Bombay Extension Of Laws To Non Scheduled Partially Excluded Areas Act 1954 Maharashtra Preamble The Bombay Extension Of Laws To Non - Judgment Search Results
Home > Cases Phrase: bombay extension of laws to non scheduled partially excluded areas act 1954 maharashtra preamble the bombay extension of laws to non Page 1 of about 144,904 results (0.124 seconds)Umaji Keshao Meshram and ors. Vs. Radhikabai, Widow of Anandrao Banapu ...
Court: Supreme Court of India
Reported in: AIR1986SC1272; (1986)88BOMLR432; 1986(1)SCALE681; 1986Supp(1)SCC401; [1986]1SCR731; 1986(2)LC319(SC)
of Portugal did not realize the value and Potentialities of Bombay, the Portuguese Viceroy of Goa, Don Antonio de Mello de original form.21. Article 230 as originally enacted provided as follows:230. Extension of or exclusion from the jurisdiction of High Courts. -Parliament of the British Parliament to make laws for India. All laws made previously to this statute were called 'Regulations', but laws and practice and to prepare a comprehensive code, expressed in non-technical language, which would as far as possible preserve native Institutions'. Constitution and of any law of the appropriate Legislature. Under Schedule VII to the Constitution, the power to legislate with respect the said clause indicates that except in the 3 cases excluded an appeal lay against the judgment of a single Judge and the people of Free Dadra and Nagar Haveli, the areas of Dadra and Nagar Haveli were integrated with the Union of Gujarat from the appointed day. Section 28(1) of that Act further provided that 'the High Court of Bombay shall become post-Reorganization State of Bombay and thereafter for the State of Maharashtra with the same jurisdiction and powers which it possessed, exercisable Japan. The Preamble to our Constitution contains echoes of the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States of America and
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTUnion of India (Uoi), Union Territory of Pondicherry Represented by th ...
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1994)1MLJ358
the Parliament extending the jurisdiction of the High Court at Bombay to the Union Territory of Goa, Daman and Diu, a be a High Court. Article 241 does not provide for extension of the jurisdiction of any High Court to, or exclude judicial side as is provided under the Constitution and the laws, but it also exercises the administrative control over the judicial extension of the jurisdiction of any High Court to, or exclude the jurisdiction of it from, the Union Territory. It provides means the High Court at Madras. Section 9 of the Act specifically extends the jurisdiction of the High Court to Pondicherry.
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTJoao Azavedo Vicente Paulo Fernandes Vs. Clara Rodrigues
Court: Mumbai
Reported in: 1996(5)BomCR155
to be construed as references to the High Court at Bombay in terms of its section 11. Thus, in the context practice followed by the then Judicial Commissioner's Court before the extension of the jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court to Panaji Act, 1962 which in its section 5 provides that all laws in force immediately before the 'appointed day' (i.e. 20th December, of the Constitution passed on the Appellate Side and the non-satisfaction of which has been reported to the State Government may 35461 was saved by the Goa, Daman and Diu (Administration) Act, 1962 which in its section 5 provides that all laws
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTSudIn M. Sangodcar Vs. State of Goa, Through the Chief Secretary and a ...
Court: Mumbai
Reported in: 1997(1)BomCR165
India read with section 5 of the High Court of Bombay (Extension of Jurisdiction to Goa, Daman and Diu) Act, 1981. or posts to be filled in. On that date admittedly, none of the petitioners were eligible for promotion as they have and it dealt with the question relating how reservations for Scheduled Caste and Backward Classes are to be fixed under Rule rules should have the same range of operation as an Act of Parliament or of the State Legislature. The intent was The State of Maharashtra, the Apex Court was considering the Maharashtra (Senior and Preparation and Revision of Seniority) List for specified
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTShri Sanjay Z. Rane, Vs. Smt. Saibai S. Dubaxi (Since Deceased Through ...
Court: Mumbai
Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR2668
not relevant in the present facts as entire jurisdiction of Bombay High Court is exercisable in Goa. 23. He further states Act when enacted, contained Section 7 which made provision for extension of jurisdiction of Bombay High Court to Goa from the 1962, an Ordinance was promulgated and it continued all Portuguese laws then prevailing even after liberation. This ordinance became an Act to compensation. She did not approach Court for enhancement and non-production or non-proving of these two letters for claiming compensation has proceedings at Exhibit A.W.1/C. Items No. 73 and 74 of Schedule of Partition are relied upon to show that these properties acquired property from them. In view of this, discrepancy in area cannot assist the appellants in their cause in any way. mentioned 1986 Act. It is contended that though the said Act has not come into force in the State of Maharashtra, Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanastus and Ors. reported at AIR 1954 SC 526, it is urged that present appellants have to Goa became independent State. It is further pointed out that Maharashtra State Legislature also amended the provisions of Bombay City Civil
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTCadar Constructions Vs. Tara Tiles
Court: Mumbai
Reported in: AIR1984Bom258; 1984(2)BomCR530; 1984MhLJ603
naturally he delivered that judgment as a Judge of the Bombay High court. In view of the provisions contained in subsection rights and liabilities stand repealed as a result of the extension of corresponding Indian statues to this Union Territory, the periods have already mentioned the various dates on which the different laws relevant for our purposes came into force in this Union litigation. The cause of action leading to the suit was non-payment of the amount due from the defendant to the plaintiff period of limitation different from the period prescribed by the Schedule. The provisions of S. 3 of the Limitation Act. 1963 are local laws if their applicability is confined to specified areas.'Proceeding further. it was stated:--'We therefoer, arrive at the conclusion that offended for all damages caused to him. The cause of action, therefore, in that suit for damages for malicious prosecution arose
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTSyndicate Bank Vs. Mr. Prabha D. Naik and anr. Etc.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Reported in: AIR2001SC1968; II(2001)BC304(SC); [2001]105CompCas385(SC); JT2001(4)SC133; (2001)2MLJ97(SC); 2001(3)SCALE53; (2001)4SCC713; [2001]2SCR714; 2001(2)LC1031(SC); (2001)2UPLBEC1
extended the jurisdiction of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay to the Union Territory of Goa, Daman and Diu from may also note Regulation 12 of 1962 which provides for extension of certain laws mentioned in the schedule to the Regulation Civil Code containing details of multiple laws admittedly, including the laws pertaining to limitation. Probably in order to assess the situation saved thereunder, the period of limitation as prescribed in the schedule to the Act of 1963 would not be applicable. Strong and to the extent to which, they are not expressly excluded by special or local law. In interpreting the said provision and Regulation 12) that both Negotiable Instrument Act and Contract Act together with some other statute have been made applicable to be for a much larger period than the State of Maharashtra - the situation even conceptually cannot be sustained having due
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTShri Ramacustam Purshottam Shirodkar, Indian National, Prematurely Ret ...
Court: Mumbai
Reported in: 2002(6)BomCR766; (2002)3BOMLR942; 2002(4)MhLj50
30th October 1982, on which day a permanent Benchof the Bombay High Court started functioning at Panaji.Consequent to the extension of the Bombay High Court started functioning at Panaji.Consequent to the extension of the jurisdiction, thepetitioner was absorbed with effect from 30th appointed to the post ofTranslator, which was a Group C Non-Gazetted post andwhich is evident from the Schedule II appended to a Group C Non-Gazetted post andwhich is evident from the Schedule II appended to theNotification dated 27th August 1976, which is servant was paid 3 months pay andallowance which he was actually drawing on the date ofhis retirement. Thus, according to us, post when the order ofcompulsory retirement was passed. ByMay 25, 1954 the petitioner had notattained the age of 35 years.'10. Relying Bench of this Court in V.Thankappan v. The State of Maharashtra and another inWrit Petition No. 26 of 1995, wherein the
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTMrs. Arlinda Dias and Mr. Socorro Dias (Mr. Roy Dias, Mrs. Fermila Dia ...
Court: Mumbai
Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR2787; 2009(6)MhLj343
have held that the provisions of the High Court of Bombay (Extension of Jurisdiction to Goa, Daman and Diu) Act, 1981 in its collapse and also collapse of the staircase, caused extensive damage to the buildings constructed by the Society. This Court contends that in these circumstances, reasons for awarding compensation are non-existent and the judgment and decree of the trial Court maintained negligence of the Society, but, was obviously on account of acts of cutting of hill and seepage of water in the issue mandatory notice as contemplated by Section 164 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act and hence the suit filed by them
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTSuryagandhi Vs. Lourduswamy
Court: Chennai
Reported in: AIR2004Mad8; 2003(1)ARBLR234(Madras); (2002)3MLJ788
fact that Parliament by law viz. the High Court at Bombay: (extension of jurisdiction to Goa, Daman and Diu) Act, 1981 to show that there is a novation of contract or extension of the period or the plaintiff has kept the contract of Local Laws) Act, 1994. The said Repeal of Local Laws Act, 1994 received the assent of The President on 3.1.1995 the plaintiff has been put in possession of the entire scheduled mentioned property as part performance even from 12.5.1977 has been on correspondence subsequently with the concerned authorities for having the area declared as an industrial area. But the correspondence does not the High Court of Bombay, to take cognizance of an action being barred by limitation, thus stands negated - conceptually even
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT- << Prev.
- Next >>