Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 35 (1.51 seconds)Shri G R Gupta vs Lok Sabha Secretariat on 29 November, 2013
In fact, in L.S.
Nair vs. Hindustan Steel Ltd., Bhilai and Ors. (supra), the Madhya Pradesh
High Court has dealt with the judgment of the Punjab High Court in Kalu
LPA 370/2013 Page 10 of 12
Ram v. New Delhi Municipal Committee (1965) 67 Pun LR 1190 and not
the Supreme Court's judgment.
M/S. Automobile Association Of Eastern ... vs The Board Of Trustees Of The Port Of ... on 11 June, 2008
The judgment of the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High
Court in L.S. Nair vs. Hindustan Steel Ltd. (supra) was rendered without
considering the judgment of the Supreme Court in New Delhi Municipal
Committee vs. Kalu Ram.
Accountant And Secretarial Services ... vs Union Of India & Ors on 20 July, 1988
5. While, on the one the hand, the words in Entry 18
have to be given the widest meaning possible, it has to be
borne in mind that the entries in the various lists have to
be read together and construed in such a manner as to give a
meaning and content to all of them. We need hardly say that
the Constitution should be so interpreted as to reconcile
all concerned and relevant entries (See: Hoechst
Pharmaceuticals v. State, [1983] 3 S.C.R. 130 and the
Dhillon case: 1972 2 S.C.R. 33.
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd vs Airport Authority Of India & Anr on 25 April, 2023
Reference may also
be made to decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case
of L.S. Nair v. Hindustan Steel Ltd. Bhilai and Others, AIR 1980
MP 106. In the said Division Bench decision of the Madhya
Pradesh High Court delivered by the Chief Justice, G.P. Singh (as
his Lordship then was), it was held that the Estate Officer is not a
court and, therefore, the Limitation Act does not apply to a
proceeding before him. It was further held that as Limitation Act
does not apply and jurisdiction of Civil Court is entirely barred in
matters governed by 1971 Act, there is no period of limitation for
recovery of damages for unauthorised use and occupation of Govt.
The Board Of Trustees For The Port Of ... vs M/S. Automobile Association Of Eastern ... on 13 November, 2024
In fact, in L.S.
Nair v. Hindustan Steel Ltd., Bhilai (supra), the Madhya Pradesh
High Court has dealt with the judgment of the Punjab High Court
in Kalu Ram v. New Delhi Municipal Committee (1965) 67 Pun LR
1190 and not the Supreme Court's judgment.
Elliot Waud And Hill Pvt. Ltd. vs Life Insurance Corporation And Anr. on 6 March, 1981
58. Mr. Seervai, the learned Counsel for the petitioners in reply to this, stated that this was a case directly against the petitioners but then it was wrongly decided on the question of legislative powers to enact Rent Act and that in any event that judgment could not prevail over the two Division Bench judgments of this High Court directly on the point. Mr. Seervai argued that Indu Bhushan's case was referred to by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in paragraph 7, and in L.S. Nair v. Hindustan Steel Ltd., Bhilai, .
Nandram & Others vs Union Of India & Others on 21 July, 2000
Reference may also be made to decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of L.S. Nair Vs. Hindustan Steel Ltd. Bhilai & Ors. . In the said Division Bench decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court delivered by the Chief Justice, G.P. Singh (as his Lordship then was), it was held that the Estate Officer is not a court and, therefore, the Limitation Act does not apply to a proceeding before him. It was further held that as Limitation Act does not apply and jurisdiction of Civil Court is entirely barred in matters governed by 1971 Act, there is no period of limitation for recovery of damages for Unauthorized use and occupation of Govt. Company's quarter by its employee. I respectfully agree with the aforesaid decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court and hold that to the proceeding under The Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, the provisions of the Limitation Act shall not apply.
New Delhi Municipal Council vs Shri Charan Singh Gupta And Ors. on 30 September, 2004
15. The distinction between the provisions of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) of Section 7 of the said Act was noticed by the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in L.R. Nair's case (supra) as also the consequences arising from Section 15 of the said Act, which came into force subsequently to the initiation of proceedings under the earlier enactment against Kalu Ram.
Maria Berta Da Costa Miranda And Ors. ... vs The Court Of The Deputy Collector, Goa ... on 23 October, 1986
18. Mr. Nadkarni, however, oh the strenght of the Madhya Pradesh HIgh Court ruling in 'L s. Nair v. Hindustan Steel Let, Bhilal, , submktted that the Act was enacted under Entries 32, 43 and 95 of the Union is List as well as udner Entries 6, 7 and 46 of the Concurrent List. Be that as it may it is not necessary for our purpose, vioz, whether the Code is repugnant to or ultra vires the Act, to got into this question in depth, for it is not in any event., disputed that the Act falls within the purvies of the siad Entry 32 and definitiely was not encated under any Entry in the State List. It suffices to say that in our view, the Act was mainly enacted under Entry 32 of the Union List, though some of its provisions may have been enacted under Entries 43 and 95 of the Union List and Entries 6, 7 and 46 of te Concurrent List.