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 … the concession is granted to the said company for a period of 35 years commencing from the appointed date during which the said company has … 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

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) … For that purpose, the BDA has authority to acquire land by agreement with the land owners as per Section 35 of the said Act or the State Government could transfer land to the BDA belonging to it or

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 … on Appellant as Respondents were compelled to oppose the amendment application before different Courts - Appeal dismissed - Section 35: [Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Parameters to be taken into consideration in imposing costs are -- For … 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

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)

amount other than advance tax is required to be paid under notice of demand, if not paid within 35 days or within the extended period, as the case may be, the assessee is deemed to be in … 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),

A. Rama Rao Vs. Martha Sequeira and anr.

Court : Chennai

Subject : Civil

Reported in : (1919)37MLJ224

App Cas 455, London and Brighton Railway Company v. Truman (1886) 11 App Cas 45, West v. Bristol Tramways Company (1908) 2 KB 14 and Westminster Corporation v. London and North Western Railway (1905) App Cas 426. … Mr. Sitarama Rao drew our attention to Section 264(a) which contains the penal clause. He also referred to Section 35 which enables the Governor-in-Council to suspend the operations of the resolutions passed under the Act if the execution

Mervanji Mancherji Cama Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Counci ...

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Property

Reported in : (1912)14BOMLR654

in which the representation was made or claims under some person so concerned: see Longman v. Bath Electric Tramways, Limited (1905) 1 Ch. 646. The plaintiffs do not claim under the Bank by whom Gostling was employed … footing as it was in England by 13 & 14 Vict. c. 35, Section 44, and 15 & 16 Vict. c. 86, Section 50. And … three certified extracts from rent rolls kept in pretended compliance with the provisions of Section 39 of Bombay Act II of 1876 and from a notice from the Collector, dated the 19th of January 1889, issued under

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 … to keep control and check on the vehicles. Legislative power under Entry 35 of List III (Concurrent List) does not bar such a provision. But … 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

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.

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