Indian Ports Act 1908 Chapter V - Judgment Search Results
Home > Cases Phrase: indian ports act 1908 chapter v Year: 1961 Page 1 of about 329 results (0.869 seconds)The Madras Port Trust Vs. A.M. Safiulla and Co. and anr.
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Oct-26-1961
Reported in : AIR1965Mad133
1908 if the board be appointed by government under the indian ports act to be conservator of the port or of if the board be appointed by government under the indian ports act to be conservator of the port or of any in the court below 18 appeal allowed madras port trust act ii of 1905 section 110 scope of damage of salted appointed under this act or under the indian ports act 1908 if the board be appointed by government under the indian
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTCommissioners for the Port of Calcutta and anr. Vs. Asit Ranjan Majumd ...
Court : Kolkata
Decided on : May-02-1961
Reported in : AIR1962Cal530
our view inconsistent with the calcutta port act and the indian ports act 1889 as a general proposition it also expressly view inconsistent with the calcutta port act and the indian ports act 1889 as a general proposition it also expressly provides the background of the facts necessitating the promulgation of the act of 1948 its object and the preamble but what the by notification under section 5 of the indian ports act 1908 and under section 6 of which the government has power
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTThe Madras Port Trust Vs. A.M. Safiulla and Company, a Partnership Fir ...
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Oct-26-1961
Reported in : (1962)2MLJ29
officer or servant appointed under this act or under the indian ports act 1908 if the board be appointed by government if the board be appointed by government under the indian ports act to be conservator of the port or of any best co 524 which arose under the madras harbour trust act 1886 act ii of 1886 the suit in that case appointed under this act or under the indian ports act 1908 if the board be appointed by government under the indian
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTUnion of India (Uoi) Vs. Wazir Chand and anr.
Court : Himachal Pradesh
Decided on : May-27-1961
Reported in : AIR1962HP24
that the application was barred under article 181 of the indian limitation act the objection prevailed with the trial court and 3 of section 37 of the arbitration act the relevant portion of section 37 reads as below 1 all the provisions as below 1 all the provisions of the indian limitation act 1908 shall apply to arbitrations as they apply to proceedings have been amended and the words code of civil procedure 1908 would have found place after the word application and prior applies they or any of them instead of proceeding under chapter ii may apply to a court having jurisdiction in the
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTThe State Vs. Dalu Maya Ram
Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Apr-21-1961
Reported in : 1962CriLJ343
is to be held that the charge under section 354 indian penal code subsisted and had to be tried the order liable to be tried by himself that he has to act accordingly and this satisfaction has to be for the first and ho proceeded to hold an inquiry as provided in chapter xviii criminal procedure code in the course of inquiry some
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTAta Mohammad Vs. Ghera and anr.
Court : Himachal Pradesh
Decided on : Apr-24-1961
Reported in : AIR1962HP17
the defendant of an offence under the aforesaid chapter of indian penal code while it is not necessary that the offence provided by section 23 of the provincial small cause courts act but if it did not do so and entertained the made in plaint do not contain ingredients of offence under chapter 17 of code of 1860 in view of allegations made
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTUnion of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Maharaja Krishnagarh Mills Ltd. (In ...
Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jan-19-1961
Reported in : AIR1961SC683; [1961]3SCR524
whereby the parties agreed to accept the recommendations of the indian states finance enquiry committee 1948 49 contained in part i of arts 278 and 295 of the constitution the relevant portions of art 278 are as under 278 1 notwithstanding anything ignoring the mandatory requirements of section 37 of the ndps act cannot be sustained hence the matter remitted back to the the state of rajasthan together with the recommendations contained in chapter viii of part ii of the said report by virtue
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTPramatha Nath Taluqdar Vs. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar
Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-21-1961
Reported in : AIR1962SC876; [1962]Supp2SCR297
penal code tresspass to wound religious feelings and s 500 indian penal code defamation it was contended that as the complaint ranjan sarkar was allowed to take photographs of the relevant portions of the documents on this occasion promode ranjan sarkar also 1953 but he discredited it and did not take any action he also considered the evidence relating to the watermark and a larger bench even if rules 1 and 5 in chapter vii may not strictly speaking apply to the present case
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTEechukutty Menon Vs. Agricultural Income-tax, Officer.
Court : Kerala
Decided on : Dec-14-1961
Reported in : [1963]47ITR589(Ker)
the supreme court regarding as to what sections in the indian income tax act are to be considered as charging sections four years for no fault of the petitioner the maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit applies petition is not barred by limitation be dealt with are section 10 and the sections in chapter ix dealing with levy of super tax section 10 is
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTGannon Dunkerley and Co. Vs. Union Carbide (India) Ltd.
Court : Kolkata
Decided on : May-25-1961
Reported in : AIR1962Cal360
be a submission to arbitration within the meaning of the indian arbitration act 1940 and any statutory modification thereof for the act it is to be further noted that in the act of 1940 there is an express provision in section 8 arbitrator clause but if the parties choose to proceed under chapter iii and make an application under section 20 reference can
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT