Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.74 seconds)
Documents citing Ramgarh Cantonment Board & Anr vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 11 March, 2008

M/S Om Prakash And Co. vs M.C.D And Ors on 7 January, 2011

11. With respect to the argument of the counsel for the petitioner that the respondent MCD is not giving effect to its decision to award the work of operation and maintenance of the public toilets of Group B & C category to the outside agencies and is scuttling the decision of the Standing Committee, the purpose would be served by directing the respondent MCD to, if of the view that it is best equipped to operate and maintain the said public toilets itself, have the said decision revoked altered from its Standing Committee or to implement the decision to award operation and maintenance of Group B & C public toilets also to private players.
Delhi High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 1 - R S Endlaw - Full Document

Cantonment Board vs Gajraj Singh on 31 January, 2019

1. By order dated 19th January, 2011 a Division Bench of this Court has referred to a larger Bench the question of jurisdiction and authority of the Cantonment Board to impose and levy toll tax under Section 60 of the Cantonment Act, 1924. It was also observed that correctness of the decision in Ramgarh Cantonment Board & Anr. Vs. State of Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Jharkhand & Ors.1 requires reconsideration.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 5 - Cited by 1 - R Gogoi - Full Document

Manoj Kumar Sharma vs Additional District Judge Meerut And 2 ... on 28 August, 2017

Reliance has been placed on the decision rendered in Ramgarh Cantonment Board and another Vs. State of Jharkhand and others.5 to contend that the power of Board under Section 60(1) of the Act is dependent upon any corresponding analogous provisions in a legislative enactment in respect of municipality. Supreme Court upon analyzing provision of Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act, 1922, held that the municipality has no power to levy any entry tax on mechanically propelled vehicles. When the municipality has no power or competence to levy entry tax on mechanically propelled vehicles, obviously, the Cantonment Board cannot exercise that power which would not fall within the parameter of Section 137 to impose tax on a vehicle used in the ordinary course within the municipality and parked in ordinary course rather than levying entry tax by the Cantonment Board. The decision does not help the petitioner in the present case.
Allahabad High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - S Kumar - Full Document
1