Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.74 seconds)
Documents citing Shankar Narayan Ranade vs Union Of India on 8 February, 1963

Mula Maheswara Rao vs The State Of A.P. on 18 August, 2021

The act of the respondents obstructing the irrigation canal dug from sluice under Ayacut would seriously infringe the right of the petitioners and such right to draw water is protected under Section 24 of the Revenue Act and Section 2 of the Land Encroachment Act. Hence, by applying the principle laid down in the above judgment, the act of the respondents obstructing canal to irrigate the lands of the petitioners is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the judgments (referred supra) and the MSM,J wp_16274_2021 29 High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in "Shankar Narayan Ranade v. Union of India12".
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 31 - Cited by 1 - M S Murthy - Full Document

Parkash Nath, Sandeep Khanna And Smt. ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 21 November, 1996

In Narayan v. Union of India [1994] 208 ITR 82 (MP), the learned judge was dealing with the criminal revision directed against the conviction under Section 276CC of the Act. In view of the proved facts on record that the assessee had failed to furnish the return in due time on account of his illness in respect of which he had produced a medical certificate from a doctor, the credibility of which was not enquired into by the department, it was held that the ingredients of offence under Section 276CC, that the delay was wilful, were not proved beyond reasonable doubt and the revision petition was accepted and conviction set aside.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 45 - Cited by 1 - M Srinivasan - Full Document

Akhila Bharatiya Grahak Panchayat vs Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board ... on 17 November, 1982

47. The question whether the fixation or alteration of the tariffs is a ,major matter of policy was not decided by us while considering the first point relating to sub-clause (5) of section 16 of the Act as we proceeded on the assumption that even if it is a major matter relating to policy still the counsil did not make the B.P.s invalid. Whether it is a major matter of policy or not there can be no dispute that fixation of tariffs is a matter of policy which is of a legislative or sub-legislative character In s. Narayan v. Union of India it was observed by their lordships in relation to fixation of telephone tariffs as follows (at pp. 1987-88):-
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S. R.S. Rekchand Mohota Spinning & ... vs State Of Maharashtra on 7 May, 1997

13. Mr. Sanghi, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon judgment of the Court of Shankar Narayan Ranade v. Union of India, contending that this Court made distinction between still water and flowing water. Water for the purpose of cess and the impost thereof are not referable to flowing water of the river and the river water is not amenable to land cess; therefore, it is contended that the flowing water is not exigible to regulation of the land cess. We find no force in the contention. The use of the word "water" in the sanad property was construed to exclude the running water of the river and it could not be said that the title to the flowing water. There exists world of difference between still water in the land like in the pound and flowing water in a river. This Court negatived the contention and held that the flowing water vests in the State. In that context, at page 894, the title to the bed of the river was negatived and, therefore, it was held that there were two difficulties in accepting the contention. The first difficulty was that the use of the word "water" in the sanad, excluded the running water of the river. Besides, it is by no means clear that the title to the flowing water of the river necessarily goes with the title to the bed of the river.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 8 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

M\S. R.S. Rekhchand Mohotaspinning & ... vs State Of Maharashtra on 7 May, 1997

Mr. Sanghi, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon a judgment of this court in Shankar Narayan Ranade vs. Union of India [(1964) 1 SCR 885 at 893] contending that this court made distinction between still water and flowing water. Water for the purpose of cess and the impost thereof are not referable of cess and the impost thereof are nor referable to flowing water of the river and the river water is nor amenable to land cess; therefore, it is contended that the flowing water is nor exigible to regulation of the land cess. We find no force in the contention. The use of the word "water" in the sand property was construed to exclude the running water of the river and it could nor be said that the title to the flowing water. There existing words of difference between still water in the land like in the pound and flowing water in a river. This court negatived the contention and held that the flowing water vests in the state. In that context, at page 894, the title to the bed of the river was negatived and, therefore, it was held that there were two difficulties in accepting the contention. The first difficulty was that the use of the word "water" in the sand, excluded the running water of the river. Besides, it is by no means clear that the title to the flowing water of the river necessarily goes with the title to the bed of the river.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sebi Joseph vs The Ernakulam District Postal Telecom on 19 October, 2007

4. The argument of learned counsel appearing for appellant is that there is no valid termination of tenancy as provided under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act. It was argued that the allegation in the plaint was that a registered notice demanding vacant possession was issued on 12.12.2002 RSA 776/2007 3 and it was received by appellant on 13.12.2002 and the period of tenancy expired 27.12.2002 and Ext.A4 was produced later which is not in confirmity with the pleadings as the said notice demands surrender of possession within 30 days and therefore Ext.A4 is not the notice which was sent to the appellant. It was also argued that even though Ext.A4, copy of the notice was subsequently produced, plaint was not amended and therefore as per the plaint, tenancy was terminated on 27.12.2002 and therefore Ext.A4 should not have been relied on by the courts below. Relying on the decision of Apex Court in Ranade V. Union of India(1964 SC 24) and High Court of Karnataka in S.S.Yelimeli V. Chanabasappa(AIR 1979 Karnataka 52), it was argued that when there is a contradiction between pleading and evidence, evidence cannot be looked into and evidence contrary to the pleading are to be eschewed and without proper amendment of the plaint Ext.A4 is not a valid notice. Learned counsel argued that in such circumstances, the decree granted is unsustainable.
Kerala High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 1 - S Nambiar - Full Document
1