Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: konkan passenger ships acquisition act 1973 chapter i preliminary Court: madhya pradesh Page 1 of about 2 results (0.106 seconds)

Apr 08 1992 (HC)

Mahendra Arora and anr. Vs. the Transport Commissioner, M.P., Gwalior ...

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Reported in : AIR1993MP29

..... merely determine due exercise of the jurisdiction as contemplated under the act in these matters. in lilawati, air 1957 sc 521, in a case under bombay land acquisition act, the court held that high court's 'special jurisdiction' under article 226 of the constitution empowers it to determine how far the provisions of the statute ..... he submitted. it cannot be assumed, according to learned counsel, that for the entire month ending on the date of checking the vehicle seized actually carried 50 passengers and, therefore, tax was due payable in that regard. on behalf of the respondents shri kelkar contended that department's interpretation of sub-item (g) was ..... it would be difficult to countenance a presumption that in the absence of a permit and a declaration on all the preceding dates during the month more passengers than were found carried on the date of checking had been actually carried. it would accord peacefully and harmoniously with the legislative intent underlying the special provision .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 12 2005 (HC)

Municipality Vs. Gas Authority of India Limited and ors.

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Reported in : AIR2006MP17; 2006(1)MPHT276; 2005(3)MPLJ530

S.S. Jha, J.1. Since in both these appeals common question of law arise and they are decided by common judgment by the Trial Court, they are heard and decided together.2. In First Appeal No. 175/95 respondent No. 1 Gas Authority of India Limited (hereinafter, referred to as 'GAIL') filed a civil suit and, in First Appeal No. 1/96 respondent No. 1 National Fertilizers Limited (hereinafter, referred to as 'NFL') filed a civil suit in the Court in District Judge, Guna for declaration and perpetual injunction. Prayer in the suit filed by the GAIL was that the defendants 2 and 3, i.e., Director, Town and Country Planning and Joint Director, Town and Country Planning have no jurisdiction to permit defendant No. 4 Chief Executive Officer, Special Area Development Authority, Raghogarh to recover the external development fees. It is further prayed that the defendant N. 6 Tehsildar, Tehsil Raghogarh, District Guna has no jurisdiction to recover the said fee from the plaintiff which is a Governme...

Tag this Judgment!


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