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 … for commercial operation shortly. The said company requested the Central Government to constitute the Fare fixation Committee under Section 34 of the said Act of 2002 for the purpose of recommending the fare for the carriage of passengers

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 … 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 suit

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) … Others [(2019) 9 SCC 304].6. National Highways Authority, aggrieved by the aforementioned Award dated 30.1.2018 preferred objection under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The contentions of National Highways Authority before the Objecting Court are as under:1.

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) … BDA has authority to acquire land by agreement with the land - 34 - owners as per Section 35 of the said Act or the … 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’,

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)

demanded; claimed as of right; owing and unpaid, remaining unpaid; payable...'. Learned author also cites Ex parte Cawley, 34 SJ 29, wherein it was held :'A debt is still 'due' notwithstanding that the Statute of Limitations may … 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),

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 … 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 … to the state government to exempt the balance excess vacant land admeasuring 3444 square metres and the same was permitted by the state government vide

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 … Single Judge of the High Court has grossly erred in holding that, in view of the Companies (Amendment) Act, 2017 (which came into effect from 7th May 2018), only the offences committed under the Companies 5 Act … and Bankruptcy Board of India (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Appellant-Board’) under Section 236 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as … see the cases collected in Craies on Statute Law, 3rd Edn. pp. 349-50. This doctrine finds expression in a common-form section which regularly appears in

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 … TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 3 ABDUL NAZER. K.M., S/O. LATE SALI HAJEE, AGED 34 YEARS, BEKAL KUNNEL, PALLIKKARA VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 4 MUHAMMED SHAFEEQUE. … 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

Vasudev Devnath Pandya Vs. Karsan Kamshi Bharwad

Court : Gujarat

Subject : Civil

Acts : Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Order 6, Rule 17 - Order 21, Rules 98, 99 and 103

Reported in : AIR1963Guj153; (1963)0GLR172

393, Clarapede and Co. v. Commercial Union Association, (1883) 32 W. Rule 261 and Steward v. North Metropolitan Tramways Co. (1886) 16 Q. B. D. 556; but I refrain from citing further authorities, as, in my opinion, … Calcutta High Court in Sarat Chandra Bisu v. Tarini Prosad Pal Chowdry, 34 Cal 491;' That was a suit governed by the Code of Civil … the suit filed by the plaintiff against -the defendant was not governed by Article IIA of the Limitation Act which applied to a suit under Order 21, Rule 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The application … both by limitation as well at by virtue of the provisions of Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. According to him, the proper

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.