Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: bihar and uttar pradesh alteration of boundaries act 1968 section 14 arrears of taxes Page 2 of about 322 results (0.206 seconds)

Cottage Industries Exposition Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) a ...

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 2007(122)ECC7; 2007(148)LC7(Delhi); 2009(235)ELT60(Del)

..... a resolution in pursuance of article 252 of the constitution empowering parliament to pass the necessary legislation on the subject. the legislatures of the states of andhra pradesh, bihar, gujarat, haryana, himachal pradesh, madhya pradesh, manipur, punjab, rajasthan, uttar pradesh and west bengal have passed such resolutions. 4. the bill seeks to- (a) constitute a wild life advisory board for each state;(b) regulate hunting of .....

Pradeep Chaudhary and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : JT2009(12)SC269; 2009(7)SCALE12; (2009)12SCC248

..... additional solicitor general appearing on behalf of the union of india, on the other hand, took us through the discussions which took place in the uttar pradesh state legislative assembly to contend that from a perusal thereof, it would appear that a thourough discussion had taken place with regard to inclusion of the ..... that for making such territorial adjustments it is not necessary even to invoke the provisions governing constitutional amendments. 18. the legislature of the state of uttar pradesh cannot be said to have been wholly unaware of the question as to whether the district of haridwar was to be included in the proposed ..... several writ petitions were filed before this court and several other writ applications involving similar questions were filed before different high courts questioning similar provisions of bihar state reorganization act whereby also some districts were included in the new state, transfer applications having been moved, the said writ petitions were withdrawn from .....

Monnet Ispat and Energy Ltd. Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

..... he relied upon two judgments to explain the import of the doctrine of promissory estoppel, namely m/s motilal padampat sugar mills co. ltd. vs. state of uttar pradesh reported in 1979 (2) scc 409 and state of punjab vs. nestle india ltd. reported in 2004 (6) scc 465. he canvassed the contempt petition moved ..... orissa cement limitedf was concerned with the validity of the levy of a cess based on the royalty derived from mining lands by states of bihar, orissa and madhya pradesh. the case of the petitioners therein was that similar levy had been struck down by a seven-judge bench of this court in india cement ..... . commissioner, singhbhum/dy. director of mines, 2, college road, circuit house area, jamshedpur 7/ district mining officer, singhbhum, chaibasa/director, mines, bihar/dy. director of geology, bihar/advisor in geology, bihar for information. sd/- c.p. singh dy. secretary to government8. thereafter, in continuation with the correspondence with the state government, the central ministry of .....

indra Sawhney Etc. Etc Vs. Union of India and Others, Etc. Etc.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1993SC477; [1992]Supp2SCR454; 1992DGLS(soft)768:1992Supp(3)SCC217

..... force. reservations in favour of o.b.cs. are in force in the states of kerala, tamil nadu, karnataka, andhra pradesh, maharashtra, orissa, bihar, gujarat, goa, uttar pradesh, punjab, haryana and himachal pradesh among others. in madhya pradesh, a list of o.b.cs. was prepared on the basis of mahajan commission report but it appears to have been ..... 1) tamil nadu and karnataka had a long history of backward classes movements and various measures for their welfare were taken in a phased manner. in uttar pradesh and bihar such measures did not mark the culmination of a mass movement.(2) in the south 'the forward communities have been divided either by the classification schemes ..... backward classes welfare'. it is a case study of provisions in force in two southern states namely tamil nadu and karnataka and the two northern states, bihar and uttar pradesh. the conclusions drawn from the discussion are stated in para 8.45 in the following words:'in view of the foregoing account, the reasons for much .....

Bombay Environmental Action Group, a Society Registered Under the Soci ...

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 2005(6)BomCR574; (2005)107BOMLR337; (2006)4CompLJ117(Bom)

..... court should avoid embarking on unchartered ocean of public policy. referring to the decision of the hon'ble supreme court in the case of omprakash v. state of uttar pradesh - : air2004sc1896 the learned advocate general has pointed out that the hon'ble supreme court has reiterated its view that the court should be slow to interfere ..... different context, the right to development is also declared as a component of article 21 in cases like samanta v. state of andhra pradesh, and in madhu kishore v. state of bihar.23. the right to development cannot be treated as a mere right to economic betterment or cannot be limited to as a misnomer to ..... . state of keralaii) : [1996]3scr721 state of a.p. v. mcdowell & co.iii) : air1996sc911 khoday distilleries ltd. v. state of karnatakaiv) : air1997sc1511 state of bihar v. bihar distillery ltd.v) : air2002sc322 sharma transport v. government of a.p.129. mr. bhatt, thereafter submitted that being unable to show any direct or manifest arbitrariness in dcr 58 .....

Sooraram Pratap Reddy and ors. Vs. District Collector, Ranga Reddy Dis ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : 2008(6)ALD19(SC); 2008(4)AWC3875(SC); JT2008(9)SC622; RLW2008(4)SC2794; 2008(12)SCALE367; (2008)9SCC552; 2008(6)Supreme402

..... , agree with the conclusion of the high court, though not for the same reasons.(emphasis suppled)116. reference was also made to r.l. arora (i) v. state of uttar pradesh and ors. : [1964]6scr784 . in that case, land was sought to be acquired by the defence department of the government of india for the construction of textile machinery parts factory ..... purpose. in view of the finding that it is a question of expansion of dockyard for defence purpose, it is a public purpose.65. in sharda devi v. state of bihar and anr. : [2003]1scr73 , this court said;the power to acquire by state the land owned by its subjects hails from the right of eminent domain vesting in the ..... public purpose for it benefits a large class of people and not one or two individuals.73. in state of bihar v. kameshwar singh 1952 scr 889, a constitution bench of this court was examining vires of certain provisions of the bihar land reforms act, 1950 and other state laws in the context of article 31 of the constitution (as then .....

Yanala Malleshwari and ors. Vs. Ananthula Sayamma and ors.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : 2006(6)ALT523; 2007(1)CTC97; AIR2007AP57; 2007(2)AIRKarR382(FB)

..... functus officio having no power under section 33 to impound the instrument.the supreme court, while coming to this conclusion, relied on an earlier judgment in government of uttar pradesh v. mohammad amir ahmad khan : [1962]1scr97 . that was a case where the question arose whether the collector had any power to impound an instrument sent to ..... contract act and as such, cannot be registered. it is even against public policy. 'public policy' was defined by supreme court in murli dhar agarwal v. state of uttar pradesh : [1975]1scr575 . in para 28, the supreme court discussed public policy vis-a-vis policy of law. para 28 is reproduced hereunder-28. the expression 'public policy ..... the limitations on the exercise of power of judicial review. a reference may be made to two decisions of the supreme court in this context. in state of bihar v. jain plastics and chemicals limited : air2002sc206 , the law was summarized as under.it is to be reiterated that writ petition under article 226 is not the .....

Abdul Taiyab Abbasbhai Malik and ors. Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and ...

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Reported in : AIR1977MP116; 1977MPLJ227

..... , 1856. (see: laws of non-regulations provinces 1863 by lord g. campbell, judicial commissioner, oudh). in 1925 oudh courts act was passed by the uttar pradesh legislature. the chief court of oudh with one chief justice and four puisne judges was established replacing the judicial commissioner's court. in 1937 by the government of ..... that gwalior bench was given additional jurisdiction regarding sironj sub-division which was part of rajasthan and under the act came into the state of madhya pradesh, and the indore bench was given jurisdiction in respect of the cases arising from the territories comprised in the erstwhile state of bhopal141. it is ..... the high court, while sitting at jabalpur, is competent to exercise jurisdiction in respect of any case arising in any part of the territory of madhya pradesh without any qualification of specification; while the permanent benches at indore and gwalior are competent to exercise jurisdiction only in respect of cases arising within the districts .....

S.P. Gupta Vs. President of India and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1982SC149; 1981Supp(1)SCC87; [1982]2SCR365

..... may 1, 1981 and the second being july 20, 1981. respondent 1, president of india, respondent 3, chief justice of india and respondent 5, governor of uttar pradesh were subsequently dropped and their names from the array of respondents were deleted, this petition stood transferred to this court by the order dated may 1, 1981, and ..... difficult to hold that the transfer was an act of victimisation. one other contention raised in this case is that the chief ministers of tamil nadu and bihar had not been consulted in accordance with a memorandum issued by the government. the question whether there can be any memorandum supplementing the provisions of article 222 ..... union law minister had ascertained the views of the concerned chief ministers, namely, the chief minister of madras, the chief minister of kerala and the chief minister of bihar on 3rd, 4th and 6th january, 1981 respectively, in the matter of the proposed transfers; (10) that the effective decision on the impugned transfer was taken .....

Chamundi Hotel (P) Ltd. and ors. Vs. State and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : ILR1997KAR1573

..... as well as the executive action taken under such law, as it did in state of west bengal v. anwar ali sarkar (d) (supra), dwarka prasad v. state of uttar pradesh, : [1954]1scr803 (m) and dhirendra kumar mondal v. superintendent & remembrancer of legal affaris, 1955-1 scr 2241 : (air 1954 sc 424) (n).a statute may ..... kedarnath bajoria v. state of west bengal : 1953crilj1621 (i) v.m. syed mohamad & co. v. state of andhra, : [1954]1scr1117 (j) and budhan choudhry v. state of bihar (a) (supra). a statute may direct its provisions against one individual person or thing or to several individuals, persons or things but no reasonable basis of classification may appear on ..... through its ruler. the state next complains that, acting beyond the powers given over under the instrument of accession, the dominion of india and the state of bihar are making laws which they have no power to make, having regard to the instrument of accession, and are wrongfully interfering with the administration of the state .....