems to have been sent by the plaintiff's within six months from