Cantonize - Judgment Search Results

Cantonment Board,meerut . Vs. Afzal

Court: Supreme Court of India

3867/2019; 3868/2019; 3869/2019; 3870/2019; 3871/2019 JUDGMENT R. Subhash Reddy, J.1. This batch of appeals, is filed by the Cantonment Board, Meerut and others, aggrieved by the common order 1 C.A.Nos.3814 of 19 etc. dated 19.12.2013 passed by

Secunderabad Cantonment Board Vs. M/s B. Ramachandraiah And Sons

Court: Supreme Court of India

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 900-902 OF2021(@ SLP (CIVIL) Nos.27960-62 of 2019) SECUNDERABAD CANTONMENT BOARD …APPELLANT VERSUS M/S B. RAMACHANDRAIAH & SONS …RESPONDENT JUDGMENT R.F. Nariman, J.1.Leave granted. 2.These appeals arise out

Cantonment Board, Meerut and anr. Vs. K.P. Singh and ors.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: JT2010(2)SC130; 2010(2)SCALE68; (2010)2SCC518

entitled to the refund of the amount deposited by them over and above the bid given by them. Cantonment Board, the appellant herein has been directed to dispose of the application made by respondent Nos. 1 and

Secunderabad Cantonment Board, Andhra Circle, Secunderabad Rep. by Exe ...

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: 2004(3)ALT27(SC); JT2003(9)SC316; 2003(10)SCALE33; (2003)12SCC315; (2004)1UPLBEC882

said decision. The controversy revolves around the refusal to sanction the plan submitted by different parties to the Cantonment Board for construction of building over the land in question. The central government raised its claim over the

Ramgarh Cantonment Board and anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: JT2008(3)SC590; 2008(4)SCALE162; (2008)11SCC223; (2008)15VST550(SC); 2008AIRSCW2223

central question which arises for adjudication in this appeal is regarding the power, competence and authority of the Cantonment Board to levy entry tax on vehicles entering into the cantonment area.3. Appellant No. 1, Ramgarh Cantonment Board,

Cantonment Executive Officer and anr. Vs. Vijay D. Wani and ors.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: AIR2008SC2953; 2008(3)ALLMR(SC)433; [2008(119)FLR106]; JT2008(6)SC43; (2009)ILLJ26SC; 2008(6)SCALE633

the High Court of Judicature at Bombay whereby the Division Bench has set aside the resolution of the Cantonment Board, Pune dated 29.10.1991 removing the respondent from service which is completely vitiated on account of the participation

Cantonment Board and Another Vs. Church of North India

Court: Supreme Court of India

Later on, it belonged to the Government of India and it is under the management of the Nasirabad Cantonment which is a cantonment governed under the Cantonment Act, 1924. The case of the appellants is that the

Cantonment Board, Jammu and ors. Vs. Jagat Pal Singh Cheema

Court: Supreme Court of India

filed by the respondent challenging the punishment of removal from service that was imposed on him by the Cantonment Board, Jammu. It may be noticed, at the outset, that the High Court had allowed the Writ Petition

Cantonment Board, Dinapore and Others Vs. Taramani Devi

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: AIR1995SC61; 1992Supp(2)SCC501

question of law arises.4. The respondents herein were granted permission to make additions to their buildings situated in cantonments administered under the Cantonments Act, 1924 by their respective Cantonment Boards on terms and conditions embodied in the

Cantonment Board, Secunderabad Vs. G. Venketram Reddy and Others

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: AIR1995SC1210; 1995(2)SCALE507; (1995)4SCC561; 1995Supp(2)SCC576

established under an Act is, 'any Municipality in the State' within the meaning of Section 60 of the Cantonment Act, 1924 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act').2. It is the answer to this question that would determine the