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 … equity share capital of the said company respectively and the MMRDA holds 26%. It is case of the MMRDA that the said company has been … 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

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 … 1925, This report submitted the audited accounts of the company and the accounts-clearly show a sum of Rs. 26,802-7-3 as-due to Bhagwan Das & Co., secured by charge over the company's lands. Even if Mr. Beltie Shah

Insolvency And Bankruptcy Board Of India Vs. Satyanarayan Bankatlal Ma ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : MRTP

Court observed at p. 261: “As a matter of construction it must be held that all works, machinery, tramways and sidings, whether above or below ground, in or adjacent to a coal mine will come within the … of it, the subsequent amendment of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by the addition of sub-section (2) in Section 26 had no effect on the Calcutta Improvement Act, 1911 and could not be read into it. Sir George

Shahdara (Delhi) Saharanpur Light Railway Co. Ltd. Vs. the Municipal B ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Other Taxes

Acts : Indian Tramways Act, 1886; Indian Railways Act, 1890 - Sections 135; Government of India Act, 1935; Terminal Tax Rules

Reported in : AIR1967SC1747; [1967]3SCR243

first respondent, both in this Court and in the High Court. 36. Appeal allowed. Other Taxes - Indian Tramways Act, 1886, Section 135 of Indian Railways Act, 1890, Government of India Act, 1935 and Terminal Tax Rules - respondent imposed … the level crossings are provided with signaling and interlocking arrangements and the system takes in 406 bridges, and 26 railway stations, in all. The bridges and culverts are maintained, in accordance with the instructions contained in 'Way

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 … made in pleadings but the effect of substitution of paragraphs 25 and 26 is not making inconsistent and alternative pleadings but it is seeking to … 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

Naseera, vs S.a.Sahitha,

Court : Kerala

not when the plaintiffs, suit would bewholly displaced by the proposed amendment (see Steward v. The North Metropolitan Tramways Company [(1886) 16 QBD 178] and a fresh suit by him would be so barred by limitation." One … 2012 was filed seeking eviction under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The Rent Control Court dismissed the petition. The petitioners carried the matter in appeal and the Appellate … order dated 01.06.2022, the R.C.Rev. was allowed. In this petition filed under Section 114 read withOrder XLVII, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of … HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 26TH MAGHA, 1944 REVIEW PETITION NO. 847 OF 2022 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED

Gulam Ahmed Rogay Vs. Bombay Municipality

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Tenancy

Reported in : (1951)53BOMLR145

is used in Section 154(1) of the City of Bombay Municipal Act is used in the Parochial Assessments Act, 1886, and it was pointed out by the House of Lords in the case of London County Council v. … any useful guide for the determination of the question before us, because the Act embodied a section No. 26, which provided that 'during the continuance of this Act, the Corporation of Calcutta, or any other local authority,

Shahadara (Delhi) Saharanpur Light Railway Company Ltd. Vs. Union of I ...

Court : Kolkata

Subject : ArbitrationContract

Acts : Arbitration Act, 1940 - Section 34

Reported in : AIR1978Cal460

of the claim of the said suit is that the plaintiff was operating a tramway under the Indian Tramways Act, 1886 and/or a light railway under the Indian Railways Act, 1890 between Shahadara (Delhi) Railway Station and Saharanpur. The … Lodha v. Edward Mills Co. Beawar, 42 Com Cas 1 at p. 26 : (1971 Tax LR 178) (Raj). 10. On behalf of the respondents … ORDERSabyasachi Mukherji, J. 1. This is an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for stay of the Suit No. 214 of 1977. 2. The said

T.R. Rajakumari Vs. Tax Recovery Commissioner and anr.

Court : Chennai

Subject : Direct Taxation

Acts : Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 226(3) - Schedule - Rule 28

Reported in : [1979]116ITR306(Mad)

under the name 'R. R. Pictures', recovery proceedings were taken against her under Section 226(3) of the I.T. Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). By a notice dated March 6, 1973, the ITO (Administration and Collection),

In Re: Government of Bombay;

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Property

Reported in : (1907)9BOMLR1232

is for the best portion of the whole area. This comparatively small portion has a double frontage, with tramways in front, Victoria Gardens near at hand, with frontage shops below and an industrial district all round. And … to which they refer. The first offer was on the 6th November 1886 for 20,000 square yards opposite the great mill on perpetual lease at … Batty, J.1. This is a reference made under Section 19 of the Land Acquisition Act by the Collector of Bombay on application made under Section 18 of that Act.2. It relates to an … cases it appears Mr. Engle has omitted seven persons on Rs. 25-5-9: 26-3-3: 27-11-6: 26-13-9: 29-4-0: 27-3-0: 28-2-9 : respectively. On comparing Ex. 31 with