Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: konkan passenger ships acquisition act 1973 section 14 penalties Sorted by: recent Year: 1988 Page 1 of about 40 results (1.084 seconds)

Ramesh Chander and anr. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation

Court : Delhi

Reported in : [1989(58)FLR731]; ILR1988Delhi467

..... .d. act) list some industries which may be declared to be pubic utility service under sub-clause (vi) or clause (n) of section 2 and transport for the carriage of passengers by land or water) has been included in the said list of industries which may be declared to be public utility service as in the aforesaid first schedule. the d .....

Oswal Spinning and Weaving Mills Vs. Collector of Customs and Calcutta

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in : (1989)(21)LC125Tri(Delhi)

..... or corresponding benefit. he also cited the case of revenue divisional officer, guntur v. vasireddy wherein mode of calculation of interest under section 28 of the land acquisition act was stated. on the same analogy shri agarwal contended that the appellants are also entitled for the expenses incurred in contesting the confiscation proceedings and also ..... glive warehouse and a copy of letter dated 11.10.1966 written by under secretary to the government of india, ministry of transport & aviation. department of transport and shipping alongwith its annexures addressed to the chairman, calcutta port commissioners, calcutta. it is significant to note that despite the several opportunities the respondent no. 1 i.e. ..... v. governor-general of india air 1949 cal 591 while dealing with the liability of a bailee under section 161 held that where a passenger deposits his luggage in the clock room of a railway, and the luggage is lost, then, in the absence of any conditions limiting the liability, the .....

i.T.C. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : 1991(53)ELT234(Cal)

Suhas Chandra Sen, J.1. This case arises out of a show cause notice being F. No. 574/CE/3/87 dated 27th March 1987 issued by the Directorate of Anti-Evasion (Central Excise). A writ petition challenging the aforesaid notice was moved before Bhagawati Prasad Banerjee J. On 18th August, 1987 an interim order was passed by Bhagawati Prasad Banerjee J. to the effect that the respondents were allowed to proceed pursuant to the aforesaid show cause notice. It was further directed that the petitioner would be at liberty to submit their reply to the show cause notice without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the petitioner in the writ petition. The respondents were given liberty to conclude the proceedings and pass a final order on the proceedings. But the respondents were directed not to give any effect to or act upon or communicate the final order to the petitioner without leave of the Court.2. The writ petition came up for hearing before Bhagabati Prasad Banerjee J. On 14th August,...

Border Security Force (B.S.F.) Vs. State of Meghalaya and ors.

Court : Guwahati

A. Raghuvir, C.J. 1. Baghmara is the Head Quarter of a Revenue Sub-Division in West Garo Hills of Meghalaya State. This town is on the Bangladesh border and is situate between International border pillars 1143 and 1158. The town is divided by a P. W.D. Road Along the two sides of the highway there is a bazar. Near the bazar there is Police Station, a Primary School building and residential quarter of the Sub-Divisional Officer. The inhabitants of the town speak more than one language and follow different customs and celebrate festivals in their day to day life. 2. On April 14,1987 the Rishi Community of the town were celebrating Charak Puja in the Primary School building. The establishment apprehended disturbance to peace and tranquillity in the town therefore alerted the law enforcement agencies. The Sub-divisional Officer who is also an Executive Magistrate was present in the town. The incharge officer of the Police Station was at the Thana. The Deputy Superintendent of Police arri...

Drupad Kumar Barua Vs. Assam State Trans. Corpn. and ors.

Court : Guwahati

..... different damages to the same plaintiff. as an illustration of the first, reference has been made to the case of drinkwater v. kimber, (1952) 2 kb 281, where a passenger in a motor car was injured in a collision between that car and another. morris, lj. said that the two drivers both of whom were negligent were separate tortfeasors whose ..... shares in the commission of the tort are done in furtherance of a common design. reference was made to brooke v. bool (1928) 2 kb 578. but where two ships collided with each other because of the independent acts of negligence of each of them, which were the facts in kurask (1924), p. 140, and one of them then ..... without further negligence collided with a third. it was held that owner of the third ship had independent cause of action against the two negligent ships.19. the law relating to joint tortfeasors may thus be explained by stating that except in case of agency or vicarious liability or imposition of joint .....

Drupad Kumar Barua Vs. the Assam State Transport Corporation and ors.

Court : Guwahati

..... different damages to the same plaintiff. an illustration of the first, reference has been made to the case of drink water v. kimber (1952) 2 kb 281 where a passenger in a motorcar was injured in a collision between that car and another. morris, l.j said that the two drivers both of whom were negligent were separate tortfeasors whose ..... when their separate shares in the commission of the tort are done in furtherance of a common design. reference was made to brooke v. bool (supra). but where two ships collided with each other because of the independent acts of negligence of each of them, which were the facts in kurask (1924) p. 140, and one of them then ..... without further negligence collided with a third. it was held that owner of the third ship had independent cause of action against the two negligent ships.19. the law relating to joint tortfeasors may thus be explained by stating that except in case of agency, or vicarious liability or imposition of .....

Anand Sarup Sharma Vs. P.P. Khurana and Others

Court : Delhi

Reported in : AIR1989Delhi88; [1989]65CompCas413(Delhi); 1989(16)DRJ27; 1988RLR693

..... 94 of the act, on which reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the appellant, simply prohibits the use of a motor vehicle by any person, except as a passenger, unless it was insured as required in chapter viii which deals with insurance of motor vehicle against third party risks. these provisions, in our considered judgment, do not make the ..... motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place or in any other place for the purpose of carrying passengers or goods unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with this chapter and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries .....

Anand Sarup Sharma Vs. P.P. Khurana and ors.

Court : Delhi

Reported in : I(1990)ACC155

..... ? section 94 of the act, on which reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the appellant, simply prohibits the use of a motor vehicle by any person, except a passenger, unless it was insured as required in chapter viii which deals with insurance of motor vehicle against third party risk. these provisions, in our considered judgment, do not make the ..... and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place for the purpose of carrying passengers or goods unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with this chapter and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries .....

Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd. Vs. Proprietors of Indian Express Newspap ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1989SC190; (1988)90BOMLR459; [1989]66CompCas577(SC); (1988)3CompLJ179(SC); JT1988(3)SC749; 1988(2)SCALE748; (1988)4SCC592; [1988]Supp3SCR212

Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. 1. At this stage, we are concerned with the question whether there is need for the continuance of the Order of injunction passed by this Court on 25th August, 1988. In order to appreciate the question it is necessary to state a few facts. A petition was moved before this Court on 19th August, 1988 under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for initiation of contempt proceedings against the proprietors of Indian Express Newspapers Bombay Pvt. Ltd., Shri Arun Shourie, Indian Express Newspapers Bombay Pvt. Ltd., Shri Hari Jaisingh, Resident Editor, Indian Express Newspapers Bombay Pvt. Ltd., Shri A.C. Saxena, News Editor, Indian Express Newspaper Pvt. Ltd., Delhi, Shri H.K. Dua, Chief, New Delhi Bureau, Indian Express Newspaper Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, and Shri V. Ranganathan, Indian Express Bombay Pvt. Ltd. The petition was moved on behalf of Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd. (hereinafter called 'Reliance Petrochemicals'). It was stated therein that this Court should take cog...

Harish Dwarkadas Gandhi Vs. G.B. Yadav and Another

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 1988(3)BomCR331; 1988(18)ECC287

ORDER1. While dealing with this petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution read with S. 482, Criminal P.C., 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') for quashing of process issued by the learned Chief Matropolitan Magistrate, Bombay, in Criminal Case No. 472/CW/1988, at the admission stage, I am reminded of the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Champalal Punjaji Shah, : 1981CriLJ1273 as under :'It is one of the sad and distressing features of our criminal justice system that an accused person, resolutely minded to delay the day of reckoning, may quite conveniently and comfortably do so, if he can but afford the cost involved, by journeying back and forth, between the Court of first instance and the superior Courts, at frequent interlocutory stages. Applications abound to quash investigations, complaints and charges on all imaginable grounds, depending on the ingenuity of client and counsel. Not frequently, as soon as a court takes cogniz...