Court : Supreme Court of India
..... being made to develop this land way back from 1984 and in the year 1999 as already noted hereinbefore reflected from the minutes of the third meeting held on 21.12.1999, the standing committee on infrastructure development (scid) agreed that the jaipur municipal corporation must own the project to develop this land and the bids were invited in the year 2000-01 with regard to the development of the land. ..... the empowered committee of infrastructure development ( ecid ), a high powered committee headed by chief secretary, formerly known as scid, directed secretary, udh to finalize key commercial terms for selection of psd. ..... the sequence of events and the historical background related herein before that the jal mahal tourism infrastructure project was conceived and approval was given by the standing committee on infrastructure development (for short scid ) for the first time in its third meeting held on 21.12.1999. ..... the pil petitioner/respondent herein had further averred that jal mahal tourism infrastructure project was conceived and approval was given by the standing committee on infrastructure development (for short scid ) in its 3rd meeting held on 21.12.1999. ..... the preliminary approval was given by the standing committee on infrastructure development ( for short scid ) in december 1999. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
..... deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=6&did;=110. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
..... org/article.php?scid=45&did;=481. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai Madurai
..... example for immunodeficiency diseases are scid and aids. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1988(1)SC259; 1988Supp(1)SCC573
1. the question before the court as to whether for the purpose c ascertaining the market value, date c issue of the notification under section 16 of the city of bangalore improvement act, 1945 (bangalore act) is the relevant date for the purpose c valuation or whether the date of issue of the notification under section 18 of the said act is the material date for this purpose. this court has taken the view that the date of issuance of the notification under section 16 of the said act would be the relevant date for the purpose of determining the marks value of the land in question having regard to the fact that section 16 can be equated to section 4(1) of the lal acquisition act in the land acquisition officer, city improvement trust boar bangalore v. h. narayanaiah etc. el reported in a.i.r. 1976 s.c. 2402. since the point is covered in favour the appellant by the aforesaid decision, we allow the appeal, aside the judgment and order of the karnataka high court and remit to matter to the high court with the direction to decide the matter afresh on evidence on record, so as to determine the market value of the land under acquisition as on the date of. the publication of the notification under section 16 of the bangalore act. there will be no order as to costs.
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1972Kant203; AIR1972Mys203; (1972)1MysLJ186
order1. the petitioner was granted a licence by the commissioner of the municipal corporation of the city of bangalore for constructing a building at the junction of two roads one of which abuts the area called patcl circle. the petitioner on the strength of the licence commenced construction work. when the work had progressed to a considerable extent he was served with an order of the commissioner of the corporation dated 27th october 1971, stating that the licence already granted to him is withdrawn and directing that further construction should be stopped.2. the petitioner assails the validity of the said order.3. the main contention raised by the petitioner is that once a licence is issued under the city of bangalore municipal corporation act it is not capable of being withdrawn or cancelled for the reason that there is no provision anywhere in the statute empowering such withdrawal or cancellation.4. that there is no specific provision of the statute empowering a withdrawal of the licence of the nature concerned in this case is not disputed nor is disputable. there is power for cancellation in the event of any breach of any of the conditions of the licence vide sub-section (4) of section 385 of the act. there is under section 248, power to refuse a licence for reasons which are set out therein, which exclude the power to refuse a licence on any other grounds. under section 248-a a special power is conferred on the commissioner to refuse permission to construct a building .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1968Kant38; AIR1968Mys38; (1967)1MysLJ87
order(1) these petitions filed under section 115 of the code of civil procedure are directed against the common order passed by the district judge, bangalore under section 413 of the city of bangalore municipal corporation act,1949 (hereinafter called the act). when they came up for admission before govinda bhat j., his lordship felt that the question of their maintainability should first be decided and accordingly ordered a notice to be issued to the respondent. the question of maintainability depends upon whether the impugned order was passed by the district court or by the district judge as persona designata.(2) the petitioners who are occupants of different shops belonging to the respondent corporation were served with notices demanding monthly fee of rs. 80 from two petitioners occupying corner shops with rs. 75 per month from the rest. these demands were made with effect from 1-6-1962. they filed various petitions (miscellaneous cases nos.148to169of1963 and164of1964) under section 412 of the act contending that the enhanced claim from rs.45 to rs.80 and from rs.40 to rs.75 respectively was exorbitant. the district judge came to the conclusion that the rate of rs.40 and rs.45 had been fixed in 1953 and that the revised fees fixed after 1962 were reasonable. he accordingly dismissed the petitions with costs.(3) in these revision petitions the petitioners attack the correctness of the order on various grounds. the sole question at this stage for determination, is whether .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC626; (1981)83BOMLR536; [1981(43)FLR78]; 1984LabIC179; (1981)IILLJ6SC; 1981(1)SCALE503; (1981)2SCC714; [1981]3SCR22; 1981(13)LC316(SC)
1. this appeal by special leave is directed against an order of the high court of bombay of 2/3rd october, 1979 by which an order passed suspending the two respondents was quashed on the ground that the order of suspension pending a departmental inquiry was passed by the municipal commissioner who was not competent to suspend the respondents pending a departmental inquiry. (j the high court was of the view that under the rules and bye-laws of the city of nagpur corporation act, 1948 (her respendentsreferred to as the 'act') as amended upto date, the competent authority to pass orders of suspension against the respondents was the corporation itself and not the chief executive officer. it appears that originally the order of suspension was passed by the municipal commissioner on the 23rd september, 1974 which was confirmed by the corporation by its order dated 23rd september, 1974. it is alleged by the respondents that latter order was not communicated to them. the suspension was ordered in connection with a departmental inquiry relating to two accidents which occurred during the construction of a stadium called the yeshwant stadium, which was being looked after by the respondents and which resulted in the death of seven persons and injuries to eight others. a complaint was also tiled before the police as a result of which a charge-sheet under section 304-a i.p.c. was filed against the respondents, on the 25th september, 1976. in view of the charge-sheet submitted by the police .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1968Kant251; AIR1968Mys251
(1) the petitioner is a manufacturer of soaps. in this petition under article 226 of the constitution, he has challenged the orders of the authorities of the bangalore city municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as the 'corporation') refusing him licence to carry on manufacture of soaps in the premises in which he has been so doing.(2) most of the material facts are not in dispute. the petitioner has been carrying on the manufacture of soaps in a shed in the compound of premises no. 20. iii block, jayanagar in bangalore, jayanagar extention was formed by the bangalore city improvement trust board and was outside limits of the corporation. the petitioner has been residing in the main premises which has been taken on lease. he has obtained the consent of the landlord to carry on manufacture of soaps in that land.(3) for the first time the petitioner made an application to the commissioner of the corporation, respondent-1 on 29-1-1964 for the grant of a licence for manufacture of soaps. on 16-4-1964 on endorsement signed by the health officer of the corporation for the commissioner was issued to him intimating that licence had been refused. he sent another petition to the commissioner on 4-5-1964 contending that his application for licence had not been considered by the commissioner and the same might be disposed of on merits. as no reply was received from the commissioner, he filed an appeal to the standing committee (health) on the corporation against the order .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2005(3)BomCR1; 2005(2)MhLj921
shah a.p., j. 1. this is a petition filed under article 226 of the constitution in which the petitioners challenge the constitutional validity of the shree siddhi vinayak ganpati temple trust (prabhadevi) act, 1980 (maharashtra act no. vi of 1981), hereinafter for brevity's sake called 'the act'. the petitioners are descendants of one sunder laxman patil who was the founder of shree siddhi vinayak ganpati temple, prabhadevi, mumbai. their main contention is that the act violates the fundamental rights guaranteed under articles 25 and 26 of the constitution to manage their own affairs in the matters of religion. it is also contended that the act suffers from vice of arbitrariness and unreasonableness and violates article 14 of the constitution. the respondents to this petition are, firstly, shree siddhi vinayak ganpati temple trust, a public trust deemed to have been constituted under the act and the executive officer of the management committee of the said trust. the state of maharashtra, which exercises over all control over the first and second respondent is impleaded as third respondent. the fourth respondent is the official trustee who was the sole trustee of the temple by virtue of the order passed in suit no. 217 of 1932. the official trustee has handed over the possession of temple and its properties to the management committee constituted under the act. the petition has been contested by the respondents on the ground that the act does not, in any way, violate the .....
Tag this Judgment!