Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: karnataka repealing and amending act 2002 section 2 definitions Court: rajasthan Page 8 of about 95 results (0.167 seconds)

Kedar Lal and ors. Vs. Lrs. of Ram Dayal

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : RLW2007(4)Raj2848

..... premises has been determined or redetermined by any court under this act or by any authority under any law or order repealed by section 30 before the commencement of the rajasthan premises (control of rent and eviction amendment) ordinance 1975 and the amount of such fair rent or standard rent is the same as would be determinable as ..... under the act of 1950, then the said previously determined or redetermined rent shall not be disturbed. if the fair rent or the standard rent under the old repealed act is the same as would be determinable in new act then that by virtue of that fact only, cannot disturb the previously determined rent, then in that ..... commencement of lis. said judgment was delivered in the matter of rent control act itself tough of karnataka rent control act. the hon'ble apex court held that new rent act is not given retrospective effect and, therefore, also the amended provisions cannot be applied to the pending litigation. yet another judgment of the division bench of this .....

Shree Cement Limited and anr Vs. State of Raj. and ors

Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur

..... in terms of section 6(c) of the general clauses act, 1897, unless a different intention appears the repeal would not affect any right, privilege or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under the repealed enactment. the effect of the amendment in the instant case is the same. the appellants would be entitled to the protection as had accrued to them ..... prior to the amendment in 1997 for the period of 3 years starting from the s.b. civil ..... writ petition no.4790/2009 shree cement ltd. v/s state of rajasthan dtd. 11.10.201191/105date the establishment was set up irrespective of repeal of the provision for protection. such infancy33.that .....

Sanjay Sukhadia Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : RLW2008(4)Raj3188

..... connected therewith. as stated above, in exercise of the powers conferred by section 15 of the act of 1975, the state government framed the rules of 1986 and repealed the earlier framed rules of 1977. under the rules of 1986, for grant of mining leases, the provisions have been made under chapter-ii of the rules of ..... counsel for the petitioners, one was withdrawn by the state government and another is under litigation.19. it will be worthwhile to mention here that an application for amendment of writ petition no. 5894/2005 and several other applications and documents and reply to the applications have been filed by the parties, detailed reference of which is ..... clause (6) of granite policy, 1995. in the granite policy, 1995, there was no reservation for the members of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes and, therefore, by amendment dated 20.2.1996, sub-clause (5) was added providing reservation of 20% of the plots for the members of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes.9. it will be .....

M/S. Vikas Book Ltd and Others Vs. Bank of Baroda, Nehru Place, Jaipur ...

Court : Rajasthan

..... frustrate the provisions of the said act having effect overriding the other laws for the time being in force. the other judgment of karnataka high court relied upon by shri jain, also has no application to the facts of the present case and in view of ..... of gujarat high court in case of naliniben rajnikant patel and ors. vs. rashmikant manubhai amin and ors. i (2011) bc 99 (db), of karnataka high court in case of krishna vs. kedarnath and ors. iii (2006) bc 9 (db), and of andhra pradesh high court in case of ..... hutchison essar south ltd. vs. union bank of india and anr. air 2008 karnataka 14 and of delhi high court in case of vicky kumar rana vs. kamal kumar nangia and ors. air 2010 delhi 210. mr. ..... judgment of gujarat high court in case of dena bank vs. shri sihor nagarik sahakari bank ltd. and ors. air 2008 gujarat 110, of karnataka high court in case of nitco roadways pvt. ltd. and ors. vs. punjab national bank air 2011 kant 27, and in case of .....

Dinesh Bothra Vs. State and Ors

Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur

..... of deepak kumar (supra). we direct secretary, ministry of environment and forest to hold a meeting with the state of rajasthan, himachal pradesh and karnataka to bring complete uniformity in application of the above referred notifications and office memorandums including the notification of 2006. vi. we direct that in the ..... without environmental clearance certificate, obtained from the state level environmental impact assessment authority, upto 09.09.2013, when the notification dated 14.09.2006 was amended by the moef. the respondents will also provide details of the mining leases/quarry licences/short term mining permits, which have been granted for an ..... lip service to the requirements of environmental clearance by the state level environment impact assessment authority, which is constituted by the central government. under the amended rules, there 30 is no role of the state level environment impact assessment authority, which consists of three members including the chairman and member .....

M/S. Laxmi Suiting Vs. State of Raj. and ors

Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur

..... which it (board) has taken necessary actions, which have since been assailed before this court. while referring to the decisions of the delhi high court and the karnataka high court rendered in mahavir singh v/s union of india & ors. (wp(c) no.7302/2009 decided on 6.2.2013) and h.s.neelakantappa ..... the environment (protection) act, 1986; 6. the public liability insurance act, 1991; 7. the biological diversity act, 2002. . a bare perusal of schedule-iii authenticates the amendments introduced in the legislations contained in schedule i of the act pursuant to section 36 thereof. section 33 of the act in no uncertain terms assigns an over- riding effect ..... respect of any action taken or to be taken by the tribunal in such matters. section 34 reserves to the central government the power by notification to amend schedule-i by including therein any other act, enacted by parliament having regard to the objective of environmental protection and conservation of natural resources, or omitting .....

Gotan Lime Stone Khanij Udyog P. Ltd Vs. State and Ors

Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur

..... for justifying their action against the petitioner. it was prayed that the writ petition be allowed. reliance was placed on s.r. venkataraman v. uoi :1979. (2) scc491 state of karnataka & anr. v. all india manufacturers organizations & ors. :2006.4) scc683 anis d. lawande & ors. v. state of goa & ors. :2014.1) scc554 tata engineering & loco motive ..... , , ," 6 t, , , p " the secretary held that the reply of the company was an afterthought and was not satisfactory and therefore, could not be accepted, as a amended reply has been filed by the department in pending wp no.404/2013 and violation of rule 15 of the rules was apparent, the transfer order dated 25.4.2012 ..... the plea raised by the petitioners regarding action being taken by the respondent-state on account of change of government based on judgments in the case of state of karnataka (supra) is concerned, the mere fact that after taking a particular stand in cwp no.404/2013, which it is claimed by the respondents was specifically with .....

Charmesh Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan and Another

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : 2012CrLJ2115

..... singh and others vs. state of punjab (air 1956 sc 541, s. rangarajan vs. p. jagjivan ram and others (1989 ) 2 scc 574, sri c.s.sathya vs. state of karnataka (1994 cr.l.j. 1954) and smt. harsh mendiratta vs. dr. maharaj singh and others (2002 cr.l.j. 1894). it was prayed that the criminal misc. petition filed by .....

Renu Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : 2002(1)WLN97

..... is possible only when the law lays down detailed guidelines in unambiguous and precise terms so as to avoid the danger of misinterpretation of the situation. the amendment of uncertainty is likely to lead to create an undesirable consequence. clarity and precision are, therefore, essential for the guidelines.' the court further observed as under:- ..... vs. state of rajasthan & ors., as the leading case. (2). the instant writ petition has been filed for quashing the notification dated 16.11.1999 making amendment in rule 296 of the rajasthan panchayati raj rules, 1996 (for short, 'the rules, 1996') and other consequential orders; for issuing direction to offer appointment to ..... the rule is permissible only if the amendment is placed before the house of the state legislalure and it is approved by the house. (vide kamla prasad khetan vs. union of india (3); scheduled caste and weaker section welfare association (regd.) & ors. vs. state of karnataka & ors (4); m/s. hanant lal agrawal vs. state of .....

Brij Lal and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : RLW2006(4)Raj3182

N.N. Mathur, J.1. These two appeals arises out of the same occurrence alleged to have taken place in the were hours of 12.11.99 in the field known as Jod Wala Khet on the outskirt of Village Rohisa in which two persons Mohan Singh and Jeewan Singh died and persons from both the factions sustained fire arm injuries. In D.B. Cr. Appeal No. 896/2004 the appellants Brij Lal and Sahib Singh have been convicted of offence under Section 302/34 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-; in default of payment to further undergo six months simple imprisonment and cognate offences by the judgment of the Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Merta dated 28th August, 2004 in F.I.R. Case No. 137/99, Police Station, Thanwala. In D.B. Cr. Appeal No. 185/2005 on the same date the. same trial Judge acquitted the accused respondents of offence under Section 302/34 IPC and allied offences. The State has preferred the appeal against the judgment of acqui...