Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: roerich and devikarani roerich estate acquisition and transfer act 1996 section 36 revision Page 1 of about 3 results (0.076 seconds)

K.T. Plantation Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. the State of Karnataka

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : AIR2002Kant365

..... not under the provisions of the acquisition act.re : the roerich & devikarani roerich estate (acquisition & transfer) act, 1996 27. as already noticed above, dr. s. roerich had pre-deceased smt. devika rani roerich. after the death of smt. devika rani roerich, the state legislature felt it essential to acquire the estate by ..... present litigation, the state legislature in order to meet certain objections raised in the present proceedings, regarding workability of the act has passed the roerich and devikarani roerich estate (acquisition and transfer) (amendment) act, 2001 inserting section 19a which provides for disbursement of amount to the owners, transferees and other ..... and reasons were placed before the legislature along with the bill proposing the enactment.statement of objects and reasons 'ever since dr. svetoslav roerich andsmt. devikarani roerich fell ill and were confined to private living in a city hotel, vested interests started damaging the identity of the property comprised in .....

K.T. Plantation Private Limited and anr. Vs. State of Karnataka

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : 2002(6)KarLJ27

..... present litigation, the state legislature in order to meet certain objections raised in the present proceedings, regarding workability of the act has passed the roerich and devikarani roerich estate (acquisition and transfer (amendment) act, 2001 inserting section 19-a which provides for disbursement of amount to the owners, transferees and ..... and reasons were placed before the legislature along with the bill proposing the enactment:'statement of objects and reasonsever since dr. svetoslav roerich and smt. devikarani roerich fell ill and were confined to private living in a city hotel, vested interests started damaging the identity of the property comprised ..... not under the provisions of the acquisition act.27. re: the roerich and devikarani roerich estate (acquisition and transfer) act, 1996.--as already noticed above, dr. s. roerich had pre-deceased smt. devikarani roerich. after the death of smt. devikarani roerich, the state legislature felt it essential to acquire the estate by bringing .....

Shayara Bano Vs. Union of India and Ors. Ministry of Women and Child D ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

..... legal rights and liabilities. 50. a subsequent constitution bench in k.t. plantation (p) ltd. v. state of karnataka, (2011) 9 scc1 dealt with the constitutional validity of the roerich and devikarani roerich estate (acquisition and transfer) act, 1996, the legal validity of section 110 of the karnataka land reforms act, 1961, notification no.rd217lra93dated 8-3-1994 issued by the state government .....

Mrs Mary Joyce Poonacha Vs. M/s K T Plantations Pvt Ltd

Court : Karnataka

..... , the suit of the plaintiff stand decreed as prayed for. it is declared that, the sale deed dated; 16.2.1992 executed by 1st defendant madam devikarani roerich in favour of the plaintiff company is valid and binding on her. the defendants are restrained from transferring the suit schedule property to any trust, society or ..... manager state bank of mysore, pw5-satyanarayana, manager, syndicate 47 bank have deposed regarding honouring of the cheques and transferring the amount to the account of mme devikarani roerich. thus, these two witnesses speak regarding honouring of the cheques.46. further the next formality that was due was, execution of the registered sale deed and it ..... , the suit of the plaintiff stands decreed as prayed for. it is declared that the sale deed dated 16-2-1992 executed by 1st defendant madam devikarani roerich in favour of the plaintiff company is valid and binding on her. the defendants are restrained form transferring the sit schedule property to any trust, society or .....

Smt Ismailbee Vs. Mehtab Saheb

Court : Karnataka Kalaburagi

..... for the purpose of proving an important clause would not be using it as a collateral purpose.38. the learned single judge of this court in the case of mme. devikarani roerich and another v. m/s. k.t.plantations private limited, bangalore and another, reported in 1993 (4) kar. l.j.742 considered the effect of a document required to be .....