Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 583 (3.68 seconds)
Documents citing M/S. Girnar Traders vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 11 January, 2011

Rambhau Mahadeorao Tembhurkar (Dead) ... vs State Of Maharashtra Through The ... on 12 August, 2015

For the reasons recorded in the judgment in the case of Girnar Traders (3) v. State of Maharashtra (supra), though it would be necessary to hold that the provisions of Section 34 of the MID Act make a reference to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act by incorporation, it would be further necessary to hold by following the ratio laid down in paragraph 191 of the said judgment that the provisions of Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act would apply to the acquisitions under the MID Act or else, they would suffer from the vice of discrimination, as they relate to legal remedy and payment of compensation. It would not be necessary for this Court to consider in this case, whether every compensatory provision could be held to apply to the acquisitions under the provisions of the MID Act. Suffice it to hold that the compensatory provisions of Section 28-A, if not read in the provisions of MID Act, would render the provisions of the MID Act vulnerable, as being arbitrary and discriminatory.
Bombay High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 1 - V A Naik - Full Document

Pandurang S/O Maroti Pund And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 12 August, 2015

For the reasons recorded in the judgment in the case of Girnar Traders (3) v. State of Maharashtra (supra), though it would be necessary to hold that the provisions of Section 34 of the MID Act make a reference to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act by incorporation, it would be further necessary to hold by following the ratio laid down in paragraph 191 of the said judgment that the provisions of Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act would apply to the acquisitions under the MID Act or else, they would suffer from the vice of discrimination, as they relate to legal remedy and payment of compensation. It would not be necessary for this Court to consider in this case, whether every compensatory provision could be held to apply to the acquisitions under the provisions of the MID Act. Suffice it to hold that the compensatory provisions of Section 28-A, if not read in the provisions of MID Act, would render the provisions of the MID Act vulnerable, as being arbitrary and discriminatory.
Bombay High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - V A Naik - Full Document

Balak Jaganrao Bhagat And 5 Others vs State Of Maharashtra, Through Its ... on 12 August, 2015

For the reasons recorded in the judgment in the case of Girnar Traders (3) v. State of Maharashtra (supra), though it would be necessary to hold that the provisions of Section 34 of the MID Act make a reference to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act by incorporation, it would be further necessary to hold by following the ratio laid down in paragraph 191 of the said judgment that the provisions of Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act would apply to the acquisitions under the MID Act or else, they would suffer from the vice of discrimination, as they relate to legal remedy and payment of compensation. It would not be necessary for this Court to consider in this case, whether every compensatory provision could be held to apply to the acquisitions under the provisions of the MID Act. Suffice it to hold that the compensatory provisions of Section 28-A, if not read in the provisions of MID Act, would render the provisions of the MID Act vulnerable, as being arbitrary and discriminatory.
Bombay High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - V A Naik - Full Document

Chetan @ Chanbassappa Sadashiv Bolkote ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. Principal ... on 27 February, 2024

18. In the present case, the Respondents have not denied the stated facts. It is apparent that almost 20 years have lapsed since the reservation was sanctioned. As held in Girnar Traders (3) (supra), an owner cannot be deprived of his rights to the property after the statutory period has expired. In the present case too, it is admitted that no steps were taken to acquire the land as contemplated under Section 126 of the MRTP Act.
Bombay High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - G S Patel - Full Document

Mrugee Traders And Develpers vs Bhavnagar Area Development Authority & on 9 February, 2016

Section 127 of the MRTP Act, which fell for consideration before the three Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Shrirampur Municipal Council, Shrirampur v. Satyabhamabai Bhimaji Dawkher & Ors. wherein the contention of the appellant that the majority judgment in the case of Girnar Traders (2) v. State of Maharashtra3 need to be considered by larger Bench as the same is contrary to Section 127 and Municipal Corpn. Of Greater Bombay v. Hakimwadi Tenants' Asson.4 case, was rejected. The Court opined that the same is not contrary to Section 127 of the MRTP Act and further held that there is no conflict between the judgments of the two-Judge Bench in Hakimwadi Tenants' Asson.
Gujarat High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 1 - R M Chhaya - Full Document

Mrugee Traders And Develpers vs Bhavnagar Area Development Authority & on 10 February, 2016

Section 127 of the MRTP Act, which fell for consideration before the three Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Shrirampur Municipal Council, Shrirampur v. Satyabhamabai Bhimaji Dawkher & Ors. wherein the contention of the appellant that the majority judgment in the case of Girnar Traders (2) v. State of Maharashtra3 need to be considered by larger Bench as the same is contrary to Section 127 and Municipal Corpn. Of Greater Bombay v. Hakimwadi Tenants' Asson.4 case, was rejected. The Court opined that the same is not contrary to Section 127 of the MRTP Act and further held that there is no conflict between the judgments of the two-Judge Bench in Hakimwadi Tenants' Asson.
Gujarat High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - R M Chhaya - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next