Indian Tolls Act 1888 Section 1 - Judgment Search Results

The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Bharat Petroleum Corpo ...

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : AIR1993Bom54; (1992)94BOMLR194

the corporation has not contended about the competency of the indian legislature to enact the petroleum act secondly after the constitution accepted then the purpose of section 31 of the petroleum act would also be defeated further even if one goes through prevail over the state act namely bombay municipal corporation act 1888 the petroleum act 1934 read with the notification issued under appeal dismissed bombay municipal corporation act bom iii of 1888 section 394 schedule m part ii items 133 80 petroleum act notification dated 4th may 1950 f by letter dated 13th 17th december 1986 the corporation did not accept the contention of

Shri Ramdas Bhikaji Darade, President, Yeola Municipal Council Vs. the ...

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 2009(3)BomCR695; 2009(4)MhLj436

reason to grant any stay the prayer is accordingly rejected indian evidence act 1872 section 24 v s sirpurkar deepak verma pay taxes due to the council section 51 of the act deals with the election of president section 52 of the section 16 1 1d of the mumbai municipal corporation act 1888 for short mmc act though the phrase has constructed has v state of maharasthra 2003 1 all mr 118 though section 55 a of the act is referred as on facts not the provisions under the act the scheme of section 16 1 1d of mmc act and sections 15 16 of

Hanmantagouda Nagangouda Hiregoudar and the District Local Board Vs. S ...

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : (1940)42BOMLR1123

..... of costs in their favour i make no order as to costs indian registration act xvi of 1908 section 17 civil procedure code act v of 1908 section 47 and sch ii para ..... code a claim to the recovery of dues in respect of toll contracts stands on the same footing as a claim for the recovery ..... 1885 l r 12 indap 171 and radhamadhub holdar v monohur i l r 1888 cal 756 but as to the position regarding sales for the .....

Vyasrao Hanmantrao Vs. Ramchandra Hanmant

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : AIR1945Bom489; (1945)47BOMLR434

l r 1933 mad 688 that article 182 of the indian limitation act does not apply appears to us to be 5 in its application to joint judgment debtors indian limitation act ix of 1908 article 182 expln i clause 5 decree manner he has not exactly specified under the provisions of section 145 of the civil procedure code mr murdeshwar on behalf nagappa chettiar i l r 1933 mad 688 that article 182 of the indian limitation act does not apply appears to

Kiran Anandrao Pawar and Others Vs. Chief General Manager, M/s. IRB Ko ...

Court : Mumbai

comparison of the figures estimated by respondent no 2 and indian road builders a parent company of respondent no 4 the for offences under the act and exhibition of table of tolls and statement of penalties 69 in 1864 there has been project is in violation of section 79 of the said act the corporation should have called for the tenders if this drawn by such vehicles and falling in and covered by section 20 1 a ii and it can also be levied an exception to sub section 1 thereof the sub section 1 is in absolute terms and namely that after the bombay

Sanjay Jaywant Gaikwad and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Oth ...

Court : Mumbai

convicted for the offence punishable under section 255 of the indian penal code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a been committed 1 if a single act or series of acts is of such a nature that it is doubtful which altered to the offence punishable under section 120b read with sections 420 and 468 read with section 511 of the indian sections 236 and 237 of the code of criminal procedure 13 the decision of division bench of this court in the

Emperor Vs. Bal Gangadhar Tilak

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : (1917)19BOMLR211

jinnah has argued that all the criticism directed against the indian civil service generally described as bureaucracy in the speeches cannot 108 seditious matter dissemination of oral speeches indian penal code act xlv of 1800 section 124 a advocacy of home rule my learned brother criminal procedure code act v of 1898 section 108 seditious matter dissemination of oral speeches indian penal code in queen empress v bal gangadhar tilak i l r 1897 bom 112 he has held that disaffection is the equivalent

Gannon Norton Metal Diamond Dies Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax.

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : (1987)61CTR(Bom)25; [1987]163ITR606(Bom)

two main shareholders these were gannon dunkerley co ltd an indian company which held 55 3 of the shareholding and the within the meaning of section 32 of the income tax act 1961 must be construed broadly as a capital asset of of the assessee the two questions referred to us under section 256 1 of the income tax act 1961 are as in cit v tata engineering locomotive co pvt ltd 1980 123itr538 bom in our opinion a detailed reference to the facts

Prakash S/O. Sakharam Mandale Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 1997(2)MhLj75

allowed criminal conviction sections 34 363 366 and 376 of indian penal code 1860 appeal against conviction under sections 366 and either in the case of talk with her or the act of sexual intercourse with her 20 it is equally important date of incident held charges against appellant for offence under sections 366 and 376 must fail the learned counsel for the was more than 14 years and less than 17 to 19 years of age this is what the doctor has stated

Bal Gangadhar Tilak Vs. Emperor

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : AIR1916Bom9; 39Ind.Cas.807

jinnah had argued that all the criticism directed against the indian civil service generally described as bureaucracy in the speeches cannot answer to the charge for the government established by law acts through human agency and admittedly the civil service is its certain cases than an actual prosecution on a charge under section 124a i am unable to follow sital prasad s case it to do those things which it does not do 18 if matters rested here the applicant s defence would in