Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.60 seconds)Section 76 in Indian Forest Act, 1927 [Entire Act]
Secunderabad Hyderabad Hotel Owners ... vs Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, ... on 20 January, 1999
Following Liberty Cinema's case /b>similar views have been expressed in Secundrabad Hyderabad Hotel Owners' Association and Ors. v. Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad and Anr., and P. Kannadasan and Ors. v. State of T.N. and Ors. .
P.Kannadasan Etc. Etc vs State Of Tamil Nadu & Ors. Etc. Etc on 26 July, 1996
Following Liberty Cinema's case /b>similar views have been expressed in Secundrabad Hyderabad Hotel Owners' Association and Ors. v. Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad and Anr., and P. Kannadasan and Ors. v. State of T.N. and Ors. .
Corporation Of Calcutta And Another vs Liberty Cinema on 14 December, 1964
Following Liberty Cinema's case /b>similar views have been expressed in Secundrabad Hyderabad Hotel Owners' Association and Ors. v. Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad and Anr., and P. Kannadasan and Ors. v. State of T.N. and Ors. .
Section 42 in Indian Forest Act, 1927 [Entire Act]
Section 51 in Indian Forest Act, 1927 [Entire Act]
State Of Tripura & Ors vs Sudhir Ranjan Nath on 13 February, 1997
In State of Tripura and Ors. v. Sudhir Ranjan Nath almost similar question came up for consideration in relation to State of Tripura. It was held that Sections 41 and 76 of the Act vest total control over the forest produce in the State Government and empower it to regulate the transit of all timber or other forest produce for which purpose the State Government is also empowered to make the Rules. The decision of the High Court invalidating the levy of application fee in the said case on the ground that the State had not established that the services were rendered in lieu of the said fee, was reversed by this Court holding that the fee was regulatory and not compensatory.
The U.P. Resin and other Forest Produce (Regulation of Trade) Act, 1976
1