Skip to content


Indian Ports Act 1908 Chapter V - Judgment Search Results

Home > Cases Phrase: indian ports act 1908 chapter v Page 1 of about 742 results (2.504 seconds)
Mar 24 1998 (HC)

Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Vs. Osprey Underwriting Agencies ...

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 1998(3)ALLMR713; 1998(5)BomCR344; (1998)2BOMLR179

..... order the relevant clauses of the consent terms are reproduced herein below minutes of the indian ports act 1908 section 14 15 admiralty and vice admiralty jurisdiction of high court contract work of salvage ..... be no reason for such a power not to be specified under the provisions of chapter xii of the code in terms of section 41 a police officer may arrest a .....

Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT

Jun 29 2015 (HC)

Goa Foundation Vs. Captain of Ports and Others

Court : Mumbai Goa

that it is the contention of the petitioners that the indian ports act 1908 has been extended and brought into force amendment in fact requires prior written permission of captain of ports for such activities captain of ports granted permission and consent the year 1993 when the petitioners found that some construction activity had started the petitioners learnt about the execution of the misc civil application stands disposed of accordingly indian ports act 1908 section 4 goa daman and diu port rules 1983 rule

Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT

May 14 2009 (SC)

Villianur Iyarkkai Padukappu Maiyam Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : JT2009(8)SC339; (2009)7SCC561; 2009(8)LC3627(SC)

as under 1 scott wilson kirkpatrick india pvt ltd 2 indian ports association new delhi 3 sree eikon constructions chennai 4 1908 sections 4 1 6 1 3 9 8 minor ports jurisdiction to undertake development and privatization of pondicherry port held that in terms of section 5 of the pondicherry administration act 1962 all properties and assets in the state of pondicherry merely naming them as real estate business indian ports act 1908 sections 4 1 6 1 3 9 8 minor ports

Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT

Jan 12 2017 (HC)

M/s. Tungabadra Minerals Private Limited Vs. The Chennai Port Trust Re ...

Court : Chennai

regulation of transport rules 2008 indian contract act section 56 indian ports act 1908 karnataka ports landing and shipping fees act indian contract act section 56 indian ports act 1908 karnataka ports landing and shipping fees act 1961 entitlement to compensation whether ports act 1908 and karnataka ports landing and shipping fees act 1961 karnataka act 20 of 1961 the government hereby prohibits agreement void suit dismissed para 37 code of civil procedure 1908 order vii rule 1 government of karnataka had passed karnataka

Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT

Apr 12 1920 (PC)

Lakshman Gowroji Nakhwa Vs. Ramji Antone Nakhwa

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : AIR1921Bom93; (1921)23BOMLR939

subject to statutory restrictions such as section 30 of the indian ports act 1908 accordingly in general the right will prevail to statutory restrictions such as section 30 of the indian ports act 1908 accordingly in general the right will prevail against prescription lost grant tenancy lease estoppel misrepresentation mistake indian evidence act ix of 1872 section 116 indian contract act ix of restrictions such as section 30 of the indian ports act 1908 accordingly in general the right will prevail against the owner

Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT

Mar 31 2005 (SC)

V.M. Salgaocar and Bros. Vs. Board of Trustees of Port of Mormugao and ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR2005SC4138; 2005(5)BomCR374; JT2005(3)SC607; (2005)140PLR743; (2005)4SCC613

120 of the major port trusts act 1963 in the indian ports act 1908 the period of limitation available to such going vessels as a result of these multifarious functions major ports and their officers are faced and burdened with an explosive act has reasonable nexus to object sought to be achieved act valid 7 80 is illegal arbitrary unreasonable contrary to the the end mr nariman submitted that the indian ports act 1908 was still applicable to various ports including panjim port in

Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT

Nov 13 1998 (HC)

Seaways Shipping Ltd. Having Its Office at Ii Floor, Rahmat Manzil, 51 ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : 1998(3)CTC318

..... counsel points out that section 133 of the major port trusts act 1963 has repealed the indian ports act 1908 as also the madras port trust act 1905 and therefore the regulations thereunder must be ..... world the word operators and stevedores are understood distinctly and separately the paragraph from chapter sixteen of dictionary of shipping terms appointment of agents and stevedores suggests unless .....

Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT

Nov 27 2009 (HC)

Mr. Allan S.F. Falerio Vs. State of Goa Through the Chief Secretary, S ...

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 2010(112)BomLR7

of the said act inter alia further provides that every indian ship when going to sea from any port or place respondent no 2 to hold the office of captain of ports and or enquire directing to vacate the office and remove that he acts in that office a fresh cause of action arises and therefore there can be no question of delay the necessary formalities as prescribed under the indian port act 1908 and other relevant documents as required by the department though

Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT

May 01 1989 (SC)

Mahesh Travels and Tours and anr. Vs. Commissioner of Police and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1989SC1525; JT1989(2)SC476; 1989(1)SCALE1182; 1989Supp(2)SCC303; [1989]2SCR825; 1989(2)LC188(SC)

of powers conferred by section 6 1 k of the indian ports act 1908 6 1 the government may in addition powers conferred by section 6 1 k of the indian ports act 1908 6 1 the government may in addition to the imposition of a roster it is urged that this action is beyond the powers conferred by the indian ports act of bombay passenger boat rules 1962 and indian ports act 1908 whether deputy conservator of bombay port trust and police had

Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT

May 25 2004 (HC)

Shanthi Alloys Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by Its Authorized Signatory, Mr. P. Rav ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : 2004(176)ELT87(Mad); (2004)4MLJ46

transhipment a to any major port as defined in the indian ports act 1908 15 of 1908 or the customs airport 54 55 110 and 111 of customs act 1962 indian ports act 1908 import manifest vessels regulations 1971 and regulations 3 authorities are twisting the provisions under section 54 the customs act and instead of testing the bona fides of the transhipment any major port as defined in the indian ports act 1908 15 of 1908 or the customs airport at mumbai calcutta

Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //