Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 33 (0.82 seconds)
Documents citing Union Of India vs Amar Singh on 28 October, 1959

Sh. Mahender Singh vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 11 May, 2006

Firstly in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Om Prakash's case (supra) and secondly the fact that in the case of Amar Singh (supra) the land was acquired on 20.10.79 while the notification was issued by the DDA under Section 11A of the Act, as stated, on 8.12.82. It is clear from the various judgments which are judicial precedents in relation to the land situated in the revenue estate of Bhorgarh adjacent to the acquired land that the same had received compensation of Rs. 82,255/- per bigha for acquisition of the land in the year 1982, then by any standards, the present claimants are certainly entitled to enhancement at least of some compensation for compulsive acquisition of their lands which was also their livelihood. Learned Counsel appearing for the claimants also pointed out an apparent error in the award of the Collector as well as in the judgment of the reference which is apparent on the face of the record. It was argued that the Collector in his award had held as under:
Delhi High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 30 - S Kumar - Full Document

Union Of India (Uoi) vs Madhusudan Sahu on 15 January, 1964

In support of his contention he relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court reported in Union of India v. Amar Singh, AIR 1960 SC 233. In that case a few of the consigned articles were offered to the consignee subject, to the condition of payment of certain sum due on account of freight and the consignee refused to take delivery of them and made a claim against the forwarding railway for compensation for non-delivery of goods and as the claim was not complied with, he instituted a suit against the Dominion of India. In that case their Lordships did not decide whether the case came under Article 30 or 31 of the Limitation Act and proceeded on the assumption that Article 30 applied and held that the burden is on the Railways who seek to non-suit the plaintiff on the ground of limitation to establish that the loss occurred beyond one year from the date of the suit. Hence that decision does not help the contention of Mr. Sen.
Orissa High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Union Of India vs Kewal Parkash on 8 November, 1976

14. Shri Sat Pal, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent, has brought to my notice the case reported as Union of India v. Amar Singh, . It will 'be noticed that in that case the liability was fixed on the railways 'in India on the basis of implied contract of bailment. No such case of implied con tract of bailment has been pleaded in the present case. Therefore, this case is of no assistance to the respondents,
Delhi High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Y Dayal - Full Document

S. Gurumukh Singh Chawla vs Union Of India on 28 May, 1984

In addition the appellants will be awarded solarium at the rate of 15 per cent and interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of dispossession till payment and proportionate costs.Cross R.F.A. No. 435 of 1969 :(Union of India v. Amar Singh Sadana & others) (43) As the owners have succeeded in their appeal, this appeal of the Union of India automatically fails and is dismissed,leaving the parties to bear their own costs.R.F.A. No. 130 of 1972 :(Chaman Lal Dhawan & Ors. v. Union of India) (44) The appellants' land admeasuring 5 bighas 12 biswas was acquired by the Government pursuant to the notification dated 7-3-1962. The Land Acquisition Collector awarded themRs. 4,000 per bigha. On a reference the Additional District Judge raised the compensation to Rs. 20 per square yard. The appellants claim compensation at the rate of Rs. 60,500 perbigha.
Delhi High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Greaves Limited vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 23 August, 2006

In Union of India v. Shri Amar Singh and Anr. , the learned single Judge of this Court was called upon to consider the jurisdiction of the court while considering an application of the workman filed under Section 33-C (2) of the I.D. Act. The workmen had claimed difference of wages from the date they acquired temporary status till they were appointed on regular pay scale. The court held that the claims of the workmen, who were daily rated/casual workers, to be paid wages at the same rate as the regular workers, had not been earlier settled by adjudication or recognised by the employers and such claims were disputed by the management. In these circumstances, it was held that there could be no computation of the benefit under Section 33-C (2) of the statute. This petition was held to be not maintainable.
Delhi High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - G Mittal - Full Document

Gajraj Singh vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 27 April, 2006

Firstly in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Om Prakash's case (supra) and secondly the fact that in the case of Amar Singh (supra) the land was acquired on 20.10.79 while the notification was issued by the DDA under Section 11A of the Act, as stated, on 8.12.82. It is clear from the various judgments which are judicial precedents in relation to the land situated in the revenue estate of Bhorgarh adjacent to the acquired land that the same had received compensation of Rs. 82,255/- per bigha for acquisition of the land in the year 1982, then by any standards, the present claimants are certainly entitled to enhancement at least of some compensation for compulsive acquisition of their lands which was also their livelihood. Learned counsel appearing for the claimants also pointed out an apparent error in the award of the Collector as well as in the judgment of the reference which is apparent on the face of the record. It was argued that the Collector in his award had held as under:-
Delhi High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 91 - S Kumar - Full Document

The Punjab National Bank Ltd. vs Ishwarbhai Bhai Lalbhai Patel And Co. on 13 July, 1970

17. The point arose again in another case before the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Amar Singh, . In this case some goods were entrusted by the plaintiff to himself as consignee from Quetta in Pakistan to New Delhi in India. The receiving railway was the Pakistan Railway which ended at the Pakistan frontier. The goods were then taken over by the Indian Railway which was the forwarding railway and came safely upto New Delhi. The goods however, were not delivered to the plaintiff-consignee. The plaintiff made a claim against the forwarding railway, that is, the Indian Railway, for compensation for non-delivery of the goods entrusted to the said railway and as the demand was not complied with he instituted a suit against the Dominion of India. The forwarding railway, that is, Indian Railway, disputed its liability. One of the grounds urged was that there was no privity of contract between the plaintiff-respondent and the forwarding Railway, that is, the Indian Railway and if he had any claim, it was only against the receiving railway. The Supreme Court took the view that the Indian Railways were liable to the plaintiff as being in the position of an agent to the plaintiff-consignor.
Bombay High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next