Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.21 seconds)The Limitation Act, 1963
Article 124 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Jai Bhawani Timber vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 December, 1991
These observations relates to conditions Nos. 10 and 11, already quoted by us, and also relate to the financial power of the D.F.O., who was not competent to sanction sale beyond 1 lakh. Therefore, it follows that the D.F.O. even if he signed a bid sheet and sanctioned the sale, that sanction would not be legal as per conditions Nos. 10 and 11 of the tender condition (Annexure-A) unless 'and until the competent authority sanctions the sale of forest produce, the sale would not be complete and the dictum of Jai Bhawani Timber's case (supra) would not be applicable. In view of this matter, we think that the learned Govt. Advocate was right in his submission that so far as 80 lots were concerned, which were beyond 1 lakh, the Govt. has complete power to cancel the auction before the competent authority has sanctioned the sale.
Ramlal, Motilal And Chhotelal vs Rewa Coalfields Ltd on 4 May, 1961
(See: Ramlal v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 SC 361 and G. Ramegowda, Major etc. v. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, , Bangalore, AIR 1988 SC 897.
Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag & ... vs Mst. Katiji & Ors on 19 February, 1987
In Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katji, AIR 1987 SC 1353 the following observations , were made by the Supreme Court guiding the ' courts in approaching the problem pf sufficient cause under Section 5 of Limitation Act:
Timber Kashmir Pvt. Ltd. Etc. Etc vs Conservator Of Forests, Jammu & Ors. Etc on 26 October, 1976
The learned counsel for the respondents/petitioners referred to us M/s. Timber Kashmir Pvt. Ltd. v. The Conservator of Forests, Jammu, AIR 1977 SC 151 and contended that by accepting 25% deposit, the appellants/State granted implied sanction. After going through that case, we find that this case does not support the contention of the counsel for the respondents to the effect that the appellants are not entitled to cancel the contracts in respect of these 80 lots for the reason that after signing the bid by the D.F.O. (Production), the petitioners had deposited the requisite 25% of the price as per sale conditions. On the other hand, in this case the finding recorded by the Supreme Court is that the forest lease agreement was entered on 27th Feb. 1963, 28th February, 1963 and 27lh March, 1963 and the notification dated 23rd Feb. 1957 delegated power to enter into contract of forest lease to the Conservator of Forest without limit and Conservator of Forest had entered into formal contracts in accordance with Section 122 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir. That section is akin to Article 299 of our Constitution. The Supreme Court held that since the authorised officer had entered into these impugned lease by entering into formal contract and, therefore, the appellant Company was bound by arbitration clause. It is nobody's case that any officer authorised in this behalf had entered into formal contract with the respondents/ petitioners, Thus there was no sanction granted to the respondents/petitioners by the appropriate authority in respect of 80 lots.
Y.B. Patil And Ors vs Y.L. Patil on 23 August, 1976
1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 10 of Letters Patent against the Order dated 29-11-1995, passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in M.C.C. No. 382/95"(State of M.P. and two others v. G.L. Patel), arising out of order dated 16-2-1995, passed by the learned single Judge in M.P. No. 1037/94. The State has also challenged in this appeal, the order passed by the learned single Judge in M.P. No. 1037/94, decided on 16-2-1995. It has also filed an application for condonation of delay in filing the Letters Patent Appeal under Section 5 of Limitation Act against the order dated 16-2-1995 in M.P. No. 1037/94.